FREE TAPATALK APP

AvalonXQ · 25th May 2012, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

That's not the perspective I'm describing at all. It has nothing to do with how much of a stubborn jackass you choose to be,

That's true in real life. On the internet this is most of what matters.
Who ever keeps posting longest, declares himself the winner.

Quote:

and everything to do with how important understanding the other party is. Getting what you think is a good grasp of their thought process is not where the conversation should end. It's where it should start.

So you can certainly understand that when it becomes clear that others are absolutely refusing to do so -- that their interest is primarily in finding ways to mischaracterize you and deny you have a thought process at all -- it makes sense to disengage.

Last of the Fraggles · 25th May 2012, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by westprog

If you feel that way, maybe you should be an atheist.

I'll consider it....right after I've talked to this guy at my door with some magic beans.

AvalonXQ · 25th May 2012, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

I'll consider it....right after I've talked to this guy at my door with some magic beans.

Don't give him the whole cow; offer him a 50% interest in it.

Last of the Fraggles · 25th May 2012, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Don't give him the whole cow; offer him a 50% interest in it.

Too late, I bought his beans. Turns out they are invisible but if I plant them they will grow into trees that grow money. Invisible money that I cant pick or spend but hey its still $$$$ right?

Not that I'll need that money when the Nigerian Prince sends his funds through.

AvalonXQ · 25th May 2012, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

Too late, I bought his beans. Turns out they are invisible but if I plant them they will grow into trees that grow money. Invisible money that I cant pick or spend but hey its still $$$$ right?

Might be useful if your garage dragon hits you up for cash.

Last of the Fraggles · 25th May 2012, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Might be useful if your garage dragon hits you up for cash.

The garage dragon still owes me for the invisible pink unicorn it ate! I'm just glad it doesn't have a taste for spaghetti.

GeeMack · 25th May 2012, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Argument from incredulity is a non-starter.

That's a rather smarmy evasion of a legitimate question. Especially coming from someone whose entire position is an argument from credulity. As I mentioned earlier, it's not a matter of disrespecting someone for the simple ridiculousness of their belief in invisible magical beings. But it's damned difficult to respect those who support their position with such flagrant dishonesty.

Originally Posted by GeeMack

It's not really disrespecting people for simply believing in magic or living as if under the constant threat of suffering at the hands of an invisible magical being. It's more to do with their projection of those irrational beliefs onto other people as if the Christian fantasy should be other people's reality. Maybe it has more to do with rationalizing their belief in invisible magical beings with hypocrisy and dishonesty, and their judging other people as sinful based on those rationalizations. That is a pretty deplorable way for Christians to be and doesn't merit any respect.

It's a very rare Christian who has the ability to recognize that their delusion is their very own and wholly unrelated to other people's reality. It's a very rare Christian indeed who has the honesty to admit that. And that dishonesty simply does not merit respect.

Dinwar · 25th May 2012, 05:54 PM

Quote:

It's a very rare Christian who has the ability to recognize that their delusion is their very own and wholly unrelated to other people's reality.

I have to admit 1) I haven't really read the posts, and 2) I'm drinking off two weeks of field work and on-call status (something they NEVER mention in paleo training!!), but I have to say, for the most part most Christians I've met aren't worthy of respect for another reason entirely, namely: They don't actually believe what they say they believe.

I was a server in an Roman Catholic church for years (what can I say, it was marginally less boring--though I hasten to state that nothing inappropriate happened). The church I went to had a tendency to talk after mass--and by "the church" I mean pretty much everyone at mass. I noticed pretty quickly that the conversation was "Did he ring the bells long enough?" and "How many hosts did the priest drop today?" This is regardless of the homely, gospel, etc.--NO ONE thought about religion during mass. They were, to the last person, hypocrites, in that they believed in belief but did not hold that belief themselves. And hypocrisy is not worthy of respect.

Legend · 25th May 2012, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

And, interestingly enough, the OP position is using pretty much this same attitude -- being offended by what he assumes we must be thinking about him, rather than by anything we say or do to him.

You have serious comprehension issues.

I'm not applying the label to everyone by default or stubbornness. I'm applying it to those to whom it applies. See? Flawless method. If you've explained it through some sinuous biblical interpretation or otherwise don't actually think my eternal suffering is "appropriate", then you're a far more respectable person than is someone like you, Avalon.

Minarvia · 25th May 2012, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

This isn't specific to atheism; generally an outspoken opponent of a widely held opinion will be seen as rude.

And, interestingly enough, the OP position is using pretty much this same attitude -- being offended by what he assumes we must be thinking about him, rather than by anything we say or do to him.

ETA: Fortunately, not everyone is this way. For every 20 people, only about 15 would be this way, 4 would reasonably want to engage or at least associate, and 1 would quietly or secretly agree.

Again, from my personal experience, using my late father as an example, do you think it is wrong of me to have not respected or honoured him when he made no pretense of his feelings about women? About how he would ogle young girls with his snide remarks of "if they are old enough to bleed they are old enough to butcher," and countless other awful "beliefs" he had?

Yes, he was nice enough most of the time to me. He fed me and provided for me, but I could never shake what I knew he believed. Goodness knows I tried for many years.

So, was I supposed to just respect him for his behaviour alone and ignore his beliefs regarding myself, my mother, and all women?

I don't see this as being much different than knowing that somebody would, gladly or not, agree that I should go to 'hell' or wherever their chosen deity says.

So, seriously, was I wrong to NOT respect and honour my father?

Mycroft · 25th May 2012, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by Minarvia

So, seriously, was I wrong to NOT respect and honour my father?

Learning to show respect to the idiot is a life skill that will serve you forever, not just at family gatherings. Just because you "respect" someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them or give your stamp of approval to their disgusting ideas.

BStrong · 25th May 2012, 08:21 PM

I have no problem treating people with respect, as long as they treat me likewise.

Mycroft · 25th May 2012, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

That's not the perspective I'm describing at all. It has nothing to do with how much of a stubborn jackass you choose to be, and everything to do with how important understanding the other party is. Getting what you think is a good grasp of their thought process is not where the conversation should end. It's where it should start.

Why?

You take two people with very different views. If they can communicate well enough that each comes away with a good understanding of the other point of view, that's pretty good. To say that's where the conversation needs to start assumes they need to argue it out and one of them needs to change their mind.

But why? If they're both comfortable in their belief systems, why can't they leave it at that?

Minarvia · 25th May 2012, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Learning to show respect to the idiot is a life skill that will serve you forever, not just at family gatherings. Just because you "respect" someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them or give your stamp of approval to their disgusting ideas.

Heh...yeah. I'll definitely keep the word "show" in mind! But yes, it is an invaluable skill in life.

Halfcentaur · 25th May 2012, 08:34 PM

Beyond the belief system that their deity values what you believe or not over what your actions and intentions and values are being a source of disrespect for me, the large number of theists I directly encounter who literally tell me that any evidence their faith is wrong is automatically to be disregarded or ignored is something that also makes me lose a great amount of respect for someone.

But I respect people on many levels. I may disrespect them on one level and respect them on another level. Sometimes that respect is so strong I generally feel I respect them on a whole as an individual while having no respect for certain things they feel are true.

Faith seems to me to be the worst kind of lie there is. When it openly has you dismiss any evidence you see to the contrary more so, but some of the more reasonable theists I know will not go down that road, and insist so far there is no evidence they see capable of doing so. Faith systems are only seen outside of religion within people who lie and manipulate, confidence men and politicians and similar folk.

Then you get Christians who will portray faith as one thing, and then when pressed will portray faith as something else, as if faith is simply confidence or hope and that it is not accepting something as accurate without any reason to accept it. The idea that accepting something as truth for no reason is held as a virtue bothered me even when I was a God fearing Christian being baptized. It ended up being a major inspiration for my path to deism, which I suppose ultimately makes it an early precursor to my atheism.

Why would a deity care if I believe in it based on vague and indistinct means, let alone value my belief in it at all? Nothing else that is real in this world has to worry about not being believed. It's laughable to imagine anything else valuing such a thing. The trick to being a Christian is to somehow find a way to accept such a thing is important. It's really a breathtaking example of the way religions have evolved culturally these last 100,000 years or so.

Beelzebuddy · 25th May 2012, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

So you can certainly understand that when it becomes clear that others are absolutely refusing to do so -- that their interest is primarily in finding ways to mischaracterize you and deny you have a thought process at all -- it makes sense to disengage.

If you think they're primarily interested in finding ways to mischaracterize you, you're probably mischaracterizing them. Intentional straw men happen much less often than accusations thereof. When they do happen, I find it's best to draw them out and expose their actions as being an ass. More likely you haven't been clear enough and they haven't gotten exactly what your argument is, but they think they have and are responding to the wrong one honestly. In which case, storming off makes you look like an ass.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Why?

You take two people with very different views. If they can communicate well enough that each comes away with a good understanding of the other point of view, that's pretty good. To say that's where the conversation needs to start assumes they need to argue it out and one of them needs to change their mind.

But why? If they're both comfortable in their belief systems, why can't they leave it at that?

Because different belief systems are often at odds with each other. Often over different approaches to policy, but occasionally one belief system thinks another is going to be tortured forever in the fiery cantos of perdition. Puts a damper on genteel debate, that bit does.

Until both parties understand how the other thinks, they'll never be able to drill down to the heart of the matter nor find a suitable compromise. They won't even be able to begin to do so, because they'll at best be knocking down unintentional strawmen while talking past each other, each perfectly convinced of their own correctness.

Plus, claiming to end the conversation when you understand someone makes a conveniently perfect excuse for ending a conversation long before you understand someone, but when it's just not going they way you'd like it to.

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

Then you get Christians who will portray faith as one thing, and then when pressed will portray faith as something else, as if faith is simply confidence or hope and that it is not accepting something as accurate without any reason to accept it.

There's probably an actual name for it, but I call that the "just us chickens" argument. Same thing happens when YHVH, Creator, omniscient, omnipotent when only the faithful are in the room, becomes the ineffable, inscrutable, undetectable Intelligent Designer as soon as someone has the bad manners to bring up science.

tsig · 25th May 2012, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Learning to show respect to the idiot is a life skill that will serve you forever, not just at family gatherings. Just because you "respect" someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them or give your stamp of approval to their disgusting ideas.

Kissing ass forever.

tsig · 25th May 2012, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

If you think they're primarily interested in finding ways to mischaracterize you, you're probably mischaracterizing them. Intentional straw men happen much less often than accusations thereof. When they do happen, I find it's best to draw them out and expose their actions as being an ass. More likely you haven't been clear enough and they haven't gotten exactly what your argument is, but they think they have and are responding to the wrong one honestly. In which case, storming off makes you look like an ass.

Because different belief systems are often at odds with each other. Often over different approaches to policy, but occasionally one belief system thinks another is going to be tortured forever in the fiery cantos of perdition. Puts a damper on genteel debate, that bit does.

Until both parties understand how the other thinks, they'll never be able to drill down to the heart of the matter nor find a suitable compromise. They won't even be able to begin to do so, because they'll at best be knocking down unintentional strawmen while talking past each other, each perfectly convinced of their own correctness.

Plus, claiming to end the conversation when you understand someone makes a conveniently perfect excuse for ending a conversation long before you understand someone, but when it's just not going they way you'd like it to.

There's probably an actual name for it, but I call that the "just us chickens" argument. Same thing happens when YHVH, Creator, omniscient, omnipotent when only the faithful are in the room, becomes the ineffable, inscrutable, undetectable Intelligent Designer as soon as someone has the bad manners to bring up science.

First whe have the O³ god maker of the universe and everything in it now we have a god too shy to be seen.

O³=omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent

Soapy Sam · 27th May 2012, 04:02 PM

Seems to me the important question about any systematic belief is not "Is it sincere?", but "Is it right?"

Does anyone here have any testable data to support the factual correctness of any religious belief system?

And if not, then why do they go on believing it?

I don't feel respect is earned by simply believing nonsense.
I'm unsure whether having a detailed knowledge of theology and still believing it would merit more respect, or less, than someone who merely accepted a smidgin of nonsense in infancy and still believes it. Not much in either case, methinks.

But someone who merits no repect whatever for his religious belief may deserve respect for any of a myriad other reasons.
I don't respect Dietrich Bonhoeffer because he was a Lutheran theologian. I respect him because he was a brave man.

Mehdimentio · 27th May 2012, 04:07 PM

I PERSONALLY find it very hard to respect the intellect of anyone who devote themselves to a doctrine as absurd as Christianity. That does by no means justify personal insults from my part, though. I am aware.

cj.23 · 27th May 2012, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Mehdimentio

I PERSONALLY find it very hard to respect the intellect of anyone who devote themselves to a doctrine as absurd as Christianity. That does by no means justify personal insults from my part, though. I am aware.

Not a fan of Tertullian then?
Crucifixus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.or as it is usually paraphrased Credo quia absurdum - "I believe because it is absurd." I always rather liked that, though it is not quite my position.

cj x

Delvo · 27th May 2012, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Mycroft

To say that's where the conversation needs to start assumes they need to argue it out and one of them needs to change their mind.

But why? If they're both comfortable in their belief systems, why can't they leave it at that?

Just supposing for a moment that I accept the premise that comfort is the deciding factor here...

Consider what Christianity says: that if you don't fall for its tale of bloody sacrifices, then you not only will but SHOULD be tortured forever. Consider what "forever" means compared to, for example, a thousand years... or a trillion years... or instead of that many years, that many times the entire history of this universe not just past but also future... or instead of a trillion, make it 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999,
999,999,999,999,999... squared... or cubed... or to the power of itself. It's still a finite number, so it's essentially nothing compared to infinity, which is the amount of time that any non-Christian is supposed to spend in agony more horrific than anything that could be imagined from our Earthly experience, worse than any human has ever had to live through for even an instant in this life.

And that's not even just an unfortunate fate that they would wish for us to avoid. It's what should be done to us, because we deserve it. That's the Christian idea of justice. That's utterly psychotic.

Anyone who is "comfortable" with a God who works like that (nevermind proclaiming love for such an immeasurably, unimaginably, incomprehensibly vicious monster) is utterly psychotic. So, anyone who actually believes in such a God must be either psychotic or not comfortable with it. Since most of us never interact much with utterly psychotic individuals, it's usually a pretty safe bet that, unlike what your question supposes as a premise, the people we meet who call themselves "Christians" are in fact not utterly psychotic, and thus NOT at all comfortable with Christianity's God and that God's behavior and attitude. For those who actually buy it, getting them to see that it's all fiction would be freeing them from living in a constant nightmare.

For those who don't buy it but inaccurately call themselves "Christians" anyway, the self-misidentification is and indication that they're not comfortable with admitting what they really think, so again the premise of your question doesn't apply and there's no reason not to try to get them to see that it's OK to admit what they really think.

Originally Posted by BStrong

I have no problem treating people with respect, as long as they treat me likewise.

Thinking that someone deserves eternal torture is not respectful.

Mycroft · 27th May 2012, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

Just supposing for a moment that I accept the premise that comfort is the deciding factor here...

<snip>

Thinking that someone deserves eternal torture is not respectful.

So I get it that you don't like Christianity. What I don't get is why you think it's a good use of your time to try to talk one of them out of it.

Your life, your choice, I suppose. I got better things to do with my time.

westprog · 27th May 2012, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

Thinking that someone deserves eternal torture is not respectful.

You could ask them what they think. But obviously deriving it from first principles is more reliable. After all, the Bible is infallible.

sphenisc · 27th May 2012, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Seems to me the important question about any systematic belief is not "Is it sincere?", but "Is it right?"

Does anyone here have any testable data to support the factual correctness of any religious belief system?

And if not, then why do they go on believing it?

I don't feel respect is earned by simply believing nonsense.
I'm unsure whether having a detailed knowledge of theology and still believing it would merit more respect, or less, than someone who merely accepted a smidgin of nonsense in infancy and still believes it. Not much in either case, methinks.

But someone who merits no repect whatever for his religious belief may deserve respect for any of a myriad other reasons.
I don't respect Dietrich Bonhoeffer because he was a Lutheran theologian. I respect him because he was a brave man.

That would make the important question not "Is it right?" but "Is it brave?"

Beelzebuddy · 28th May 2012, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by westprog

You could ask them what they think. But obviously deriving it from first principles is more reliable. After all, the Bible is infallible.

The odds are pretty good they belong to a sect supporting the Athanasian Creed, which does use the words "ignem aeternum" in a fairly no-nonsense way. Failing that the Apostle's and Nicene Creed still imply it, and from what I hear coming out of Westboro and the Vatican, the concept of eternal damnation isn't altogether outmoded.

If the person you're arguing with is using a nonstandard definition of terms, it's up to them to make this sufficiently known. The onus should not be on the rest of the world to determine exactly what wrinkles each person has ironed into their use of "Christian." It's a common term with a common meaning, part of which is the acceptance of everlasting torment.

Soapy Sam · 28th May 2012, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by sphenisc

That would make the important question not "Is it right?" but "Is it brave?"

Not in all cases.

The question should be "What about this person merits respect?"

cj.23 · 28th May 2012, 06:38 AM

And I'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you pesky atheists!

Originally Posted by Delvo

Consider what Christianity says: that if you don't fall for its tale of bloody sacrifices, then you not only will but SHOULD be tortured forever.

I eagerly await seeing you in HELLFIRE!

It's in West Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. I'll buy. Of course I'm An Anglican so you may face the stark choice of "cake or death?" However this would be an ecumenical matter; so I will invite along Cardinal Biggles, and while I provide the cake he can provide the nice cup of tea and the comfy chair.

When you free for a bit of Hellfire with this psychotic Christian?

Originally Posted by Delvo

For those who don't buy it but inaccurately call themselves "Christians" anyway, the self-misidentification is and indication that they're not comfortable with admitting what they really think, so again the premise of your question doesn't apply and there's no reason not to try to get them to see that it's OK to admit what they really think.

I'll freely discuss what I really think on this issue if you want, but you seem to have far more certitude about what constitutes my faith than I do. Still I guess if you have the time you can endure the moderately hellish torment of my theological dribblings...

Seriously though, it's hard to know what one means by saying I am a Christian, that I admit. It's also hard to know what is meant when someone says they are an atheist -- all I can tell is the person does not believe in Gods/Goddesses. Some atheists were virulently anti-science (very common in Eastern European late 19th century/early 20th century atheism), and some Idealist not Materialist, while others, rather a lot, are committed Spiritualists who believe in life after death but deny any divinity. Any label people apply is subject to misinterpretation. Still I'll happily be upfront about my beliefs, but hellfire and eternal torment doesn't come in to it I'm afraid

cj x

mutile · 28th May 2012, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by cj.23

It's also hard to know what is meant when someone says they are an atheist -- all I can tell is the person does not believe in Gods/Goddesses.

How is the meaning of atheist unclear?

Do you also think it is hard to know what is meant when someone says they don't like fish because it doesn't give you in depth insight into their personality?

dafydd · 28th May 2012, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by cj.23

It's also hard to know what is meant when someone says they are an atheist

What is so hard about it? I am an atheist. What do you think that means?

cj.23 · 28th May 2012, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by mutile

How is the meaning of atheist unclear?

Do you also think it is hard to know what is meant when someone says they don't like fish because it doesn't give you in depth insight into their personality?

Exactly like that. It tells you nothing beyond one belief. Ditto someone saying they are a Christian; or they don't like fish. You can't generalize from it, or shouldn't if wise

cj x

cj.23 · 28th May 2012, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

What is so hard about it? I am an atheist. What do you think that means?

You don't believe in Gods or Godesses as I said.

I'm a Christian - what does that tell you about me?

cj x

dafydd · 28th May 2012, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by cj.23

You don't believe in Gods or Godesses as I said.

I'm a Christian - what does that tell you about me?

Only that you believe in one more god than me. Why do you believe in that god and none of the others? You are a Hindu atheist, do you realize that?

cj.23 · 28th May 2012, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Only that you believe in one more god than me. Why do you believe in that god and none of the others? You are a Hindu atheist, do you realize that?

I believe in Vishnu. I never said I didn't. I also believe in Zeus. There is a thread somewhere where I talk about it in some depth. I'll find the link if it will amuse? However we are possibly drifting off topic.

EDIT: LINK HERE http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...17#post4328617

My point is people characterize unfairly atheists as all being the same. They most certainly are not. Neither are Christians. The labels tell us nothing beyond very specific, rather uninteresting piece of information. As I point out, there are or were violently anti-science atheists, and spiritualist atheists and PZ , Harris and Dawkins are hardly the same. Nor are Christians all the same: our beliefs may vary. Respecting or disrepecting the group falls victim to the fallacy that all X are Y: rarely true outside of mathematics in my experience.

cj x

Minarvia · 28th May 2012, 03:39 PM

cj.23, I'm glad you took the "retarded" comment in good humour! For me, however, I wouldn't call you retarded at all. I just have difficulty wrapping my head around the concept that anyone over the age of ten or so believe in supernatural (for lack of a better word) entities when it is, at the same time, perfectly apparent that those same people have long put away belief in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, the Boogeyman, and other such things that eventually children put away.

For many like me it is the same. Believing in god/s or whatever sort of fairy-type creature is simply illogical and sometimes incomprehensible. The idea of accepting such a belief is so alien to me that truthfully, I cannot understand it. During a couple of decades when I TRIED to accept belief, I failed dismally. I just could not do it.

It's good to see you again, tho! I've missed you! Uh, if you are the one who used to post about haunted houses in England? If I've mistaken you for another poster with a similar name, sorry! *sheepish*

cj.23 · 28th May 2012, 03:48 PM

Hey Minarvia how you doing? I am indeed that awful woo CJ!

I have been writing more on spooks actually, and kicking around with Sceptics In The pub here, and generally having fun. I was absent from forums for a year or so owing to pressures of work and looking after an elderly neighbour, but I have a very intensive writing project so I'm back again.

I completely agree: to me atheism, or perhaps agnosticism, is a rational default. I don't mean intellectually - I'm not clever enough to make a philosophical case or know one way or the other if that is so, but I grew up completely unconvinced by supernatural claims, and was a loud and outspoken atheist as a child. I eventually came to doubt my doubts -- but I could no more have chosen to believe in a Goddess or God as a child as I could have chosen to disbelieve in my own existence or gravity.

I still don't think we choose these things: it's just how we see the universe. As such to get stressed about others different perceptions seems a waste of time. I'll stand firm against persecution, and stand firm for freedom of conscience, but heck I don't expect anyone to care much what I believe or don't.

So what you up to these days? I'm glad to be back, it's always fun here. Best wishes from the ridiculously hot valleys of south west England!

cj x

cj.23 · 28th May 2012, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by mutile

The more lies you fill your head with the less room you have for truth.

So I should never read another Harry Potter book or my knowledge of calculus might leak out my ears?

cj x

cj.23 · 28th May 2012, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by mutile

Not if the lack of respect is due to the beliefs common to all christians.

Right. So which beliefs common to all Christians are the issue?

cj x

mutile · 28th May 2012, 03:54 PM

No just watch the movies.

dafydd · 28th May 2012, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by cj.23

I believe in Vishnu. I never said I didn't. I also believe in Zeus.

A Christian who believes in false gods? I'm sure that you god mentioned something about that.

25th May 2012, 03:50 PM	#161
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy That's not the perspective I'm describing at all. It has nothing to do with how much of a stubborn jackass you choose to be, That's true in real life. On the internet this is most of what matters. Who ever keeps posting longest, declares himself the winner. Quote: and everything to do with how important understanding the other party is. Getting what you think is a good grasp of their thought process is not where the conversation should end. It's where it should start. So you can certainly understand that when it becomes clear that others are absolutely refusing to do so -- that their interest is primarily in finding ways to mischaracterize you and deny you have a thought process at all -- it makes sense to disengage.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

25th May 2012, 03:55 PM	#163
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles I'll consider it....right after I've talked to this guy at my door with some magic beans. Don't give him the whole cow; offer him a 50% interest in it.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

25th May 2012, 04:01 PM	#165
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles Too late, I bought his beans. Turns out they are invisible but if I plant them they will grow into trees that grow money. Invisible money that I cant pick or spend but hey its still $$$$ right? Might be useful if your garage dragon hits you up for cash.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

25th May 2012, 05:34 PM	#167
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Not Bandiagara Posts: 7,241	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Argument from incredulity is a non-starter. That's a rather smarmy evasion of a legitimate question. Especially coming from someone whose entire position is an argument from credulity. As I mentioned earlier, it's not a matter of disrespecting someone for the simple ridiculousness of their belief in invisible magical beings. But it's damned difficult to respect those who support their position with such flagrant dishonesty. Originally Posted by GeeMack It's not really disrespecting people for simply believing in magic or living as if under the constant threat of suffering at the hands of an invisible magical being. It's more to do with their projection of those irrational beliefs onto other people as if the Christian fantasy should be other people's reality. Maybe it has more to do with rationalizing their belief in invisible magical beings with hypocrisy and dishonesty, and their judging other people as sinful based on those rationalizations. That is a pretty deplorable way for Christians to be and doesn't merit any respect. It's a very rare Christian who has the ability to recognize that their delusion is their very own and wholly unrelated to other people's reality. It's a very rare Christian indeed who has the honesty to admit that. And that dishonesty simply does not merit respect.

25th May 2012, 05:54 PM	#168
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,179	Quote: It's a very rare Christian who has the ability to recognize that their delusion is their very own and wholly unrelated to other people's reality. I have to admit 1) I haven't really read the posts, and 2) I'm drinking off two weeks of field work and on-call status (something they NEVER mention in paleo training!!), but I have to say, for the most part most Christians I've met aren't worthy of respect for another reason entirely, namely: They don't actually believe what they say they believe. I was a server in an Roman Catholic church for years (what can I say, it was marginally less boring--though I hasten to state that nothing inappropriate happened). The church I went to had a tendency to talk after mass--and by "the church" I mean pretty much everyone at mass. I noticed pretty quickly that the conversation was "Did he ring the bells long enough?" and "How many hosts did the priest drop today?" This is regardless of the homely, gospel, etc.--NO ONE thought about religion during mass. They were, to the last person, hypocrites, in that they believed in belief but did not hold that belief themselves. And hypocrisy is not worthy of respect.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,179	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

25th May 2012, 03:53 PM	#162
Last of the Fraggles Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,400	Originally Posted by westprog If you feel that way, maybe you should be an atheist. I'll consider it....right after I've talked to this guy at my door with some magic beans.

25th May 2012, 03:59 PM	#164
Last of the Fraggles Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,400	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Don't give him the whole cow; offer him a 50% interest in it. Too late, I bought his beans. Turns out they are invisible but if I plant them they will grow into trees that grow money. Invisible money that I cant pick or spend but hey its still $$$$ right? Not that I'll need that money when the Nigerian Prince sends his funds through.

25th May 2012, 04:03 PM	#166
Last of the Fraggles Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,400	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Might be useful if your garage dragon hits you up for cash. The garage dragon still owes me for the invisible pink unicorn it ate! I'm just glad it doesn't have a taste for spaghetti.

25th May 2012, 06:23 PM	#169
Legend Focu Meu! Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 10,387	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ And, interestingly enough, the OP position is using pretty much this same attitude -- being offended by what he assumes we must be thinking about him, rather than by anything we say or do to him. You have serious comprehension issues. I'm not applying the label to everyone by default or stubbornness. I'm applying it to those to whom it applies. See? Flawless method. If you've explained it through some sinuous biblical interpretation or otherwise don't actually think my eternal suffering is "appropriate", then you're a far more respectable person than is someone like you, Avalon.
	__________________ Am I the only one who thinks that Legend actually does look something like a young Leonardo DiCaprio? ~ EeneyMinnieMoe ♦ Eat a potato, kid. ~ RoboTimbo ♦

25th May 2012, 06:28 PM	#170
Minarvia fading orb Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Illinois Posts: 2,222	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ This isn't specific to atheism; generally an outspoken opponent of a widely held opinion will be seen as rude. And, interestingly enough, the OP position is using pretty much this same attitude -- being offended by what he assumes we must be thinking about him, rather than by anything we say or do to him. ETA: Fortunately, not everyone is this way. For every 20 people, only about 15 would be this way, 4 would reasonably want to engage or at least associate, and 1 would quietly or secretly agree. Again, from my personal experience, using my late father as an example, do you think it is wrong of me to have not respected or honoured him when he made no pretense of his feelings about women? About how he would ogle young girls with his snide remarks of "if they are old enough to bleed they are old enough to butcher," and countless other awful "beliefs" he had? Yes, he was nice enough most of the time to me. He fed me and provided for me, but I could never shake what I knew he believed. Goodness knows I tried for many years. So, was I supposed to just respect him for his behaviour alone and ignore his beliefs regarding myself, my mother, and all women? I don't see this as being much different than knowing that somebody would, gladly or not, agree that I should go to 'hell' or wherever their chosen deity says. So, seriously, was I wrong to NOT respect and honour my father?
	__________________ "Hercules, what is a secret?" "Why, a secret is something you tell practically everybody confidentially." Wheeler and Woolsey in "Diplomaniacs."

25th May 2012, 08:18 PM	#171
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,149	Originally Posted by Minarvia So, seriously, was I wrong to NOT respect and honour my father? Learning to show respect to the idiot is a life skill that will serve you forever, not just at family gatherings. Just because you "respect" someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them or give your stamp of approval to their disgusting ideas.
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

25th May 2012, 08:21 PM	#172
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 4,047	I have no problem treating people with respect, as long as they treat me likewise.

25th May 2012, 08:24 PM	#173
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,149	Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy That's not the perspective I'm describing at all. It has nothing to do with how much of a stubborn jackass you choose to be, and everything to do with how important understanding the other party is. Getting what you think is a good grasp of their thought process is not where the conversation should end. It's where it should start. Why? You take two people with very different views. If they can communicate well enough that each comes away with a good understanding of the other point of view, that's pretty good. To say that's where the conversation needs to start assumes they need to argue it out and one of them needs to change their mind. But why? If they're both comfortable in their belief systems, why can't they leave it at that?
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

25th May 2012, 08:31 PM	#174
Minarvia fading orb Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Illinois Posts: 2,222	Originally Posted by Mycroft Learning to show respect to the idiot is a life skill that will serve you forever, not just at family gatherings. Just because you "respect" someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them or give your stamp of approval to their disgusting ideas. Heh...yeah. I'll definitely keep the word "show" in mind! But yes, it is an invaluable skill in life.
	__________________ "Hercules, what is a secret?" "Why, a secret is something you tell practically everybody confidentially." Wheeler and Woolsey in "Diplomaniacs."

25th May 2012, 08:34 PM	#175
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,004	Beyond the belief system that their deity values what you believe or not over what your actions and intentions and values are being a source of disrespect for me, the large number of theists I directly encounter who literally tell me that any evidence their faith is wrong is automatically to be disregarded or ignored is something that also makes me lose a great amount of respect for someone. But I respect people on many levels. I may disrespect them on one level and respect them on another level. Sometimes that respect is so strong I generally feel I respect them on a whole as an individual while having no respect for certain things they feel are true. Faith seems to me to be the worst kind of lie there is. When it openly has you dismiss any evidence you see to the contrary more so, but some of the more reasonable theists I know will not go down that road, and insist so far there is no evidence they see capable of doing so. Faith systems are only seen outside of religion within people who lie and manipulate, confidence men and politicians and similar folk. Then you get Christians who will portray faith as one thing, and then when pressed will portray faith as something else, as if faith is simply confidence or hope and that it is not accepting something as accurate without any reason to accept it. The idea that accepting something as truth for no reason is held as a virtue bothered me even when I was a God fearing Christian being baptized. It ended up being a major inspiration for my path to deism, which I suppose ultimately makes it an early precursor to my atheism. Why would a deity care if I believe in it based on vague and indistinct means, let alone value my belief in it at all? Nothing else that is real in this world has to worry about not being believed. It's laughable to imagine anything else valuing such a thing. The trick to being a Christian is to somehow find a way to accept such a thing is important. It's really a breathtaking example of the way religions have evolved culturally these last 100,000 years or so.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 6,004	Last edited by Halfcentaur; 25th May 2012 at 08:38 PM.

25th May 2012, 08:57 PM	#176
Beelzebuddy Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 1,797	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ So you can certainly understand that when it becomes clear that others are absolutely refusing to do so -- that their interest is primarily in finding ways to mischaracterize you and deny you have a thought process at all -- it makes sense to disengage. If you think they're primarily interested in finding ways to mischaracterize you, you're probably mischaracterizing them. Intentional straw men happen much less often than accusations thereof. When they do happen, I find it's best to draw them out and expose their actions as being an ass. More likely you haven't been clear enough and they haven't gotten exactly what your argument is, but they think they have and are responding to the wrong one honestly. In which case, storming off makes you look like an ass. Originally Posted by Mycroft Why? You take two people with very different views. If they can communicate well enough that each comes away with a good understanding of the other point of view, that's pretty good. To say that's where the conversation needs to start assumes they need to argue it out and one of them needs to change their mind. But why? If they're both comfortable in their belief systems, why can't they leave it at that? Because different belief systems are often at odds with each other. Often over different approaches to policy, but occasionally one belief system thinks another is going to be tortured forever in the fiery cantos of perdition. Puts a damper on genteel debate, that bit does. Until both parties understand how the other thinks, they'll never be able to drill down to the heart of the matter nor find a suitable compromise. They won't even be able to begin to do so, because they'll at best be knocking down unintentional strawmen while talking past each other, each perfectly convinced of their own correctness. Plus, claiming to end the conversation when you understand someone makes a conveniently perfect excuse for ending a conversation long before you understand someone, but when it's just not going they way you'd like it to. Originally Posted by Halfcentaur Then you get Christians who will portray faith as one thing, and then when pressed will portray faith as something else, as if faith is simply confidence or hope and that it is not accepting something as accurate without any reason to accept it. There's probably an actual name for it, but I call that the "just us chickens" argument. Same thing happens when YHVH, Creator, omniscient, omnipotent when only the faithful are in the room, becomes the ineffable, inscrutable, undetectable Intelligent Designer as soon as someone has the bad manners to bring up science.
	Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 25th May 2012 at 09:12 PM.

25th May 2012, 09:54 PM	#177
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,257	Originally Posted by Mycroft Learning to show respect to the idiot is a life skill that will serve you forever, not just at family gatherings. Just because you "respect" someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them or give your stamp of approval to their disgusting ideas. Kissing ass forever.

25th May 2012, 09:58 PM	#178
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,257	Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy If you think they're primarily interested in finding ways to mischaracterize you, you're probably mischaracterizing them. Intentional straw men happen much less often than accusations thereof. When they do happen, I find it's best to draw them out and expose their actions as being an ass. More likely you haven't been clear enough and they haven't gotten exactly what your argument is, but they think they have and are responding to the wrong one honestly. In which case, storming off makes you look like an ass. Because different belief systems are often at odds with each other. Often over different approaches to policy, but occasionally one belief system thinks another is going to be tortured forever in the fiery cantos of perdition. Puts a damper on genteel debate, that bit does. Until both parties understand how the other thinks, they'll never be able to drill down to the heart of the matter nor find a suitable compromise. They won't even be able to begin to do so, because they'll at best be knocking down unintentional strawmen while talking past each other, each perfectly convinced of their own correctness. Plus, claiming to end the conversation when you understand someone makes a conveniently perfect excuse for ending a conversation long before you understand someone, but when it's just not going they way you'd like it to. There's probably an actual name for it, but I call that the "just us chickens" argument. Same thing happens when YHVH, Creator, omniscient, omnipotent when only the faithful are in the room, becomes the ineffable, inscrutable, undetectable Intelligent Designer as soon as someone has the bad manners to bring up science. First whe have the O³ god maker of the universe and everything in it now we have a god too shy to be seen. O³=omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent

27th May 2012, 04:02 PM	#179
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,928	Seems to me the important question about any systematic belief is not "Is it sincere?", but "Is it right?" Does anyone here have any testable data to support the factual correctness of any religious belief system? And if not, then why do they go on believing it? I don't feel respect is earned by simply believing nonsense. I'm unsure whether having a detailed knowledge of theology and still believing it would merit more respect, or less, than someone who merely accepted a smidgin of nonsense in infancy and still believes it. Not much in either case, methinks. But someone who merits no repect whatever for his religious belief may deserve respect for any of a myriad other reasons. I don't respect Dietrich Bonhoeffer because he was a Lutheran theologian. I respect him because he was a brave man.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,928

27th May 2012, 04:07 PM	#180
Mehdimentio Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Sweden Posts: 161	I PERSONALLY find it very hard to respect the intellect of anyone who devote themselves to a doctrine as absurd as Christianity. That does by no means justify personal insults from my part, though. I am aware.
	__________________ "Picture all experts as if they were mammals." - Christopher Hitchens

27th May 2012, 05:30 PM	#181
cj.23 Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kadath in the Cold Waste Posts: 2,822	Originally Posted by Mehdimentio I PERSONALLY find it very hard to respect the intellect of anyone who devote themselves to a doctrine as absurd as Christianity. That does by no means justify personal insults from my part, though. I am aware. Not a fan of Tertullian then? Crucifixus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.or as it is usually paraphrased Credo quia absurdum - "I believe because it is absurd." I always rather liked that, though it is not quite my position. cj x
	__________________ I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell My dull life blogged http://jerome23.wordpress.com

27th May 2012, 08:22 PM	#182
Delvo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Posts: 3,942	Originally Posted by Mycroft To say that's where the conversation needs to start assumes they need to argue it out and one of them needs to change their mind. But why? If they're both comfortable in their belief systems, why can't they leave it at that? Just supposing for a moment that I accept the premise that comfort is the deciding factor here... Consider what Christianity says: that if you don't fall for its tale of bloody sacrifices, then you not only will but SHOULD be tortured forever. Consider what "forever" means compared to, for example, a thousand years... or a trillion years... or instead of that many years, that many times the entire history of this universe not just past but also future... or instead of a trillion, make it 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,99 9,999,999,999, 999,999,999,999,999... squared... or cubed... or to the power of itself. It's still a finite number, so it's essentially nothing compared to infinity, which is the amount of time that any non-Christian is supposed to spend in agony more horrific than anything that could be imagined from our Earthly experience, worse than any human has ever had to live through for even an instant in this life. And that's not even just an unfortunate fate that they would wish for us to avoid. It's what should be done to us, because we deserve it. That's the Christian idea of justice. That's utterly psychotic. Anyone who is "comfortable" with a God who works like that (nevermind proclaiming love for such an immeasurably, unimaginably, incomprehensibly vicious monster) is utterly psychotic. So, anyone who actually believes in such a God must be either psychotic or not comfortable with it. Since most of us never interact much with utterly psychotic individuals, it's usually a pretty safe bet that, unlike what your question supposes as a premise, the people we meet who call themselves "Christians" are in fact not utterly psychotic, and thus NOT at all comfortable with Christianity's God and that God's behavior and attitude. For those who actually buy it, getting them to see that it's all fiction would be freeing them from living in a constant nightmare. For those who don't buy it but inaccurately call themselves "Christians" anyway, the self-misidentification is and indication that they're not comfortable with admitting what they really think, so again the premise of your question doesn't apply and there's no reason not to try to get them to see that it's OK to admit what they really think. Originally Posted by BStrong I have no problem treating people with respect, as long as they treat me likewise. Thinking that someone deserves eternal torture is not respectful.

27th May 2012, 09:04 PM	#183
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,149	Originally Posted by Delvo Just supposing for a moment that I accept the premise that comfort is the deciding factor here... <snip> Thinking that someone deserves eternal torture is not respectful. So I get it that you don't like Christianity. What I don't get is why you think it's a good use of your time to try to talk one of them out of it. Your life, your choice, I suppose. I got better things to do with my time.
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

27th May 2012, 10:59 PM	#184
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Delvo Thinking that someone deserves eternal torture is not respectful. You could ask them what they think. But obviously deriving it from first principles is more reliable. After all, the Bible is infallible.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

27th May 2012, 11:30 PM	#185
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,751	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam Seems to me the important question about any systematic belief is not "Is it sincere?", but "Is it right?" Does anyone here have any testable data to support the factual correctness of any religious belief system? And if not, then why do they go on believing it? I don't feel respect is earned by simply believing nonsense. I'm unsure whether having a detailed knowledge of theology and still believing it would merit more respect, or less, than someone who merely accepted a smidgin of nonsense in infancy and still believes it. Not much in either case, methinks. But someone who merits no repect whatever for his religious belief may deserve respect for any of a myriad other reasons. I don't respect Dietrich Bonhoeffer because he was a Lutheran theologian. I respect him because he was a brave man. That would make the important question not "Is it right?" but "Is it brave?"
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,751

28th May 2012, 12:13 AM	#186
Beelzebuddy Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 1,797	Originally Posted by westprog You could ask them what they think. But obviously deriving it from first principles is more reliable. After all, the Bible is infallible. The odds are pretty good they belong to a sect supporting the Athanasian Creed, which does use the words "ignem aeternum" in a fairly no-nonsense way. Failing that the Apostle's and Nicene Creed still imply it, and from what I hear coming out of Westboro and the Vatican, the concept of eternal damnation isn't altogether outmoded. If the person you're arguing with is using a nonstandard definition of terms, it's up to them to make this sufficiently known. The onus should not be on the rest of the world to determine exactly what wrinkles each person has ironed into their use of "Christian." It's a common term with a common meaning, part of which is the acceptance of everlasting torment.

28th May 2012, 06:13 AM	#187
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,928	Originally Posted by sphenisc That would make the important question not "Is it right?" but "Is it brave?" Not in all cases. The question should be "What about this person merits respect?"
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,928

28th May 2012, 06:38 AM	#188
cj.23 Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kadath in the Cold Waste Posts: 2,822	And I'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you pesky atheists! Originally Posted by Delvo Consider what Christianity says: that if you don't fall for its tale of bloody sacrifices, then you not only will but SHOULD be tortured forever. I eagerly await seeing you in HELLFIRE! It's in West Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. I'll buy. Of course I'm An Anglican so you may face the stark choice of "cake or death?" However this would be an ecumenical matter; so I will invite along Cardinal Biggles, and while I provide the cake he can provide the nice cup of tea and the comfy chair. When you free for a bit of Hellfire with this psychotic Christian? Originally Posted by Delvo For those who don't buy it but inaccurately call themselves "Christians" anyway, the self-misidentification is and indication that they're not comfortable with admitting what they really think, so again the premise of your question doesn't apply and there's no reason not to try to get them to see that it's OK to admit what they really think. I'll freely discuss what I really think on this issue if you want, but you seem to have far more certitude about what constitutes my faith than I do. Still I guess if you have the time you can endure the moderately hellish torment of my theological dribblings... Seriously though, it's hard to know what one means by saying I am a Christian, that I admit. It's also hard to know what is meant when someone says they are an atheist -- all I can tell is the person does not believe in Gods/Goddesses. Some atheists were virulently anti-science (very common in Eastern European late 19th century/early 20th century atheism), and some Idealist not Materialist, while others, rather a lot, are committed Spiritualists who believe in life after death but deny any divinity. Any label people apply is subject to misinterpretation. Still I'll happily be upfront about my beliefs, but hellfire and eternal torment doesn't come in to it I'm afraid cj x
	__________________ I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell My dull life blogged http://jerome23.wordpress.com

28th May 2012, 02:45 PM	#189
mutile Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 525	Originally Posted by cj.23 It's also hard to know what is meant when someone says they are an atheist -- all I can tell is the person does not believe in Gods/Goddesses. How is the meaning of atheist unclear? Do you also think it is hard to know what is meant when someone says they don't like fish because it doesn't give you in depth insight into their personality?
mutile Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 525

28th May 2012, 02:50 PM	#190
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by cj.23 It's also hard to know what is meant when someone says they are an atheist What is so hard about it? I am an atheist. What do you think that means?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

28th May 2012, 03:11 PM	#191
cj.23 Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kadath in the Cold Waste Posts: 2,822	Originally Posted by mutile How is the meaning of atheist unclear? Do you also think it is hard to know what is meant when someone says they don't like fish because it doesn't give you in depth insight into their personality? Exactly like that. It tells you nothing beyond one belief. Ditto someone saying they are a Christian; or they don't like fish. You can't generalize from it, or shouldn't if wise cj x
	__________________ I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell My dull life blogged http://jerome23.wordpress.com

28th May 2012, 03:13 PM	#192
cj.23 Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kadath in the Cold Waste Posts: 2,822	Originally Posted by dafydd What is so hard about it? I am an atheist. What do you think that means? You don't believe in Gods or Godesses as I said. I'm a Christian - what does that tell you about me? cj x
	__________________ I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell My dull life blogged http://jerome23.wordpress.com

28th May 2012, 03:22 PM	#193
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by cj.23 You don't believe in Gods or Godesses as I said. I'm a Christian - what does that tell you about me? Only that you believe in one more god than me. Why do you believe in that god and none of the others? You are a Hindu atheist, do you realize that?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 28th May 2012 at 03:23 PM.

28th May 2012, 03:33 PM	#194
cj.23 Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kadath in the Cold Waste Posts: 2,822	Originally Posted by dafydd Only that you believe in one more god than me. Why do you believe in that god and none of the others? You are a Hindu atheist, do you realize that? I believe in Vishnu. I never said I didn't. I also believe in Zeus. There is a thread somewhere where I talk about it in some depth. I'll find the link if it will amuse? However we are possibly drifting off topic. EDIT: LINK HERE http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...17#post4328617 My point is people characterize unfairly atheists as all being the same. They most certainly are not. Neither are Christians. The labels tell us nothing beyond very specific, rather uninteresting piece of information. As I point out, there are or were violently anti-science atheists, and spiritualist atheists and PZ , Harris and Dawkins are hardly the same. Nor are Christians all the same: our beliefs may vary. Respecting or disrepecting the group falls victim to the fallacy that all X are Y: rarely true outside of mathematics in my experience. cj x
	__________________ I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell My dull life blogged http://jerome23.wordpress.com Last edited by cj.23; 28th May 2012 at 03:40 PM.

28th May 2012, 03:39 PM	#195
Minarvia fading orb Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Illinois Posts: 2,222	cj.23, I'm glad you took the "retarded" comment in good humour! For me, however, I wouldn't call you retarded at all. I just have difficulty wrapping my head around the concept that anyone over the age of ten or so believe in supernatural (for lack of a better word) entities when it is, at the same time, perfectly apparent that those same people have long put away belief in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, the Boogeyman, and other such things that eventually children put away. For many like me it is the same. Believing in god/s or whatever sort of fairy-type creature is simply illogical and sometimes incomprehensible. The idea of accepting such a belief is so alien to me that truthfully, I cannot understand it. During a couple of decades when I TRIED to accept belief, I failed dismally. I just could not do it. It's good to see you again, tho! I've missed you! Uh, if you are the one who used to post about haunted houses in England? If I've mistaken you for another poster with a similar name, sorry! sheepish
	__________________ "Hercules, what is a secret?" "Why, a secret is something you tell practically everybody confidentially." Wheeler and Woolsey in "Diplomaniacs."