When Did You See the Light? II (danger:religion thread)

[laurence]

I'm just a little sad that some are so bitter and angry towards those of faith. But they don't hold a monopoly, plenty of people doing despicable things in the name of God.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Hmm, you say you have a problem accepting that its a hairball, then argue that its a hairball.

Okey dokey.

By the way, note that I dont think hairballs are bad or have any negative connotation or mean you've got some kind of problem. Just that they're a complex set of emotional, intellectual and whatnot issues that have combined to make you feel a certain way. Its not, as martha wants to say, irrational. It just is what it is.

 

[wabmester]

Hmm, you say you have a problem accepting that its a hairball, then argue that its a hairball.

Tell you what. I'll go lookup "hairball" while you go lookup "straw-man argument."

 

[astromeria]

what does Secular Humanism offer in times of grief and mourning?

Friends (if you got 'em), rationality, history, confidence that you as a human can muster the strength to go on, years of personal experience in emotional self-reliance/sturdiness, permission to cry. Also transforming your grief into active pursuits such as volunteerism, the arts, exercise, writing, posting, travel, new hobbies. Not to mention escapism.

 

[Scrooge]

I'm just a little sad that some are so bitter and angry towards those of faith.

Well, at least The Humane Society won't let them use the lions any more. Think of all the damaged claws that could result!  8)

 

[Martha]

And if I were religious, I would be offended by those posters who say "be careful, religious people have thin skins -- you'll scare them away!"

You talking about me?

I didn't quite say that.

But I don't think that having a thick skin is a virtue. It just is. And some people have a "thin skin" about what they care about a lot, especially when they perceive they are being insulted.

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . And if I were religious, I would be offended by those posters who say "be careful, religious people have thin skins -- you'll scare them away!"

I know some very intelligent "believers."  One of my college roommates went on to become a high-profile Rabbi, and I know he'd love this discussion. . .

I want to second this position. If I were religious I would be very offended by the notion that the board had to have special rules about my feelings or I would take my ball and go home. Similarly, I would be very offended if I were Zipper and were told that my questions were inappropriate for this board because some of the religious posters might get offended. In effect, this is a statement that he is less important than other posters.

People disagree with each other. We can choose to be offended and leave, we can engage, or we can ignore. This is true regardless of your beliefs.

 

[Cool Dood]

Amen

 

[Martha]

I want to second this position. If I were religious I would be very offended by the notion that the board had to have special rules about my feelings or I would take my ball and go home. Similarly, I would be very offended if I were Zipper and were told that my questions were inappropriate for this board because some of the religious posters might get offended. In effect, this is a statement that he is less important than other posters.

People disagree with each other. We can choose to be offended and leave, we can engage, or we can ignore. This is true regardless of your beliefs.

\

There are no special rules. This thread exists, doesn't it? But still, I can see why people feel offended when what they believe in is called "brainwashing", "nonsense", "bunk" and "absurd mythology," all words used in the last few posts. Is this a difference of opinion, or being insulting?

I am not religious but I have a sister who is very religious and observes all the corresponding religious practices. I would not insult her by calling what she does and what she believes in nonsense or bunk. I respect her. She also respects me . I may very well have a discussion about religion but without inflammatory words.

 

[brewer12345]

\

There are no special rules.  This thread exists, doesn't it?  But still, I can see why people feel offended when what they believe in is called "brainwashing", "nonsense", "bunk" and "absurd mythology," all words used in the last few posts.  Is this a difference of opinion, or being insulting? 

I suspect taht if I said you guys are a bunch of Gawdless heathens headed straight to tarnation, you would be offended after you got done laughing.

 

[justin]

Re: When Did You See the Light? II

I suspect taht if I said you guys are a bunch of Gawdless heathens headed straight to tarnation, you would be offended after you got done laughing.

I beat you to it.

You are all going to hell.

 

[sgeeeee]

\

There are no special rules.  This thread exists, doesn't it?  But still, I can see why people feel offended when what they believe in is called "brainwashing", "nonsense", "bunk" and "absurd mythology," all words used in the last few posts.  Is this a difference of opinion, or being insulting? 

I am not religious but I have a sister who is very religious and observes all the corresponding religious practices.  I would not insult her by calling what she does and what she believes in nonsense or bunk.  I respect her.  She also respects me . I may very well have a discussion about religion but without inflammatory words.

Okay.  I am insulted, but I choose to engage.  

Inflamatory words are not insulting to me.  They are words that convey the thoughts and feelings of someone who is trying to communicate.  They are communicating in a way that is actually very effective.  I understand their position quite well.  They are not holding any cards under the table.  I may not like their opinion.  I may become angry.  But I give them credit for being honest.

I often find "tactful" conversation to be insulting.  People in authoritative positions often think "tact" is more appropriate.  They do not tell me what they are really feeling.  Instead, they try to mask their agenda and avoid conflict.  This is dishonest.  Conflict exists and masking it in "tactful" words and phrases feels like an attempt to lie to me.  It is condescending and insulting that these people feel that their approach to conversation is superior to mine.  It, in effect, is a statement that they think that they are superior to me.  

So if I threaten to leave the boards if one more moderator trys to push their "tact" on me, will you ask posters to stop being so tactful?  

 

[Martha]

I am a follower of Miss Manners.

 

[Cool Dood]

Nah, I'm not offended by being told that my ideas are wrong, or by foul language or insults. In fact, I was going to point out that the religious folks shouldn't worry: what's a few insults, when the people saying them will go to hell?


ah, sgeeeee posted before I finished this -- what am I needed for if he's already posting!!

 

[REWahoo]

I often find "tactful" conversation to be insulting.

OK, (I want to be careful here and not insult you ), I consider threads on religion to be nothing more that "verbal masturbation", albeit with nothing approaching a satisfactory outcome. :

It is a total waste of time, no one is convinced or persuaded of anything, and the end result is a lot of people are simply rubbed the wrong way.

But go ahead, abuse amuse yourself...

 

[justin]

It is a total waste of time, no one is convinced or persuaded of anything, and the end result is a lot of people are simply rubbed the wrong way.

I don't want to hurt your feelings or oppress you in any manner, but I'd like to respectfully disagree with this statement. I learned I was a secular humanist on one of these here threads on religion.

 

[wabmester]

I consider threads on religion to be nothing more that "verbal masturbation"

Sorry, I thought this was the ER circle jerk forum.   How does this thread differ from all the other threads?

The topic at hand is when and why did you discount religious ideas.   I would think that both believers and non-believers would find that interesting, enlightening, and entertaining.

 

[Martha]

There is another forum I frequent on occasion. Everyone on it is very nice. If someone isn't nice, they are gently chided.

It was too nice for me. I prefer things here.

There are few rules here and you can be insulting if you want. Gee, I have used a well placed "screw you" on occasion. But religion is so very important to many people and is intensely personal. Not much good ever seems to come out of talking about it, especially if the points of view are "you must accept Jesus" vs. "you are stupid." Greg has these ongoing arguments with a religious friend. They can be close to mean to each other. Eventually there will be a blow up and they won't be friends anymore. Or they will quit talking about religion.

I'll leave this thread alone. You guys can talk about how you saw the light all you want.

I agree with Wahoo.

 

[Martha]

How does this thread differ from all the other threads?

Interesting choice of words.

 

[wabmester]

Interesting choice of words.

Martha, quit slurping your matzah-ball soup.

 

[Martha]

Martha, quit slurping your matzah-ball soup.

Wab, can you quit playing with yourself and look at my computer question? Pleeeeease?

 

[sgeeeee]

OK, (I want to be careful here and not insult you ),

Is that true? or are you trying to be tactful. If you don't care whether you insult me or not, I would rather you come out and say so.

I consider threads on religion to be nothing more that "verbal masturbation", albeit with nothing approaching a satisfactory outcome. :

Then if I were you, I would not participate. The fact that you do not find them satisfactory does not mean that others do not. Do you believe that your own feelings are more valid or superior to others'?

It is a total waste of time, no one is convinced or persuaded of anything, and the end result is a lot of people are simply rubbed the wrong way.

As opposed to countless other threads? or as opposed to countless other conversations in life? . . .

Do you imagine that your post I am currently commenting on will change my view? Do you think that you have a superior, better informed position about conversation than I do?

My guess is that you do -- that, in fact, you and Martha and probably many others feel like my view about discussion board dialogue is inferior -- possible simple minded or stupid. I find that a little insulting. But I won't threaten to leave the board over it. And I don't expect to change your fundamental views either.

So why would I even offer my opinion? Well . . . it had an effect that I think is positive. You and Martha backed off. Zipper found some reason to continue to post. Our board is a little more diverse today than it would have been.

But go ahead, abuse amuse yourself...

Thank-you. You do the same.

 

[REWahoo]

You and Martha backed off.

I backed off from where/what?

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Wab, can you quit playing with yourself and look at my computer question? Pleeeeease?

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Re: When Did You See the Light? II

Thanks for hijacking the original topic and subject. It was a great thread -- I was really enjoying it while it lasted. 

if it makes ya feel any better, the jacked thread apparently got threadjacked.