shewolfnm wrote:J-B ->
I love your thought proccess...
But above and beyond the petty - im right your wrong- mentality that is EVERYWHERE on the board, I just dont CARE what people believe.
Because they do not live my life for me. They do not reside in MY skin.. so why does one persons beliefs, or even WHy they believe what they do matter to any of us?
beliefs are a personal choice, and part of ones private life.
Believe it or not, i am a very religious person.
You would never get that from my posts. Simply because I stick to the idea of " private choice, private life"
Thank you, shewolf, and I do believe that you are a very religious person. You might be surprised at how much your spirituality comes through in some of your posts.
Oh I agree wandeljw, that some discussions are still actual, intelligent discussions where people learn from others. But 95% of the threads here, even if they start out productive, turn into stupid hair-pulling, crying, whining baby-fights.
And there is nothing wrong with bar conversations. But if the thread is intended to be a serious thread, meant to educate and expand views, it's really annoying to have someone come on and just trash the whole thing. I am not talking about Gus coming on making a joke on a serious thread. I am talking about the idiot who jumps on to toss in something about the topic when they clearly know nothing about it but insist that they are right. Or the person who repeats the same point over and over again without any other backing to their opinion.
I also wanted to mention that I am not trashing all our new members. We've gotten some great additions and I was a newbie once. (Just for the record.)
I guess I am being an internet A2K snob. But I want my old A2K back.
Bella Dea- Me too. Many of the early A2K members came out of Abuzz, which was a part of the New York Times and the Boston Globe. As such, I think that overall, the members were, in general, an educated and rather sophisticated bunch. They also were quite a bit older than members on the average internet forum, and the threads reflected their intellectual acumen.
I had found an atheist forum recently. The folks there were very nice, but they were so young. Philosophically, they were at the point in time where I was decades ago, and I tired of the forum quickly.
I think that the change in population on A2K has a lot to do with the quality of the threads. There have been a number of times where I have read some nonsense on A2K, and have said to myself, "What the hell am I doing here?" Then someone comes up with a thoughtful thread, and I am back in there, pitching!
Trying to prove or disprove the existence of God is not unlike attempting to carry a bucket of water without the bucket.
About all one can hope to do is demonstrate why one point of view should be considered above another.
As far as having my point of view ridiculed, I take that as victory by default.
Diana Mertz Hsieh's definition of ad hominem: "rejecting or dismissing another person's statement by attacking the person rather than by disproving the statement."
SOURCE
So, I kind of enjoy posting amidst the rantings of other a2kers. It enhances my sense of humor.
wandeljw wrote:I once saw a post by Joe Nation where he simply remarked that A2K discussions are mostly "bar conversations". However, I have seen A2K discussions that remind me of class discussions in college. We hear different points and learn from the contributions of others.
thats what makes a2k great.
it is like a huge buffett of diffrent countries foods all in one space.
Pick, choose, taste all ..
Actually, one of the early, longest-running threads at this site on the topic of religion was one in which the author asserted that agnosticism is a viewpoint superior to atheism. Attempts to point out that atheism can be and often is simply a refusal to accept contentions about the existence of any deity, rather than a denial of the possibility of a deity were ignored, or characterized as agnosticism which the "unrealized" agnostic would not admit. Frank, in particular, continually asserted that theists and atheists were equivalent but polar opposite believers. It got tediouis. It was pointed out to Frank, particularly by CdK, that he apportioned a greater importance to the question of the deity than to any other unfounded assertion, such as the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. This did not deter him, and he became increasingly nasty, and clearly asserted that his point of view was more logical and morally superior to that which anyone one else had articulated. Although he eventually came to recognize that there are atheists who are simply "without god," who do not accept the existence of a deity as proposed without denying the possibility, he continued to often revert to a contention that such atheists were agnostics without the courage of conviction (a truly ludicrous proposition, if you think about it for a momment--an agnostic with "courage of conviction ? ! ? ! ?"). This tended to poison the atmosphere.
When the "Jesus is my personal savior" crowd shows up with little or no rhetorical preparation to assert their case and defend it, beyond, "well, that's just what i believe"--they are dead meat in the atmosphere here. Long before the theists began to show up within the last year singing their psalms and playing their silly rhetorical games, the entire discussion of "faith" and "belief" had degenerated into a war to the knife. The god sqad didn't have a chance.
I takes a big man to admit that he won't take a stand.
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Bella Dea- Me too. Many of the early A2K members came out of Abuzz, which was a part of the New York Times and the Boston Globe.
I remember coming here and feeling a little "out of the loop" because many of you guys knew each other from Abuzz and here I was, the outsider newbie....what did I have to offer these people!?
Maybe newbies feel that way now when they come here and see posts like mine...but I get so disgusted to see these posts by college students and older high schoolers with such awful grammar and spelling, with no free thought at all and no skills to even begin to explain and back up their opinions. I know it isn't their fault all the time because our school systems suck in a lot of areas of the country. But it still drives me insane to see these young people without any direction at all. I don't remember being that way at all. Maybe I was schooled better. Maybe I just grew up faster. I don't know. But it probably wouldn't bother me so much if these people
learned from the people here at A2K, and grew while they were here. But they are too lazy and don't want to so they post 4 times and leave when no one wants to deal with them. I've learned a lot being here; from those older than me, those from different parts of my country and from other countries and from those of different faiths. I guess I just don't get people who refuse to keep learning.
DrewDad wrote:neologist wrote:Trying to prove or disprove the existence of God is not unlike attempting to carry a bucket of water without the bucket.
About all one can hope to do is demonstrate why one point of view should be considered above another.
As far as having my point of view ridiculed, I take that as victory by default.
Diana Mertz Hsieh's definition of ad hominem: "rejecting or dismissing another person's statement by attacking the person rather than by disproving the statement."
SOURCE
So, I kind of enjoy posting amidst the rantings of other a2kers. It enhances my sense of humor.
You prick!
You've said it all DrewDad
neologist wrote:As far as having my point of view ridiculed, I take that as victory by default.
Diana Mertz Hsieh's definition of ad hominem: "rejecting or dismissing another person's statement by attacking the person rather than by disproving the statement."
SOURCE
Your position is fallacious by the very definition you provide. If someone ridicules your point of view, you have "won" nothing. Ridiculing your point of view is not a personal attack, it does not constitute an
ad hominem. Follow along closely, and i'll go slowly:
"Your point of view is idiotic, and without reasonable foundation."--is
not an
ad hominem.
"You eat poop sammiches and howl at the moon, why should anyone believe you?"--
is an
ad hominem.
*********************
As for your sense of humor, you demonstrated that you were depraved from the day one.
Re: What the Hell is Up with "Proof of God"?
Bella Dea wrote:What the Hell is Up with "Proof of God"?
Most debates arise from basic differences in perspective and communication which are obscured in the debate by the topics at hand.
For example, creation/evolution debates are fiery and classic, yet the points of the debate (creation and evolution) are not really where the differences lie, they are merely symptomatic of different philosophies for viewing reality.
Science doesn't address the supernatural, and faith requires no proof.
Simplistic arguments abound because most people want the other side to experience their own viewpoint more than they want to experience the other.
Everybody gets "A2K Burnout" once in a while, and that may be the explanation for bella's mood today.
Perhaps....I will be gone for at least 5 days over Christmas with no A2K. Maybe that will revive me a bit.
Bella Dea wrote: ....what did I have to offer these people!?
And, um, did you ever come up with something?
There is a legendary "clip" involving bella and shewolf.
How Hot...
What is this? This is seriously the stuff I can't stand about A2K now. What is this?
