Atheists becoming more vocal and outspoken

[DrZoidberg]

Will do, especially when it is bad advice from an incompetent and ego-driven advice-giver.

Look, you created this thread to generate some sort of discussion. I noted holes in your argument, that I pointed out. At no point did you acknowledge those flaws in your own arguments. Instead you leapt straight to getting offended, and in a desperate attempt to cling to being right you tried to characterise my arguments as straw men. If you aren't interested in people giving you feedback, then why are you asking for it? Why are you even here at this forum? And why not stop saying that my arguments are straw men, when they obviously aren't? And try to engage? Making this forum a fun and nice place to have conversations?

 

[Brian63]

I noted holes in your argument, that I pointed out.

You are in error there. You pointed out flaws in strawman-versions of my arguments, but not my actual arguments.

You can keep repeating again and again though that you pointed out flaws in my real arguments, if it may make you feel better to have your ego inflated. Just please take that to some separate thread, and maybe the mods can move it to the Elsewhere subforum, while we remain on the actual points in this thread.

Instead you leapt straight to getting offended, and in a desperate attempt to cling to being right you tried to characterise my arguments as straw men.

Brilliant analysis of what really is going on here. Well done.

If you aren't interested in people giving you feedback, then why are you asking for it? Why are you even here at this forum? And why not stop saying that my arguments are straw men, when they obviously aren't? And try to engage?

Why are you asking those straw-shit loaded questions? If it turns out your premises in those questions were actually wrong, that would be a massive backfire on your face. Maybe the reason you keep repeating your strawmen instead of correcting your strawmen is that because your own ego is too fragile and sensitive, and you could not handle the thought of having been wrong all this time? Especially to someone like me that you refer to as being dishonest, defensive, whiner, you have condescended towards and been dismissive of, etc. What if it was actually you who has been wrong, but are afraid to admit it? That is too high a price to pay. Instead, just keep trying to portray yourself as being interested in civil and friendly conversation, all the while you are condescending and sarcastic and demeaning and insulting to them. When they call you out on it, accuse them of "attacking" you. Either way, you set it up so your own ego does not have to admit that you were in error. Big save.

Making this forum a fun and nice place to have conversations?

I'm on board. Just cut the crap first. If you are going to throw out insults to the conversations, do not then go on to say you are being "attacked" when they are thrown back at you. Several of your early posts in this thread seemed to have a hint of arrogance and condescension in them, but I may have just been misinterpreting you so did not respond in kind, and even if arrogance was the case then we still have to allow for peoples' prides to enter into discussions, otherwise we would not have discussions. You had brought the tone of the thread to a new low, though, when you made the accusation of "dishonest."

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-and-outspoken&p=662378&viewfull=1#post662378

Instead of ever correcting or apologizing for that new degradation of tone, you went onto pile onto it and all the while present yourself as being very meek and super-humble and just wanting to have a civil and friendly conversation. Well, bullshit. When you want to have civil and friendly conversations with people, do you insist that means that you can bully them with insults while they are "attacking" you if they call you the same?

So put the ego aside and apologize for that initial downturn and insult. Do not do it for the sake of show here either. Be sincere and realize it was something you should not have done. Once you do that, sure we can get to the next step towards civil and friendly conversation (correct your erroneous strawman posted below, or provide evidence such as a quote or a link that it is not a strawman, and is actually what my real position is. You have not demonstrated any willingness so far to do either. Just keep repeating the strawman, and ignore requests to back up your argument.).

If you want to have an insulting exchange with me, admit that you want to have an insulting exchange with me. If you want to have a civil and friendly exchange with me, then practice what you preach. Just do not try to have it both ways---where you *say* you want a civil and friendly exchange, all the while you *are* insulting and condescending.

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You are in error there. You pointed out flaws in strawman-versions of my arguments, but not my actual arguments.

You can keep repeating again and again though that you pointed out flaws in my real arguments, if it may make you feel better to have your ego inflated. Just please take that to some separate thread, and maybe the mods can move it to the Elsewhere subforum, while we remain on the actual points in this thread.



Brilliant analysis of what really is going on here. Well done.

If you aren't interested in people giving you feedback, then why are you asking for it? Why are you even here at this forum? And why not stop saying that my arguments are straw men, when they obviously aren't? And try to engage?

Why are you asking those straw-shit loaded questions? If it turns out your premises in those questions were actually wrong, that would be a massive backfire on your face. Maybe the reason you keep repeating your strawmen instead of correcting your strawmen is that because your own ego is too fragile and sensitive, and you could not handle the thought of having been wrong all this time? Especially to someone like me that you refer to as being dishonest, defensive, whiner, you have condescended towards and been dismissive of, etc. What if it was actually you who has been wrong, but are afraid to admit it? That is too high a price to pay. Instead, just keep trying to portray yourself as being interested in civil and friendly conversation, all the while you are condescending and sarcastic and demeaning and insulting to them. When they call you out on it, accuse them of "attacking" you. Either way, you set it up so your own ego does not have to admit that you were in error. Big save.

Making this forum a fun and nice place to have conversations?

I'm on board. Just cut the crap first. If you are going to throw out insults to the conversations, do not then go on to say you are being "attacked" when they are thrown back at you. Several of your early posts in this thread seemed to have a hint of arrogance and condescension in them, but I may have just been misinterpreting you so did not respond in kind, and even if arrogance was the case then we still have to allow for peoples' prides to enter into discussions, otherwise we would not have discussions. You had brought the tone of the thread to a new low, though, when you made the accusation of "dishonest."

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-and-outspoken&p=662378&viewfull=1#post662378

Instead of ever correcting or apologizing for that new degradation of tone, you went onto pile onto it and all the while present yourself as being very meek and super-humble and just wanting to have a civil and friendly conversation. Well, bullshit. When you want to have civil and friendly conversations with people, do you insist that means that you can bully them with insults while they are "attacking" you if they call you the same?

So put the ego aside and apologize for that initial downturn and insult. Do not do it for the sake of show here either. Be sincere and realize it was something you should not have done. Once you do that, sure we can get to the next step towards civil and friendly conversation (correct your erroneous strawman posted below, or provide evidence such as a quote or a link that it is not a strawman, and is actually what my real position is. You have not demonstrated any willingness so far to do either. Just keep repeating the strawman, and ignore requests to back up your argument.).

If you want to have an insulting exchange with me, admit that you want to have an insulting exchange with me. If you want to have a civil and friendly exchange with me, then practice what you preach. Just do not try to have it both ways---where you *say* you want a civil and friendly exchange, all the while you *are* insulting and condescending.

Well. I tried. Enjoy talking to yourself.

 

[Brian63]

I love you too.

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[Ruth Harris]

You are probably not going to like what I have to say now – this is the same mistake that a lot of Christians make by trying to read the Bible literally. It actually has nothing to do with basic intelligence.

To hold onto unintelligible passages that require controrted explanations to weasel out of the pretty clear insult they deliver is a rather profound indictment of the poor validity of the bible, don’t you think?

I’ve heard some Christians try to explain away, as you did, the clear words that are used by other christians in far greater numbers to demean, vilify and oppress non-believers.

I am sorry that you have been subjected to that kind of behavior from other Christians. And I think that they are very wrong to do this.

My point in explaining this particular passage of scripture was to show you that many people make the mistake of thinking that they can read something from 2,000 or so years ago and understand it based on today's language. That is simply not the case. Ancient literature has to be read with the viewpoint of the author in mind as word usage has changed dramatically over the centuries. What do you think people 2 millennia in the future will take away from our usage of certain words or phrases if they don't bother to understand how we used colloquialisms?

So, I say what I said at the beginning. If you honestly want a religion that does not call all atheists fools, criminals, evil and “other,” you need to tear out those pages and preach against them.

But, since they’ve been in these english version for hundreds of years, and in other language versions even longer, one can quite clearly deiscern what christians like to do with them.

The difference between what you say and what you do, is what you do. And if you carry around a bible that has these damaging passages, you do a thing; as outlined.

Yeah, I’ve heard 1 in a hundred chrsitians try to explain to **ME** how it doesn’t mean what it says, it’s just misunderstood. I would prefer if you would come tell me that after you have finished convincing the 99, mmkay? Until then - it means what it means to today’s christians, and what it means to them is how they treat us. And your scholarly disagreement does not actually change that one bit.

Indeed, when you “defend atheists” to these people you know - do you really think they believe you over their bible? Do they walk away changed and preaching the new love to other hating christians? Or do they nod their heads and go back to the bible that they interpret in plain language.

(Corrollary: a real “god” would not have so much trouble being understood.)

I actually do think I have changed some minds, given the thanks I have received and seeing the difference in how they approach understanding Bible texts. I explain these passages to them just like I did to you. It is not a matter of believing me over the Bible; it is a matter of showing them that they need to think about the author's language usage as related to the time it was written. Of course I have not changed everyone's opinion - but then I don't know of anything that there is no disagreement over when it comes to interpreting ancient literature.

Ruth

 

[steve_bank]

While many Christians can be tolerant and try to live by 'hate the sin not the sinner', in my experience Christians have a general disdain for others, even hate and anger.

You only have to look at VP Pence and his history of gay hate speech. He is symbolic of many Christians.

 

[DrZoidberg]

While many Christians can be tolerant and try to live by 'hate the sin not the sinner', in my experience Christians have a general disdain for others, even hate and anger.

You only have to look at VP Pence and his history of gay hate speech. He is symbolic of many Christians.

But do you really think it's the religion that makes them such? Isn't this the Euthyphro dilemma? Since religious people don't get their morals from their religion, doesn't it follow that they also don't get their hate from religion?

People who are more in-group and out-groupy are more likely to be religious (and conservative). These are the same people who are more likely to hate anything that's different.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How little or far should we atheists (or nontheists, skeptics, whatever) go in trying to advance our views? Should we hold more of a “live and let live” attitude or be more outspoken and vocal in criticizing religion in the public sphere?

I'm all for the "live and let live" idea but only if it is mutual. Any religious group attempting to force their beliefs on others through law or even through personal actions need to be openly opposed.

For example, I have no problem with the Amish who are happy to practice their rather weird (to me) beliefs without imposing it on others unwilling to accept those beliefs.

I am with you on this, but only regarding adults. I feel bad for some Amish kids.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Atheists are taking away Christmas.

I think that whole "War on Christmas" thing was a HUGE boost to us and loss to them, because it was so obviously on the face of it them being aggressive towards us for no good reason whatsoever. There was never a "Happy Holidays" law that I am aware of. Nobody was ever forced by law not to say "Merry Christmas".

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Years later in the U.S. when the social movements to allow gay marriage dominated our culture, that was another eye-opener for me. Nobody ever had a good secular argument for why 2 people with similar genitalia should not be permitted to marry each other---all arguments against it were rooted in religious beliefs and customs. Well, then our religious beliefs and customs need to change. They are still having a real-time harm on people in our society.

There were, and still are, non-religious arguments against gay marriage. I don't find them convincing, but they do exist. Listen to some Ben Shapiro if you want to hear them.

We are also dealing with the global crisis of climate change, and opposition to any preventative activity is also fueled in part by religious beliefs. In the U.S. recently, a congressperson cited the Bible and how God swore to protect the Earth as justification for not needing to worry about climate change. When we are talking about intensifying and increasingly powerful natural disasters and extinction-level catastrophes, then that should also be considered warrant for us to become more active in promoting our own views. That would help counteract the resistance.

I'm not sure how much religion really has sway over this one. I get the logic, end times and all that, but greed and standard of living is such a powerful motivator that I'm not sure religion is really needed or that lack of it would have much effect on this. It would be interesting to see.

 

[skepticalbip]

How little or far should we atheists (or nontheists, skeptics, whatever) go in trying to advance our views? Should we hold more of a “live and let live” attitude or be more outspoken and vocal in criticizing religion in the public sphere?

I'm all for the "live and let live" idea but only if it is mutual. Any religious group attempting to force their beliefs on others through law or even through personal actions need to be openly opposed.

For example, I have no problem with the Amish who are happy to practice their rather weird (to me) beliefs without imposing it on others unwilling to accept those beliefs.

I am with you on this, but only regarding adults. I feel bad for some Amish kids.

The Amish do not join the community until age 21. They have a tradition of Rumspringa where starting at age 14 to 16 the child is raised outside the community to live in the 'outside world' experiencing all the 'temptations' and lifestyles of non-Amish life until age 21. Some decide to remain in the secular world and some decide to join the church at age 21. Although I personally think the Amish religious life style is a bit weird, this practice of Rumspringa seems to me to be an honest attempt to insure that a decision to join the church is not coerced but made with full adult awareness.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Atheists are taking away Christmas.

I think that whole "War on Christmas" thing was a HUGE boost to us and loss to them, because it was so obviously on the face of it them being aggressive towards us for no good reason whatsoever. There was never a "Happy Holidays" law that I am aware of. Nobody was ever forced by law not to say "Merry Christmas".

From now on, my standard holiday greeting will be "Howdy Ho!"

Check You Tube, South Park, Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo for details.

 

[cartman]

Atheists are taking away Christmas.

I think that whole "War on Christmas" thing was a HUGE boost to us and loss to them, because it was so obviously on the face of it them being aggressive towards us for no good reason whatsoever. There was never a "Happy Holidays" law that I am aware of. Nobody was ever forced by law not to say "Merry Christmas".

From now on, my standard holiday greeting will be "Howdy Ho!"

Check You Tube, South Park, Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo for details.

Kyle: "I'd be merry, but I'm Hebrew...I'm just a Jew, a lonely Jew at Christmas."