*Warning: May contain nuts, Christians and/or both

[Brian63]

Very interesting to see these assessments of his intentions, even if I largely disagree with them.

Yes he is bringing in a lot of bad arguments, nothing new that we have not seen/heard 1,000 times before. However, that is not a moral failing on his part in any way. At some point, all this stuff is new to us. We are not born knowing the flaws in various theological arguments. Some people just happen to encounter them at some point (and some do not). Many of us who do then keep hearing it, and it gets old. 1ICrying is still in the earlier phrases though.



Do you all grant such little leeway in your real lives as well to people behaving in the same way, or is this a reaction only when it is done online? In other words, if a stranger on the street politely tells you that Jesus loves you, would you conclude she is rude and even insincere and is really gloating over you? The substance of their beliefs would be wildly confused but their motivations may still be noble.

I find a lot of the behaviors and responses back to him have been far more rude and condescending than his own posts. Likely some here are going to disagree and maybe think the same of my tone. I do not know how to come to any agreement on the matter, just that I think a lot of the criticisms made of 1ICrying are way off the mark.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In other words, if a stranger on the street politely tells you that Jesus loves you, would you conclude she is rude and even insincere and is really gloating over you?

Exactly where do you think I gathered the impressions that inform my assessment of 1eye?
Self-important thumpers who are more concerned with being seen to share the gospel than the actual content thereof. They're not exclusively an internet phenomenon.

 

[Brian63]

I agree it is not exclusively an internet phenomenon. That was the point of my asking of whether you respond back just online when someone says it to you, or do you also respond back the same way if the exchange occurs in real-life.

When you wrote the following to me:

Brian, love ya, and I promise, the next time, the very next time I ask you how I can improve my posting to match your goals and intentions, I will pay quite a lot of attention to your guidance.

---Did you mean that with all sincerity and kind intentions, or was there a subtle hint of mocking and parodying the previous post of mine where I made a similar sentiment (but more measured)?

That statement came off as a parody to me. Were you being sarcastic and insincere?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Brian, love ya, and I promise, the next time, the very next time I ask you how I can improve my posting to match your goals and intentions, I will pay quite a lot of attention to your guidance.

---Did you mean that with all sincerity and kind intentions,

Why are you afraid to let me love you, Brian?

That statement came off as a parody to me. Were you being sarcastic and insincere?

I was trying to be sarcastic and SINCERE, thank you very much.

I do like you, and I do see your point, but I find I am not in the mood right now for unsolicited advice on how I should be posting in this thread.

Certainly my intentions were kind. I didn't suggest self-love, nor the addition of fecal matter to your dietary habits, some not-infrequent response choices I have expressed when feeling combative.

Ultimately, though, 1eye's intentions are not really critical to the response. His post content is.
A chess neophyte can go onto a chess forum and say they are looking to learn how to play, and they will get a wealth of assistance in response. Or on a fanfiction site asking about how to write. Or a fetish site, asking for source material get a handle on this 'flying squid ballroom' kink.

OR

The same neophyte can go into a chess forum and challenge just anyone to a game. He will get a drastically different reception.

Both are entirely based on choices he has made.

 

[Rhea]

Brian, anytime someone approaches me on the street and tells me I’m a sad atheist living with no hope who needs to hear the Good News (tm), and he’s just the guy to fill me in on the knowledge I don’t have... I roll my eyes and ask if he’s as open to change as he wants me to be.

I’ve had preachers and evangelists into my house for hours. They are never open to change. They are only selling.

Always.

I am not obliged to be compliant to sales people who are cold-calling me.

 

[funinspace]

Now tell me, what is it again that prevents you from believing zis Holy Bible? I will try to help you see it my way, and I trust you will do the same. Let's be respectful though, ya?

I'd be willing to try mutually respectful, but then you state this:

And archeologists are continuing to confirm that what is written i there is historical fact. For instance - there was no other record of Pontius Pilate, other than the Bible, until the 1960s, when someone found it etched in some ancient Roman building. So there is a case of reality backing up the Bible. That's just one, but I will list some others, but let's move on.

...and I cannot find a respectful way to fully convey my feelings at the incredibly low threshold you have for 'evidence.' One biblical character was real, therefore the Books is confirmed as history?

For the fun of it I had went back and read the start of this thread...Referencing Pilate is really kind of ironic, as since he is one of the very few from Jesus' time that we have records of that wasn't a king or such. And as he was recalled for brutality, it really does a poor job supporting the idea from the Gospels that he was some sort pansy/nice guy who just struggled with the idea of having to kill an innocent guy.

 

[abaddon]

The question that this whole thread brings to mind is whether it's obedience and belief that matters, or if it's being Christ-like that matters.

Proselytizers emphasize belief and obedience. If atheists note that the presentation doesn't seem sincere (that it looks like someone earning brownie points but his heart isn't in it), the Christian says "Well, I'm not Jesus you know..."

I wonder, why aren't you? Isn't trying to be that, and acting from the spirit of that, the whole point of this religion? If not then there's all that much less appeal in it.

How is "just believe" so important? The result of that, is the Christians themselves become smug dickheads certain of their own personal reward. They share "the good news" but they do it to be superficially good. And, incredibly, they think mere belief does anything -- it gives a ticket to heaven after death. So, delusions are the name of the game. Being Christlike here on earth... that's too much work. Or if it's supposed to "just happen" (when "the Spirit" enters one's heart), clearly it doesn't "just happen". Another vain promise.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I also went back through the thread, and post 289 was along the lines of a decent courteous exchange, but that was it. If one eye had said about the Noah Fable, "Sure, it didn't rain 725 feet every day for almost six weeks, that never happened," there exists room for discussion because that's a rational realization, despite emotional attachment. But that didn't happen.

The responses reminded me of a preacher paid to preach, and when the preacher is in that character, that's what the preacher does, so I largely stayed out of the discussion.

Using religion is a lot like using drugs. If it affects your rational decision-making you're using it too much. A little bit now and then doesn't hurt, might even help.

 

[Brian63]

Why are you afraid to let me love you, Brian?

Why do you say that? You tell us 1eye's intentions are not really critical but his post content is (I entirely disagree, and think both are important). Does that same standard apply to yourself? I do not see what interesting or useful "post content" that comment above really contributed to the discussion. It comes off more as smug and not likely to breed any kind of useful discussion.

I do like you, and I do see your point, but I find I am not in the mood right now for unsolicited advice on how I should be posting in this thread.

If you are going to make posts though, you should be prepared for feedback on those posts, even if the feedback is critical, even if you are not in the mood for critical feedback or unsolicited advice.

The same neophyte can go into a chess forum and challenge just anyone to a game. He will get a drastically different reception.

Both are entirely based on choices he has made.

There is a missing step in that narrative though. Why does a neophyte going into a chess forum and challenging anyone to a game give a moral excuse for others already in that chess forum to be jackasses to him? Why can't they just simply be kind people and everyone have a friendly exchange?

 

[Brian63]

Brian, anytime someone approaches me on the street and tells me I’m a sad atheist living with no hope who needs to hear the Good News (tm), and he’s just the guy to fill me in on the knowledge I don’t have... I roll my eyes and ask if he’s as open to change as he wants me to be.

If you think they likely will not be. So leave them alone in that case. Take the insult in stride.

In this thread (and plenty of others around the forum), people turn into jerks against people who are acting kindly, even though ignorantly. Would you rather keep the company of kind-but-ignorant theists or atheist assholes?

I’ve had preachers and evangelists into my house for hours. They are never open to change. They are only selling.

Always.

I am not obliged to be compliant to sales people who are cold-calling me.

Well, I myself and plenty of other atheists I have come across in ~20 years now have managed to help sway the minds of plenty of other believers into more secular views, or at least better understand and sympathize with secular views. The problem is with their own religious beliefs to some extent, but the way to help alleviate the problem is not by being an asshole to them. If you do not want to keep their company, then fine, say "no thanks, I do not believe the same." In this forum, nobody is required to make any post at all, much less any post that personally insults any other poster. So why do people do that anyway? They feel the initiative to insult others, even when the others were not being insulting to begin with. Ignorant, yes. But we are all ignorant on a variety of areas, even when we are unaware that we are. We all hold some measure of flawed beliefs, and it is not easy to change our beliefs, especially when they are so intrinsic to our psychology like religious beliefs are. So when we insult the religious believers and call them derogatory names (and completely unnecessarily, as we could have simply walked away or not posted at all), we are widely missing the target and even doing more harm than good to ourselves. It is in our own best interests, and theirs as well, for us to not be jackasses.

 

[Brian63]

Just in general---

When you see a religious person make posts that you take as evidence that they are not open to changing their religious views, why would you bother making any effort to still replying back to them, and especially doing so in a very insulting manner? Does it make you personally feel better to put those other people down?

Or the same can apply to people who frustrate you with their objectionable political views. Or scientific views. Or ethical views.

If you think you are not going to change that person's mind, why do you still post insults aimed back at them? For easy target practice for yourself? Does it make you feel better? Or are you trying to expose that person's views as being faulty for the sake of the audience, even if that particular opponent will likely not change their views? If that is the case, then you can also do that without being a jerk yourself. So it still leaves open the question of what we have to gain by insulting other people, especially when we were not required or prompted ourselves to say anything in the first place.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

“ Would you rather keep the company of kind-but-ignorant theists or atheist assholes?”

There are a lot more options than that, but if those are my only choices, I’ll take (b) every time.

 

[abaddon]

Another vote for (b). With the exclusion of Brian63.

 

[Brian63]

Why?

They may share your religious views, but suppose they differ from you in certain scientific views you each hold. They are jackasses, and they will turn your disagreement with you into a personal and acrimonious battle with you for the same reasons they turn different religious views into personal battles between those involved, when it does not have to be.

When I wrote that question, I wondered if anyone would answer favoring the latter. Is it more of a joking pun response, or would you actually prefer the company of assholes who you share similar religious views with over nice people who you have religious disagreements with?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why do you say that?

I am notventirely sure. I might guess that i have lost all expectations fir this thread.

You tell us 1eye's intentions are not really critical but his post content is (I entirely disagree, and think both are important).

Except we can't really access his intentions, can we? You're willing to spot him a few, not everyone will be.

Does that same standard apply to yourself?

Well, of course tge same rule applies. Content matters towards achieving one's goal. I just don't happen to have any goals that involve persuading anyone to adopt Keith's point of view.

I do not see what interesting or useful "post content" that comment above really contributed to the discussion. It comes off more as smug and not likely to breed any kind of useful discussion.

Tough room.

If you are going to make posts though, you should be prepared for feedback on those posts, even if the feedback is critical, even if you are not in the mood for critical feedback or unsolicited advice.

i am prepared for it. I tjought about what you said.
That bit where you said i should not copy 1eye's post and reply to just about everything in it, which was soon followed by you copying 1eye's post to reply to it in detail.... thought about that, too.

There is a missing step in that narrative though. Why does a neophyte going into a chess forum and challenging anyone to a game give a moral excuse for others already in that chess forum to be jackasses to him?

no, i don't see anything missing in that analogy. Those in the chess forum are going to play to win, meeting the challenge he presented. Similarly, if 1eye presents as a smug knowitall, condescending to share Ron Wyatt with the foolish heathens, people will respond to yhe challenge he presents.

Why can't they just simply be kind people and everyone have a friendly exchange?

Well, why would i?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Just in general---

When you see a religious person make posts that you take as evidence that they are not open to changing their religious views, why would you bother making any effort to still replying back to them,

I honestly think i am more motivated to see what others post against the arguments they present than in seeing if 1eye (for example) even understands the replies he gets. More of a comoetitive sport than a debate.

and especially doing so in a very insulting manner? Does it make you personally feel better to put those other people down?

Might. So, what if it does? I am here for entertainment. Yet another argument from incredulity isn't entertaining, but i do learn things that interest me from other people's posts dissecting the credulous.

Or the same can apply to people who frustrate you with their objectionable political views. Or scientific views. Or ethical views.

If you think you are not going to change that person's mind, why do you still post insults aimed back at them? For easy target practice for yourself? Does it make you feel better?

Okay. Yeah. Sure. A ckever turn of phrase does make me feel entertained, esp. if i make it.

Or are you trying to expose that person's views as being faulty for the sake of the audience, even if that particular opponent will likely not change their views?

i think the audience already appreciatesvtgat hes wrong, but they may not know everything i kniw about why he's wrong.

So it still leaves open the question of what we have to gain by insulting other people, especially when we were not required or prompted ourselves to say anything in the first place.

no, i think that question is answered, it's for the recognition among my peers. No one ever claps me on the back and says 'good one' for walking past a fight...

 

[Keith&Co.]

When I wrote that question, I wondered if anyone would answer favoring the latter. Is it more of a joking pun response, or would you actually prefer the company of assholes who you share similar religious views with over nice people who you have religious disagreements with?

Clever assholes over nice people every time.
Religious, political, or grammatical views completely to the side.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Why?

They may share your religious views, but suppose they differ from you in certain scientific views you each hold. They are jackasses, and they will turn your disagreement with you into a personal and acrimonious battle with you for the same reasons they turn different religious views into personal battles between those involved, when it does not have to be.

When I wrote that question, I wondered if anyone would answer favoring the latter. Is it more of a joking pun response, or would you actually prefer the company of assholes who you share similar religious views with over nice people who you have religious disagreements with?

Why? Because assholes aren’t assholes all the time; it takes too much energy. It takes no effort at all to be ignorant 24/7.

And I’m an asshole sometimes, but I try to never be ignorant.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Just in general---

When you see a religious person make posts that you take as evidence that they are not open to changing their religious views, why would you bother making any effort to still replying back to them, and especially doing so in a very insulting manner? Does it make you personally feel better to put those other people down?

Or the same can apply to people who frustrate you with their objectionable political views. Or scientific views. Or ethical views.

If you think you are not going to change that person's mind, why do you still post insults aimed back at them? For easy target practice for yourself? Does it make you feel better? Or are you trying to expose that person's views as being faulty for the sake of the audience, even if that particular opponent will likely not change their views? If that is the case, then you can also do that without being a jerk yourself. So it still leaves open the question of what we have to gain by insulting other people, especially when we were not required or prompted ourselves to say anything in the first place.

There's always a bit of a decision-making to be had when you realize someone is not up to your cognitive level. It's a Dunning Kruger thing. No, we should not be assholes, and neither should we entertain assholes. If it's a kid you try to use tact and always be the adult. But when the other person is not a kid anymore but still believes in Santa-beings it's okay to tell the person that Santa is a fable, a story that's got life lessons but isn't literally true. If the person insists he's right it's okay to turn up the heat, unlike one would do with a kid.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Frank Langella wrote about attending a show with Jessica Tandy. The star on stage, unnamed in the anecdote, was past her prime. Flubbing lines, missing her cues, her marks, her costume...
Jessica turned to Frank and said, "You'd tell me, wouldn't you?"

Like that. If you were on stage and using Ron Wyatt, you'd want to know.