Sometimes we all sound silly.

[cosmik debris]

Have you come to grips with the notion that sometimes you sound silly.

There are a lot of different beliefs/non beliefs represented in the R/T forum. What sounds perfectly rational to one person sounds ridiculous to another.

Are you comfortable with the understanding that your grasp of universal truth sounds like delusion to others? How does it make you feel to know that people you would respect, and who would respect you, would think that you are loony-toons when the subject of religion comes up?

We are all on the opposite side from someone. Does it bother you to know that there are some very wise people who think you are a nut case?

[Lerkfish]

1. Does it bother you?

:shrug:

[cyborg_jim]

2. No, it doesn't bother me that nutcases think I'm a nutcase

:D

[Lerkfish]

3. ah, so this is a HELPFUL thread meant to patch differences and come to a common

ground of understanding, then.

[cosmik debris]

4. No,

This is a thread to reinforce your paranoia.

[left is right]

6. I'm chuckling

:rofl:

[Lerkfish]

11. because I asked you the same question you asked in the thread?

:shrug:

[cosmik debris]

18. And it worked. n/t

[Lerkfish]

19. in what way? you accuse me of being paranoid for asking you your own question?

So your intent, as stated here, was intentional flamebait?

please explain if I'm misunderstanding you here.

[cosmik debris]

22. The point of the OP was to get to the bottom

Of how people act when they are considered to be silly. You seem to have showed that you act very defensively. (similar to paranoia, but I exaggerated for effect) It seems apparent that you are not comfortable with the notion that other people might think you are silly. That is what the OP was about. Thank you for your input.

[Lerkfish]

24. to ask you your same question back to you is being defensive?

the nature of your OP seemed to be that we all act silly, and shouldn't be offended if others call us nutcases. That begs the question if you yourself would be okay with that result.

not sure why that's paranoid or offensive.

In fact, it appears you are the one uncomfortable with the question, since you have attacked me personally for asking it?

[cosmik debris]

27. Every post you have made is an attack on the subject of the OP

You haven't given an answer, you just attack the concept. So, YES that is quite defensive.

As for me, I'm like the old whore, I don't give a fuck for nothing.

Now will you answer truthfully or keep attacking. The more you attack the more it proves that you are quite uncomfortable with the knowledge that some people think you are a nut job.

[Lerkfish]

28. my posts have been attacking? really? in what way?

I don't view them as attacks at all.

The point of your OP was that we should all feel universally about being called names. I asked if that applied to you, as well. I don't think that's an attack, that's a question to determine to the extent you meant that observation.

For what its worth, I've not been offended in this thread yet. :shrug:
I've been trying to understand the logic of the OP and subsequent posts by asking questions.

I've asked a moderator to point out exactly where I've gone against rules in this thread, because frankly I can't see where I have.

My answer to the question is that MANY bright people might think I'm delusional for my religious beliefs, that neither makes me delusional nor excuses the action, nor does it make them less bright. It only points to a difference of opinion on how the universe is ordered.
If I can accept with respect atheism, then is that out of line to request the same?

[cosmik debris]

30. WOW! You know more about the OP than its author

You are really smart! Thanks for telling me what I wrote. I couldn't make it without you.

(oh, and by the way, you got it wrong)

And nobody accused you of breaking rules. So why did you ask the mods to help you? Paranoid perhaps?

[Lerkfish]

32. I could have gotten the point of the OP incorrect...but even so, how is

asking the same question back to you paranoid, defensive or an attack?

So far, the only people I see here making ad hominem attacks are you and cyborg jim.

:shrug:

I asked the mods to look ONLY at my behaviour in the thread, I asked them NOT to lock the thread or do anything like that, but to tell me if how I'm posting is unacceptable for this forum.

I've left this forum before, and this is one of my first forays back. I'm trying to determine if how I post means I shouldn't post here at all.

For the life of me, though, I've read and reread my posts in this thread, and I see nothing wrong with them. If the mods think there is something wrong with them, then that would mean I'm incorrect to be here at all, and would politely leave you guys to your forum.

I'd prefer to be able to discuss, in a civil way, religion and theology, the name of the forum, with various points of view. If that seems not to be a possible avenue, then I'll tip my hat and go.

If the mods feel my posts are out of line, then I am obviously illsuited to be here at all.

[cyborg_jim]

33. Point out an ad hominem

I have made no such attacks.

[Lerkfish]

35. sorry, I added some to the post you posted to.

the additional edit might be helpful.

[cyborg_jim]

38. It doesn't really answer my question.

I don't see you doing anything unacceptable, but then I haven't used an ad hominems either.

[Lerkfish]

39. my mistake, then.

[cosmik debris]

41. And I think I was right.

No one even implied that your posts were out of line. That is something you dreamed up in your own head.

But let's look at your posts.

Your first post dodged the question and changed the subject to deflect attention from your feelings.

Your second post was a snarky shot at Jim.

Your third post was another attempt to deflect attention and avoid an answer.

Your next post was another snarky shot at Jim.

Your next post was a snarky shot at H&E.

Do I need to go on? It is clear that you were trying hard to deflect the attention from your own discomfort in the knowledge that some people think you are a nut case. I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope you will get over it soon.

[Silent3]

50. My paranoia needs no reinforcement.

It's already heavily reinforced to keep them from breaking in. No, they won't get in and get me.

Even though they keep trying.

Night and day so I can never get any sleep!

And why does your avatar keep staring at me like that!?

[cyborg_jim]

5. No, I'm saying that you shouldn't be bothered and if you are bothered then don't discuss your ideas

It is that simple really.

[More Than A Feeling]

8. Or change those ideas.

Otherwise I completely agree.

[Lerkfish]

13. Unless someone is willing to adopt your worldview and change their ideas, they cannot discuss?

:shrug:

[cyborg_jim]

15. What would be the point?

An exercise in frustration?

I've got to at least assume that those who espouse their various theological and philosophical views do so with a view to persuading other people of the correctness of them otherwise what would be the point?

[More Than A Feeling]

17. They can, but if they bring out certain ideas, those ideas

will be criticized, and that criticism might bother them. If they got new ideas, perhaps either the new ones won't be criticized, or the criticism will not bother the person.

[Lerkfish]

20. thanks.

the only problem is the assumption that if someone is bothered, they exist in a vaccum where they are bothering themselves.
Calling them a nutcase is not even partially the responsibility of the person calling them a nutcase at all, under that assumption.

[cyborg_jim]

21. Once you've learnt that it's going to happen and you cannot hope to control other people then yes

[Lerkfish]

25. ok. In your scenario it is impossible to say anything insulting as long as it reflects previous

practice.

no responsibility for civil discourse can be laid at your feet, just at everyone else's feet if they are uncomfortable with uncivil discourse?

[cyborg_jim]

26. That is entirely a misrepresentation of what I said. Try reading it again.

I said you can only be responsible for your REACTION. If your reaction is negative, you know it's going to be negative, you know you can't stop other people from producing that reaction and you know doing what you do will produce that reaction then by Zeus Almighty DON'T FUCKING DO IT.

There's no point talking about my actions in this regard is there? If you lay responsibility at my feet and I refuse to acknowledge it what are you going to do? In the context of the forum you ask the mods, if the mods don't share your view then you are SOL on this forum. That's just the way it is.

[Lerkfish]

29. what I'm getting at, is responsibility for civil discourse.

civil discourse requires that everyone has a certain responsibility to behave in a civil manner. That is not the same thing as everyone is required to be unoffended by any remark whatsoever or they have to leave.

[cyborg_jim]

31. If people choose to equate the two then what?

How do you define civil?

You aren't solving the issue here - you're just pushing it into another concept.

[Lerkfish]

12. so, unless someone has the same desensibility as you they have no right to discuss?

you're right, that does sound pretty simple.

[More Than A Feeling]

14. He's saying that the proper way to avoid being bothered

(if criticism of your ideas inevitably bothers you) is not to complain about your ideas being criticized, but rather not to bring them out for criticism. Otherwise, people will criticize, and the bothering will continue.

[Lerkfish]

23. thanks

but that sets up a scenario where a group of people, intentionally incendiary, through attrition drive away anyone who might be bothered.

As an extreme example, If a thread is intentionally bigoted, and an african american is bothered by it, under your scenario, the african american is entirely at fault and should leave.

Is the character of discourse determined by survival of the most offensive? In the end, only those desensitized to offense and offensive enough to drive away others would remain, and that would be the result of that dynamic.

[More Than A Feeling]

34. Your example is not instructive at all.

Your religious identity is not the same thing as someone's identity as an African-American. Ideas are not the same thing as in-born traits. You choose to bind your identity to ideas. Those ideas are open for criticism, and it is also possible that someone will judge your choice to continue bind your identity in that way. It doesn't make sense to criticize skin color, and there is no such thing as choosing said skin color. Moreover, you are comparing a majority religious ideas to a minority skin color, which you may or may not have intended to suggest a similar experience of persecution, but if you did, it would be a false comparison.

You do not address the possibility that criticism of binding your identity to ideas, and criticism of those ideas, might be well within the boundaries of appropriate discussion, and that claiming otherwise is an attempt to shield that choice and those ideas from the possibility that they might be wrong.

[Lerkfish]

36. very nice post.

thanks.

you picked up on the wrong part of the analogy, however. I was making a point about discussion dynamics. The racial identity was superfluous to the point.

[More Than A Feeling]

42. Thank you. It was a necessary prelude, to the points I will now bring up.

If I hadn't addressed the difference between racial identity and religious identity, I'd be open to accusations of tolerating racism, which I emphatically do not. Because I think that criticism of religious ideas is justified. Also, don't you see how choosing to espouse religious ideas, and which ones are chosen, says something about a person? Since there is no evidence for any supernatural ideas (which is implicitly admitted when people say that they take the idea of gods on faith), espousing them anyway says that evidence wasn't a deciding factor in making the decision. Now, wouldn't you agree that criticism of removing evidence as a deciding factor is, far from being "incendiary", an easily justified thing if you can make the case that it is better to consider evidence?

That having been said, if person chooses to take offense at that, they are blaming the other person for their choice. They ought, instead, to consider whether their choice was the right one to make. If they shut down the discourse because they would rather take offense, then is that justified? Certainly they have the right to do it, but should we praise them for it?

[Lerkfish]

45. It depends greatly on how it is discussed, in my opinion.

I think most people have no problem with an atheist saying they know that a religious person bases their beliefs on faith rather than facts, and that they disagree with that.
Or with saying they think that evidence should be the deciding factor in assessing what is true. Or that they think because a religious person doesn't choose to do that, that they feel religion is not true in their world view.

There is a difference between that, and saying religious people are delusional, nutcases, etc.
Do you understand the difference?

[More Than A Feeling]

47. I agree, they aren't likely to start a rational discussion.

They aren't worth leaving over, either. "Atheist Fundamentalist" and "Atheist Evangelical" haven't driven anyone away that I know of.

[cyborg_jim]

16. When did 'rights' come into this?

I'm just pointing out the facts: if you can't do it you're going to get upset. Therefore don't get surprised when you get upset.

It IS fucking obvious and simple and yet people go around pretending like it's not the case.

[moggie]

7. That's true

I'd also like to point out that we all have areas where we're stupid. I've worked at universities for years, and come into contact with many academics who are brilliant in their own areas, and undoubtedly more intelligent than me overall (if that's a meaningful concept) - and yet, they're frequently as dumb as rocks in some ways (ask anyone who has worked in university IT support). So if I regard a particular belief of a particular individual as spectacularly dumb, I try to keep in mind that that doesn't write off the whole person as an idiot. Unless they like country and western, of course.

[More Than A Feeling]

9. Not at all, because I understand that other people have standards that I don't accept

so I have no problem at all not taking it personally when they come to a different determination than I do. Now whose standard is better is an entirely separate question, and that's something that can be rationally discussed.

[Goblinmonger]

10. A good point and I have no problem with it.

I realize that others might think me crazy. Doesn't bother me at all. We can discuss it and try to make sure that our descriptions make as much sense as possible and go from there.

I am also very clear about the fact that if I meant 99% of the people in this forum in a bar--including those I go back and forth with the most about religion/theology--that we would have a great old time kicking back a couple cocktails and shootint the shit. I think that gets lost for a lot of people, too. Now, I certainly have a much shorter list of those people that I am going to try and go out of my way to make it happen that I get to meet, but don't we all.

[mudesi]

37. But certain things ARE true. It doesn't sound delusional, it IS

There are certain things that are true, no matter what anybody believes.

True: Earth is round and revolves around the sun.
False: Earth is flat and is sitting on top of an infinite stack of turtles.

If someone believes Earth is flat and sitting on top of a stack of turtles, that person is delusional. I don't care what said person believes, or what rights said person has to have those beliefs, or how many times said person repeats such a belief. The person is wrong, period.


I've given other examples in the past, but I think the point is made.

[Lerkfish]

40. perhaps the issue is on things that are unprovable either way as true.

1. God exists
2. God does not exist.

or

1. the universe created itself
2. God or some deity created it

I don't think whether the earth is round is a hard sell to people at this point.

:)

[cyborg_jim]

43. The problem is that it is possible to create situations that allow the Earth to be flat

This is why parsimony is an important concept - just because you can create such a situation doesn't mean you should. Choosing the simplest is the only logical way to go - choosing any other explanation is going to involve a less reasonable axiomatic choice.

That is the problem with the whole 'god' thing - all definitions that allow it to exist in a tangible way get it ruled out and ontological definitions just make god a synonym for something else and hence untouchably true and therefore useless as a definitive indicator of existence.

[mudesi]

46. A good point regarding the existence of God

Whether or not God exists depends mostly on one's definition of "God". But certain religious tenets are categorically false, yet still people believe them to this day. For example, whether or not Jesus walked on water. Even today, it seems quite hard to sell the reality that he did not.

[cosmik debris]

44. But the original question is

How does it make you feel to know that some very wise people stridently disagree with you on religious topics. Some people even think you are a nut case. So what is your reaction. Dodge the subject? Attack the question? Talk about the flat Earth?

[Random_Australian]

48. Are you trying to tell me that there is something wrong with bieng delusional,

if it doesn't meet the DSM-IV criteria? (ie. distance from social norms, danger to self or others, distress to person, dsyfunction in their daily lives)

:mad:

I don't like it when people claim nasty things about people with mental health isssues. :nuke:

Although, to be fair, you haven't yet said so you might be a not-bastard. :) I hope so. :rofl:

[bananas]

49. The smoker you drink, the player you get.