Why I, and Others, Constantly Rail Against Religion

I just had a ciggie (they make me smarter because they represent a pause) and I want to add a few important things:

1) Saying the history comment wasn't a slight is simply false. Upon reconsideration it was and because it's unfounded (due to the nature of History itself) I retract and apologize.

2) I do not dispute that you had valid qualm with ILZ. I've said as much to him personally.

3) As an aside, we (you and I) butt heads a lot, but while it's hard to explain, that's a good thing by my estimation.

Were that the case, than you yourself here substantiate a contention that you criticize me more than does anyone else.



It certainly does detract from your point, as you are attempting to contend that i "follow him around." You have no basis for such a contention. I read probably 15 to 20 times as many threads as i respond to, which includes a lot of political threads, and means i read ILZ's posts on nearly a daily basis. I don't respond to them with any such frequency, and after the exchange in which i accused him (and i have no problem with acknowledging it as an accusation) of a racist attitude toward Arabs, i avoided reading his posts, and threads concerned with the Palestinian/Jewish troubles, so as not to be in slanging matches with him, or any of the others who post in such threads when i feel its all been said, and that would be needless heartache.



No, but your characterization suggests that such behavior on my part is habitual.



That was not my point, and i suspect you know that. My point was that it is lame as humor, and it will wound without regard for the attempt. Hence, my suggestion that maturity would lead one to be more careful about such remarks.



And likely to elicit a response in kind, when done gratuitously. ILZ's nastiness toward JBB was not the product of comments by her upon his character as speciously deduced from his expressed beliefs.




I frankly think that is a lie. I think the intent was to wound if possible, and the language: "What of your own obsession spewing out historical diatribes paraphrased from books on threads where they have little relevance? Or your self-proclaimed status as resident French expert where if anyone dares use a word of French you try to assert said title belligerently?"--of this entire paragraph is one of acid contempt.



This statement is unclear as to whether your alleging that in said thread i made myself out to be an expert, or whether i acknowledged my ignorance, but it is of small import, as it is secondary to a charge that i make myself out to be an expert on the French language, which i have not done.



When, for example, i translated the text of the proposed legislation in France bearing upon the wearing of "religious symbols," which Walter had provided (and in a part of which he corrected a mistake of mine, without any objection from me), precisely whom do you consider to have been on any "end" from which there might be said to have arisen a perspective of an injured party? If you have a specific example in mind, that would help.



That is a gratuitous inferential criticism of the style of my writing, and without support from a specific text. I've not characterized my criticism of ILZ here as any kind of courtesy, it was intend to be harsh, because of the thoughtless manner in which he made a snide remark (and later made more) which i suspect were only humorous to him, and which were intended to wound, or at the least draw an angry retort or a complaint.



The irony is in your mind--as i've noted, i intended to be harsh with ILZ because that harshness arose first in his either thoughtless or intentionally wounding remark.



Certainly, as i've said twice now, that was my intent. When he has taken the gloves off in dealing with other posters, and in particular one who is new, and cannot be said to have offered any direct, personal insult to him, in either this thread, or any others--then i feel as justified in taking off the gloves myself. Or was i to have demonstrated my nobility with lofty tones of sad regret at a foolish joke? As i've said, i fairly well considered it at the outset a form of humor, at least to his mind. I also have said, and stand by the statement, that he intended it to wound. It is precisely because he is evidently educated and articulate that i consider this to be the most likely explanation.



And saying it in a tone of biting contempt, with language once again of disdain. I cannot believe that there is any "history" of exchange between JBB and ILZ which warrants such hostility, which leads me to . . .



I am aware of the meaning of the word. I am also aware of the common usage of the entire phrase used, "you and your ilk," and it was the entire phrase which i hold in contempt. In the context and tenor of the entire post, it was used contemptuously, and absent any good reason for the contempt, as, once again, i see no evidence of JBB offering direct, personal insult, nor even to have engaged in a political slanging match.



As i've now mentioned several times, my intent was to give ILZ what he had given others, and you might also refer back to my statement about "taking off the gloves." I am gratified, however, to think that you garnered at least some small amusement.





That is completely false, there were two related incidents in two separate threads. Two does not constitute many.



No, in fact this is false. You wrote: "You've been doing this for some time now, ever since you thought he was a Jew based on his username and found out you were wrong about that." You did not write that i had assumed (which i have no problem acknowledging i briefly did) based upon a percieved (on my part) belief that he had a racist prejudice against Arabs. It is purely speculation on your part to state, without further qualification that i assumed he is a Jew based solely upon his username, which is the burden of your sentence as you wrote and as i quote it within this paragraph. When that subject did finally come up, i stated that my perception was based upon his remarks in another thread. I may have also referred to his username at that time, i don't recall--but the source of my judgment was his post in another thread, and i said as much at the time.



And again, the only irony i see is that you seem to expect a highter standard of discourse from me than from ILZ in this slanging match, which he began with a gratuitously callous "joke."



I've no quibble with that, either to say i set upon him (my intent), or that you have set upon me (what i suspect is your intent). My point is that you are conveniently ignoring the very nasty tone he adopted, and well before i put my oar in.



That frequency is not demonstrable. I waxed sarcastic with him about his "i am god" signature line. And then there is this exchange. One swallow does not a summer make. This is the enumeration of favorable circumstances once again. When i commented upon his signature line taken from the odd member we briefly had, because of the earlier exchange, i was at pains to assure that he knew that i was not making a sarcastic comment. He seemed to take it in good humor at the time, and i was frankly surprised to see him bring it up here, as it seemed not to bother him at the time.



I have no problem with that. As i've said so many times now, that was my intent--to serve him as he had served others.



I am sincerely gratified that you would say you respect me. I rather see this in the "this is gonna hurt me more than it does you" light, however, of saying that you're making your comments for my own good.



And let us hope that we both do.



How charming, i thought as much.



Actually, i wasn't suggesting that this is the most common way that you respond to me. It seems that you are likely often to do it with others. As for a citation, i've provided exactly as many citations from other threads to support my complaint against you as you have in your complaint against me--which is to say, none.

Such a statement is not easy to make, i appreciate it, and applaud your candor.



I think so too, and although i have often had a paranoid feeling about those occasions, i brush them off soon enough. Which is not as in having no respect for your expressed opinions, but rather, as in "getting on with it." With regard to my most recent response about your comment on history, i think it fair for us to consider it null.

Think I need to take up smoking again.......dammit.

If smoking were to be asserted to lead to good fellowship, based upon said comment, could one then suggest that CdK is "killing himself with kindness?"

Oh - he knows that.

But the post-ciggie thoughts were pretty damned fine, eh?

Perhaps if we could convert him to lollies, such as mine?

I would go along with you, had i not spent thousands of dollars at the end of last year on dental work. Perhaps sugarless gum . . .

Smoking has this retroactive appeal, sigh.

I have to ask, as I am sort of a polar opposite to jbb in view but similar, perhaps, in sincerity and could be taken to post the same way. I post sincerely, trying to express my views, if not effectively... and rarely engage in what I think of as even the beginning steps of rigorous debate. My interest is really centered on figuring out what it is I am thinking myself, rather than convincing anyone else. I do get into discussing, but no, not with rigor.

I have seen that sometimes my posts are out of order, a result of not being able to stop my fingers in time when debating points were pingponging, but I have not understood that my lacking-in-debate posts were unwelcome in this forum generally.

Ah, but if they are, I guess I'd like to hear it.


Edit, no, that's not true, I don't want to hear it. Besides, I am in a learning state. I may debate a point or two one of these days.

Uh, such as that it is religion that is evil, and not just some of its legions.
I don't agree with that - though I understand ILZ's arriving at that take on it. Guess I should mull and come back and argue it.

Osso,

I've no qualm with people who do not wish to debate, only with people who do not wish to be challenged.

The nature of some opinions is such that chanllenge is inevitable.

To use Christianity as an example, it is a belief that I and other atheists will burn forever.

Asserting a belief in Christianity is, in indirect fashion, to say I believe you atheists will burn in hell forever.

So while one might not wish to debate it, which is their prerogative, they can't expect their wish to avoid debate to result in nobody challenging the belief.

If they really do not wish to debate it they do not have to. But they don't also get to determine that nobody else can dissent.

e.g.

Person A: "I don't wish to argue but I think women are stupid."

Person B challenges the position.

Person A can neglect to support it, that is his prerogative. But that does not mean nobody should challenge it.

Persons who do not wish to debate don't have to, even if someone has the audacity to challenge the position. If those persons also wish for their opinion not to be challenged then I think they have an unreasonable expectation (especially with polemic subjects).

truth
I'm with you, Osso. My major purpose is to know what I think, and to see if I can articulate such thoughts accurately--and maybe sometimes clearly. I need the sincere oppositional intelligence of others to provide me with a mirror by which I can see my positions more objectively or critically.
BTW, I'm surprised to see Craven's characterization of Setanta. Perhaps I have not witnessed his performance in enough forums, but my exposure to his style of intellectual interaction, for quite a while now, has led me to see him as a thoughtful and considerate A2Ker.

Thanks, Osso, for expressing my own feelings on debate threads. Are we not welcome because we don't care to debate, but to try to understand other's thoughts and ideas?

If debating means posts that go on forever, with egos in the forefront, then perhaps it is best not to participate for fear that the thread will continue ad nauseum without any further educational information.

Yeah. (edit, to say this yeah was to Craven..)


Trying to remember back...

It is odd, I am one of the only people who speaks up as an atheist on a2k who didn't doubt early on. I finally left it all when I was about 22. And I had your classic irish catholic in america '50's experience, which I claim is quite particular in the details, and the fears. So... I am trying to remember if I actually really thought people who didn't believe would burn in hell. I can't even picture it now. Isn't the brain wonderful?

I think now that I never really thought that, accepting it conceptually as that I should accept it. Conceptually. But my doubts, such as they were zeroed in on the eucharist, I always had to make giant leaps there.

I had difficulty when I was urged, since I wanted to be a doctor, to join the Maryknoll nuns, unusual in that they did train women as doctors. Damn, I didn't want to do that, and not just because I was afraid of jungles and spiders. Or that I didn't have a sense of celibacy that wasn't frightening.
I didn't want to do sales...
I am still not a sales person (check my art gallery sales.)

When I was religious, I really did wish others well in a certain probably condescending way from my point of view now, not meant at the time.

So there is where I separate from ILZ's point of view (and I often agree with him). I did think loving mankind was good, and thought love meant wishing well for people. And I had no personal proselytizing zeal, none. So, while I disagree with my old self on matters of belief, I don't think I was evil then, or that my church mentors were. Beknighted, perhaps, but not evil.

You probably have heard my tale of a great crowd pleaser being a friend of my family - the priest who lead the rosary crusade. He was a good person.
edit to add - that Father Peyton was essentially a peacemaker. I know that if I just heard about him now I would twirl my finger around my ear to indicate craziness, but the man at our dining table was a person who loved and worked for peace.

I have another atheist friend, one of my Smart Ass Group of girlfriends (SAG). She told me a bunch of years ago that she didn't hate religion anymore. (She has a similar background to me.) That it helps many people, comforts many, in good ways, that it isn't all bad. And I agree with her.

And see that this sounds condescending too, to someone who believes, just as my old views would have, to someone who didn't.

Hmm - I think most churches have got rid of the burn in hell thing, haven't they?

I am not sure that the fierce debating becessarily means egos in the forefront, does it? I kept reading that as eggs, by the way!

I think that is a rather dismissive way of characterizing robust debate!

Not that I deny the presence of the egos.......I have far too much of one myself to deny that!
stirred some of this up, so I will say that, in commenting to JBB that I believed she was unwise to try te eschew debate in a debate forum I was reacting only to her post in which she said that - not to the context in which she said it.

Of course we can develop and exchange ideas in a gentler way - but, as Craven says, our ideas will certainly be open to challenge - and there is little profit in complaining about it - especially in the "polemic' areas, as CDK also said.

I am a chimaera - since I enjoy both styles - so I guess I react to a particular learning/exchange manner being dismissed as ego with annoyance.

I think both are great - but I know I learn more, in the end, from the rough and tumble - especially with a doughty opponent.

I guess bruises are ineviatble - and duels where the foil becomes unfoiled - but I enjoy the sharpening of my wits and beliefs.

typos seem inevitable, also.

Hmmm - it seems we may be in for another round of meta-debate about the nature of debate?

Well, as a debate watcher, I see a lot of flames happening that I don't take as all that useful for my own particular learning. If either Craven or Setanta took after me I might turn into a potato chip. I like, even love, both of them. All right, enough of that. There is a certain zoning in that happens in debate, on a2k - I don't see it done elsewhere in life and really like being exposed to debate here - that sometimes appears to the less surly as fairly rude.

Dlowan, you do put your fists up sometimes, I watch you and learn. I don't think in all your posts I have ever seen you be rude. Ok, once or twice out of, what is it, 14,000?

"In moments of frivolity I can think of many who shouldn't be allowed to breed. Women for example."-Craven

A touch of mysogyny should get this thread going again.

What, it was dead?

Craven loves women, he is just in denial again.

Fourteen thousand, I thought I was safe, but no, it's 18,000 and counting. Good grief.

I guess I have to ask what meta means, now that there is this digressive pause in the contretemps. I see you folks use it and surmise that it means a jump to overview or somesuch, but I dunno.

And I don't know what most churches teach now about hell. I was taught about it as straightahead hell.