Atheism

You wanted it one way (treating the priest seriously or believing the priest & treating God as a being) which enabled you to criticise God, but avoid the same basis (saying you don't believe the bible or that God exists) in response to a challenge to your criticism.

Criticism of 'God' isn't the problem. The issue I commented on is found in the difference between what (the basis that) allowed you to criticise, and how you denounced (essentially) the same basis when challenged.

Jesus Christ you sure read a lot into that.

I know what the priest said because I heard it. I thought he was an asshole in general. I don't believe gods are real until some evidence is given of them, I believe the bible is one of the most ridiculous and poor written books ever, and I believe you took whatever I said and made up a story about who/what I believed and went with it.

But you didn't ask me what I thought about the priest, did you?

I am really not interested in listening to any more of your tales about what you have decided I did or didn't mean about anything. You're just thinking up words and typing them out.

I'm not sure where you think I was challenged, or if I was, that I was responding.

I made a stand alone comment. Period, end of subject. Anything added to that is entirely in your mind. Surely you don't think I was inviting any discussion with LL, who beats even you with string words together, going farther and farther from what was said.

You bore me.
That's not a criticism, it's a statement of fact of how I think of you, and I'm not responding any more.

You are on a forum - any contentious statements can be responded to, whether we want them to be, or not. Expecting otherwise doesn't seem realistic.

I didn't see the Netflix show you watched, but my rule of thumb in these matters is when a religious figure (Priest, Rabbi, Snakehandling Demi-god, Shaman, Cult-leader, Protestant minister, Guru, Imam) attempts to justify monstrous acts as 'God testing us' I have to call Bullshit.

Just because someone is supposed to be a church/temple/mosque person of importance or faith leader doesn't guarantee they actually understand the church/temple/mosque laws....Sometimes they interpret via their own biases, and sometimes their biases are seriously demented.

I have no interest in encouraging or discouraging others into or out of a belief system.......and I really wish others wouldn't swoop in with insulting corrections of other peoples reactions to something they have viewed or experienced. Apparently a few here on A2k find it impossible to simply absorb other peoples opinions about religious differences without proselytizing. You really need to dial it back, in my humble opinion.

P.S. Please don't respond by telling me what I really should have said is blahblahblah.......I know what blahblahblahblah is, and if thats what I meant to say I would have freaking said it.

We are both on a forum: I'm not sure why you are so intent on correcting Chai....In my opinion, she is also able to express an opinion and although you might not agree..most people understand that listening to different opinions is all part of the grand scheme of things....I understand her frustration with the priest, what I doin't understand is why you see it as contentious??? What I see is one person expressing an opinion and another (you) swooping in to berate her opinion. She wasn't contentious, she was energized....you didn't respond to a question..because there wasn't a question....you seem to feel it's your job to guide her into the proper state of grace.....that was not a good look for you and usually I enjoy reading your observations. However, if you find it necessary to instruct others in the ways of religion, I wish you well on this path to frustration.

So intent? I gave one criticism regarding how she criticised. She misunderstood what I wrote, then asked what I meant, so I clarified - it seems strange to me that one can interpret that as 'so intent'.

Very close to my opinion.

Err...hmmm. I didn't think I was instructing her regarding religion. I was commenting on a double standard in the use of similar 'evidence' (to both criticise & avoid justifying the criticism).

Out of curiosity, you do know I'm not Christian right? And that I've criticised many aspects of the Bible? And to me, God 'might' exist, but may not - and either way I see as fine? (I've said these sorts of things many times in these forums, hence why I ask if you know - we obviously each see only a minor percentage of each others posts)

I believe that may have been what you intended do, but (since we are on a forum) I thought I could tell you how it appears to me. As far as your statement "I was commenting on a double standard in the use of similar 'evidence' (to both criticise & avoid justifying the criticism)." all I can tell you is that I didn't see it as you did.

Fair enough.

You cling to that name-calling theme like a drowning man with a lifesaver. I have never attempted to portray myself as the voice of sweet, dispassionate reason. You play like that's all that you're doing, when in fact you are at the very least, inferentially attacking the member you are criticizing by implying that they are either not intelligent enough, or not honest enough to have posted what you allege they really meant. That's you did with Chai, and I've seen you do it repeatedly with LL lately. That's why I specifically said that you employ a sneering sophistry. The sneer is obvious, the sophistry comes when you assert a superior grasp of logic which is only alleged, and not real.

So no, I'm not projecting. I've seen these behaviors in your postings many, many times. Of course, you're usually not the least interested in the topic, but only in demonstrating your superior grasp of logic, of forensic expression. You command no superior ability with either.

In my stupid opinion (IMSO), expecting a minimum of comprehension from her audience was where Chai was perhaps unrealistic. She should have known that many people here love misunderstanding a little bit too much...

There was no hypocricy. She wasn't criticizing a god that she doesn't believe in. She was criticizing a particular theology that she sees as particularly 'fucked up'. That's all, and it's very simple.

I trust this clears all misundersdanding.

Oh wait... that'd be against the rules! I take it back.

And yet, despite the many, many times you've thrown hate & vitriol my way over many years...I haven't descended to your level of name calling. Same for any others who have done the same to my posts...if I was 'playing' (read by me as 'pretending'), then the 'facade' would have crumbled by now.

The simple fact is - I don't see any reason to rise to your hate baiting, or that of anyone else. You call it 'playing'. I call it simply knowing who I am. Hence why you will find my behaviours to be consistent.

One of the least helpful perspectives the west has come to is considering any criticism to be attacking. I see no issue in offering criticism if it is accompanied by explanation.


Unfortunately there is more than one such lengthy conversation with LL. Intelligence isn't the issue though - he's obviously quite articulate. 'Not honest enough to post what he really meant hasn't been an issue with him either. Self honesty though, has been an issue in a specific context (avoiding facts/concepts/issues that are inconvenient to his beliefs and the likes).

'The sneer' you see, appears to me to be you projecting your own issue onto others, apparently because in your world you cannot imagine criticism that does not involve a sneer.

Again you are projecting. If I wasn't interested in the topic I wouldn't be reading the thread (this should be utterly obvious)...but I find double standards (and the like) very interesting, so I comment on them. I don't think though that any criticism should be given without explanation.

The many times I've thrown hate and vitriol your way? That's pure drama queen. I saw years ago how hate-filled you are, and I've largely ignored you ever since. That "poor, poor, pitiful me" routine is pure bullshit. Your "explanations" are exactly why I accuse you of sneering sophistry--you speak down to people as though they were not particularly bright dogs in a dog-loving community. The jolly critic routine is bullshit, and it inferentially claims that your interlocutors are not very bright, or are willfully dishonest. The sneer comes when you speak to others in a condescending manner, as though they were children. There's no projection there--something with which you seem to be obsessed.

If you really were interested in the topic, and remained aware of what it was, you would not have been sneering at Chai and using your schoolmarm didactic tone with her when she objected to the theological crapola that LL was using when she produced one of her typical word salads which assumes the existence of a deity. You're a mess, and now I'm sure you'll whine about name-calling again.

Well, I didn't truly think anything I said was going to sway your view, so I'm not overly surprised by your response.

How wonderful for you--you've managed to put everyone in a little box of your choosing. You claim that it's obvious that you're interested in the topic, yet though this thread is more than ten years old, you suddenly show up to practice your sophistry. I don't see you attempting to convince anyone of anything, I just see you taking cheap shots at people. You told Chai what her motives were, and inferentially that she had been deceitful. These are things you cannot possibly know, which is why I say you are practicing sophistry. You advance a fallacious argument, based on an unfounded assumption. But you can preen your ego on your civility, because you only insult people indirectly. Like talking about my hatefulness, all while whining about name-calling. As I already observed, you're a nasty piece of work, and pompous and snotty into the bargain.

And now you're repeating yourself.

Yes, intentionally--it's called making a point, and does not involve phony psychoanalysis or falsely ascribing motives to others.

I’m glad Set that you said what it was V was doing in his comments to me, because I couldn’t make heads or tails of it.

How he did that I really don’t care.

Oliver gave me a real aha moment saying how some make an art of accidentally on purpose misunderstanding.

What a waste of time that is. And to me, as boring as a 5000 piece jigsaw puzzle. All that work and exasperation for what? A picture of a wombat or something? That’s what it feels like. All this subterfuge for what? Nothing.

Of course, it also distracts from the cogent point you were making about the bizarre, in fact rather sick theology of "divine forgiveness."

Isn't it a bit like the joke where a guy hits his own hand with a hammer again and again? Then another guy comes along and asks: "why are you doing that???" The first guy says: "Because it feels sooo good when I stop it."

Or like God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself.