Members leaving -- and religious debate.

[Watchmen]

Nah. I see it more as if you aren't gay why hang out in a gay bar and argue with them about their life.

I’m straight, but maybe I hang out at a gay bar because that’s where my gay friends want to go for the night. I know that’s a hard concept for homophobic religious bigots to understand.

 

[We Never Know]

I’m straight, but maybe I hang out at a gay bar because that’s where my gay friends want to go for the night. I know that’s a hard concept for homophobic religious bigots to understand.

You must have missed this part...

I see it more as if you aren't gay why hang out in a gay bar "and argue with them about their life".

Seems you were too busy and blinded by degrading people to homophobic religious bigots to have seen it.

 

[Watchmen]

You must have missed this part...

I see it more as if you aren't gay why hang out in a gay bar "and argue with them about their life".

Seems you were too busy and blinded by degrading people to homophobic religious bigots to have seen it.

Fair enough. I might have jumped the gun. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong about religious bigots.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nah. I see it more as if you aren't gay why hang out in a gay bar and argue with them about their life.

Why? They're so deep in the closet they made friends with a lion and a witch. Those sorts tend to hate themselves and other gays.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The problem with this statement is scientism. Many or most atheists in this forum make the category error and are adamant not even begin to understand that they are going against the very philosophy of science they stand by.

I said nothing about science wrt religion: I said you can't "debate religion without addressing its truth claims." I would say that's true even in ecumenical discussion: how can you contemplate bringing together 2 Christian denominations where one insists that the host (bread and wine) literally transforms into the flesh and blood of Christ, and the other does not? You kind of have to get that resolved. This debate would never be akin to "science," and yet it would seem to require some way to answer, in my view.

 

[We Never Know]

made friends with a lion and a witch.

Did that happen in a wardrobe?

 

[firedragon]

I said nothing about science wrt religion: I said you can't "debate religion without addressing its truth claims."

Of course you didn't say anything about science. I was responding the problem with many atheists in their discussions with religions.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Never heard of it.

Just as well anyhow. It's not worth keeping it in mind.

 

[Spice]

As for a I know you were serious. Nothing pointed to a joke. No lol or smiley

Didn't assume. Asked

If you had been carefully following the thread you would know that F1Fan was joking with me and that TwightHue was familiar with the source of the joke and was engaging with the discussion. BTW, I am religious and I was included in the "we" that will eventually take over! JOKE

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You must be a very fragile individual. Asking if life is boring set you off into a two post, I'm the victim so pity me rant.

We've all insulted people unintentionally, but when that happens, decent people are generally solicitous, apologetic, and remorseful. They say things like, "I'm terribly sorry if I offended you. It wasn't my purpose." When I suggested that your words to the other poster were insulting, your reaction was nothing like that.

And now you've turned to insulting me.

Can't you raise your game above that?

Except that I'm not insulting your beliefs, I'm insulting your attitude.

An interesting confession.

Remember, it was YOU who began all of this complaining about insulting and attacking. I retorted that it is the theists that make the overwhelming majority of emotional responses, which you had nothing to say about in defense of your original comment.

I also tried to reason with you that what you called war and attack was not that but rather a debate of ideas and made a plea with you to reconsider how you view and frame that, but you were also disinterested there.

I'm pretty sure it would have been a wasted effort.

I'm pretty sure you have nothing. If I were wrong, you would have posted something even if you thought it wouldn't faze me

I don't need any favors from you, thanks

You might get a few anyway, but unless I find a way to reach you, I'm not expecting anything from you but more mischaracterization of atheists and the art of dialectic as attack.

Maybe you can reconsider how you view and address atheists.

 

[Quagmire]

We've all insulted people unintentionally, but when that happens, decent people are generally solicitous, apologetic, and remorseful. They say things like, "I'm terribly sorry if I offended you. It wasn't my purpose." When I suggested that your words to the other poster were insulting, your reaction was nothing like that.

And now you've turned to insulting me.

Can't you raise your game above that?

An interesting confession.

Remember, it was YOU who began all of this complaining about insulting and attacking. I retorted that it is the theists that make the overwhelming majority of emotional responses, which you had nothing to say about in defense of your original comment.

I also tried to reason with you that what you called war and attack was not that but rather a debate of ideas and made a plea with you to reconsider how you view and frame that, but you were also disinterested there.

I'm pretty sure you have nothing. If I were wrong, you would have posted something even if you thought it wouldn't faze me

You might get a few anyway, but unless I find a way to reach you, I'm not expecting anything from you but more mischaracterization of atheists and the art of dialectic as attack.

Maybe you can reconsider how you view and address atheists.

Quit cherry picking. Either quote the entire post, or leave it alone.

Just because you don't like something or don't have an answer for it doesn't mean you can pretend it isn't there.

Oh wait a minute, sure you can. We've all seen you.

 

[Quagmire]

,
We've all insulted people unintentionally, but when that happens, decent people are generally solicitous, apologetic, and remorseful. They say things like, "I'm terribly sorry if I offended you. It wasn't my purpose." When I suggested that your words to the other poster were insulting, your reaction was nothing like that.

And now you've turned to insulting me.

Can't you raise your game above that?

An interesting confession.

Remember, it was YOU who began all of this complaining about insulting and attacking. I retorted that it is the theists that make the overwhelming majority of emotional responses, which you had nothing to say about in defense of your original comment.

I also tried to reason with you that what you called war and attack was not that but rather a debate of ideas and made a plea with you to reconsider how you view and frame that, but you were also disinterested there.

I'm pretty sure you have nothing. If I were wrong, you would have posted something even if you thought it wouldn't faze me

You might get a few anyway, but unless I find a way to reach you

Ironic.

I'm not expecting anything from you but more mischaracterization of atheists and the art of dialectic as attack.

Wait a minute, where outside of your imagination have I mischaracterized atheists? Or said anything about atheists for that matter?

Maybe you can reconsider how you view and address atheists

So basically you're saying I should give you special treatment because you're an atheist?

How does that work?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Wait a minute, where outside of your imagination have I mischaracterized atheists? Or said anything about atheists for that matter?

Of course, I cannot answer that for @It Aint Necessarily So, but I can say, from my own experience, that theists very frequently mischaracterize "non-belief in God" with "belief in no God." And I know, as I'm included in the former, that this is not a trivial thing.

I say this without meaning to include every person holding religious beliefs, but the skeptical tradition differs from the theistic one in being able to say "I don't know," where the theist (or so it seems to me) fills in that bit of missing knowledge with a supposition -- which turns into an assertion -- that what they don't know can safely be ascribed to God.

All that atheists and skeptics ask is, "on what basis do you make that assertion?"

I have no problem if you say, "it's just my belief," but I do have a problem when it goes further than that. The person who believes in God has no more actual reason, based in anything that he could demonstrate to another person, to assert that belief than to assert that there isn't one. It is, in the end, a choice -- a personal choice.

The atheist could make such a choice as well, but chooses not to -- for the very simple reason that they will not make such a claim. If there is either a God or no God, we have no way to prove either way -- but in the absence of (to us) any evidence for such a thing, we simply go with that absence of evidence. In exactly the same way, by the way, that any theist would decide on the question of Invisible Pink Unicorns.

(I know that last allusion is irritating, but the fact is, it represents the same sort of thinking.)

So basically you're saying I should give you special treatment because you're an atheist?

How does that work?

I don't think atheists want special treatment on the basis of their atheism. We all have our beliefs -- like every other human on earth, we couldn't live without them. But we would like to be treated fairly. Let me try to give an example, using, again, the Invisible Pink Unicorn:

• On what basis could any theist argue for or against the IPU?
• On what basis could any atheist argue for or against the IPU?

I say, neither of us has any argument at all! And yet -- and here's where it gets tricky -- neither theists nor atheists actually accept the existence of the IPU as anything more than a idea created by humans, for a purpose.

So, the atheists asks, what's the difference between that and God?

 

[F1fan]

As for a I know you were serious. Nothing pointed to a joke. No lol or smiley

Others understood, but then, they have wit.

 

[We Never Know]

Others understood, but then, they have wit.

So it was an inside joke between nitwits?

 

[an anarchist]

My hands aren’t clean from this blood.

 

[We Never Know]

RF is a great place to work on communication and social skills. It's a great place to learn about the lives of others from all over the world. It's a great place to discuss ideas and ideals. It's a great place to learn how to hop on one foot 'cause you've had your toes stepped on, or even stomped.

Agreed

Unfortunately, it is also a place I feel some come to in order to release their frustrations and anger, to practice "come backs", or just to be noticed and engaged with.

Agreed 10,000%

We're all human with frailties and strengths, and it's sometimes difficult to be kind when attempting to be strong, or to be delicate when excited about a topic or point. But as forum friends and associates, we can raise each other up and try to cushion some of the blows.

Agreed

Here's to a better day tomorrow as we awake with new opportunity.

Cheers

 

[Spice]

So it was an inside joke between nitwits?

 

[We Never Know]

View attachment 97417

If they hadn't insinuated I had no wit, it wouldn't have been my reply.

 

[Quagmire]

Of course, I cannot answer that for @It Aint Necessarily So, but I can say, from my own experience, that theists very frequently mischaracterize "non-belief in God" with "belief in no God." And I know, as I'm included in the former, that this is not a trivial thing.

Okay, so if I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying is that it's okay to accuse me of something that I didn't actually do because I'm a theist, and other theists may have done it.

Interesting logic there.

Cool. Now you stay here, I'm going to go look for statistics to see how many Canadians are serial killers and child molesters.

Be right back.

I say this without meaning to include every person holding religious beliefs, but the skeptical tradition differs from the theistic one in being able to say "I don't know," where the theist (or so it seems to me) fills in that bit of missing knowledge with a supposition -- which turns into an assertion -- that what they don't know can safely be ascribed to God.

Okay, so if I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying is that it's okay to accuse me of something that I didn't actually do because I'm a theist, and other theists may have done it.

Interesting logic there.

Cool. Now you stay here, I'm going to go look for statistics to see how many Canadians are serial killers and child molesters.

Be right back.

Oh wait a minute, I said that already.

All that atheists and skeptics ask is, "on what basis do you make that assertion?"

Maybe you should go ask somebody who's actually made that assertion.

I have no problem if you say, "it's just my belief," but I do have a problem when it goes further than that. The person who believes in God has no more actual reason, based in anything that he could demonstrate to another person, to assert that belief than to assert that there isn't one. It is, in the end, a choice -- a personal choice.

Still not understanding why this makes it okay to accuse people of doing something they haven't actually done.

Is it like a revenge thing or something?

The atheist could make such a choice as well, but chooses not to -- for the very simple reason that they will not make such a claim.

I just want to congratulate you on being nominated spokesman for all atheist everywhere, by the way.

If there is either a God or no God, we have no way to prove either way -- but in the absence of (to us) any evidence for such a thing, we simply go with that absence of evidence. In exactly the same way, by the way, that any theist would decide on the question of Invisible Pink Unicorns.

Holy crap! I'm learning so much here! Do me a favor and tell me about the rabbits next okay?

(I know that last allusion is irritating, but the fact is, it represents the same sort of thinking.)

I don't think atheists want special treatment on the basis of their atheism.

The one I was talking to apparently does. See, this may seem strange to you? But I don't hold entire groups responsible for what one of their members does, or vice versa.

Maybe you can explain the logic in that kind of thinking to me after you're done telling me about the rabbits.

We all have our beliefs -- like every other human on earth, we couldn't live without them. But we would like to be treated fairly. Let me try to give an example, using, again, the Invisible Pink Unicorn:

Oh good, because we can never hear enough about the invisible pink unicorm.

• On what basis could any theist argue for or against the IPU?
• On what basis could any atheist argue for or against the IPU?

I say, neither of us has any argument at all! And yet -- and here's where it gets tricky -- neither theists nor atheists actually accept the existence of the IPU as anything more than a idea created by humans, for a purpose.

So, the atheists asks, what's the difference between that and God?

That's super. But I still don't understand why all that makes it okay to accuse somebody of something they never did.

Am I going to have to take this class over?