Indifference/ The Most Effective Response to Irrationality

I'd say there are plenty--but why should they stick an oar in with the likes of some of the nut jobs here? Few genuinely intelligent religionists post in the religion threads, and that's always been true--and the ones who do have an agenda. The first that comes to mind has the screen-name-initials "rl"--and i definitely consider him to have an agenda.

I think intelligent religionists would simply be embarrassed to be in the company of many of the loonies who post in the S & R here. To be honest, i find that even when it comes to atheists and agnostics, the most engaged and enraged are the least well-expressed and least coherent . . .

0 Replies

articulate religionist Exclamation

0 Replies

I could play various parts

Chum 1

Chum 2

Chum 3

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

J_B, where I come from Christians talk like that all the time. It doesn't mean we are taking up guns and swords and going out to kill anyone.

Perhaps that should be pause for thought, then.

War, armor, ammunition, army, battle ... Christianity, too, does not need to sound like that. The devout boy who lived in my students flat, who was very active in the local Protestant students association, certainly did not speak about his religion in such words.

Metaphors are not meaningless, even if they should not be taken literally either; they come from somewhere, they signify a perspective, a state of mind. In this case, apparently, one that continually pits the chosen ones against the infidels in a war, if a spiritual one. What mentality does that instill in you? Have you deliberately chosen such a way to experience your belief, rather than one that would frame and phrase piety in less martial ways?

It is 'just the way people talk where you come from'; that is easily imaginable. I understand it is roughly the same in Saudi-Arabia. To most Muslims Jihad is also a metaphor, something that represents spiritual rather than physical struggle, but yet there it is: a perspective that automatically frames interaction with non-believers as struggle for Good (implying, by definition: against Evil). No wonder that you instinctively take a debater's challenge to one's assertion on a religious point as an 'attack' that necessitates one 'to do battle for the Lord'.

But to frame your personal relationship with God as fundamentally a part of a holy struggle against infidelism, rather than as a matter of conscience and moral clarity between you and the Lord, still unavoidably fosters agression, enmity and intolerance.

Momma Angel wrote:

It means we get together and pray and try to show others how we want God treated.

Why should you push onto others "how you want God treated"? What business of yours is it, how others relate - or do not relate - to God?

Momma Angel wrote:

As far as prayer goes, no, not over the top. Praying for someone is never going over the top. It's just people connecting with God. It's people talking to God. It's a lot of things.

Yeah.. I think it's been already pointed out before that - duh - nobody much had a problem with praying, as an activity. It's with people who see (group) prayer as a tool of spiritual battle, rather than of spiritual meditation - and, derivatively, what they bring to the debate.

I'm beginning to feel that this is something of a rhetorical trick, actually: when someone objects to you saying, and I'm improvising a hypothetical here, "Let's pray for New_Poster, who is with us as fellow Christian soldier, to ward off the attacks of the unbelievers and enter combat for the Lord", you would be sure to answer, well, is there anything wrong with praying? It's a convenient, but inept way of dodging the obvious issue at hand.

0 Replies

Ok, I asked on the other site and they said no, they did not join A2K because of me. Whew! Just wanted to make sure I wasn't wrong on that one.

Setanta,

If some despise me, then they do. That's life. Have you ever considered just one time that you might not come off as appearing very intolerant of anyone that has religious beliefs? I mean, I'm just askin..................

0 Replies

Nimh,

The only one putting a literal translation to what I said is you. I explained what I meant. How we want God treated as in showing by example.

And sorry Nimh, neither you nor anyone else is going to dictate to me in any way, shape, or form what or who I pray about or for. If you are offended by my asking for that pray then I am sorry.

I have explained this all. There is nothing left for me to explain.

0 Replies

I dunno - could be wrong here, but I don't think Set is intolerant of folks who have religious beliefs; he does, however, appear to be intolerant of those who incessantly (and clumsily) try to foist those beliefs on others, while maintaining they do no such thing, and I know he's not at all fond of insipid, inept, invalid arguments, something many religionsists hereabouts seem to employ as staple.

0 Replies

Actually, i would think most people would consider me very intolerant of those who have religious belief--you never express yourself very well.

But that would be false--it's only the pushing religionist that i go after. This site is full of christians and a few Jews and Muslims who never get into an argument with me--and i don't got looking for them.

They don't promote their personal religious virtue publicly, which is a big difference. People who tout their personal virtues disgust me . . .

0 Replies

I am great Smile

0 Replies

No need to make a special effort, Chumly, i developed a low opinion of you weeks ago . . .

0 Replies

Excellent post, nimh.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I could play various parts

Chum 1

Chum 2

Chum 3

http://i.timeinc.net/saltwater/articles/fishing/2001/berm_chumming.jpg

Chumming, are we?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Nimh,

The only one putting a literal translation to what I said is you.

To Timber's list of Set's dislikes I can add one of mine: lack of willingness to read and/or react to what was actually said.

How one gets, for example, from someone writing:

- "Metaphors are not meaningless, even if they should not be taken literally either; they come from somewhere, they signify a perspective, a state of mind," or

- "To most Muslims Jihad is also a metaphor, something that represents spiritual rather than physical struggle, but yet there it is: a perspective that automatically frames interaction with non-believers as struggle for Good (implying, by definition: against Evil)," to

"you put a literal translation to what I said", is certainly a mystery to me...

Momma Angel wrote:

And sorry Nimh, neither you nor anyone else is going to dictate to me in any way, shape, or form what or who I pray about or for.

Could you point out where exactly I tried to "dictate" to you how you should pray?

I did point out that, yes, some here (me included) will have a problem with your martial kind of praying. Cant stop you from it, cant dictate you not to, but can express what my problem is with it.

What on earth is it about [fill in: a certain group of Christians, conservatives, truth-out'ers] that they systematically interpret criticism of something they do as an attempt to dictate, silence or stifle them? Is it really a fundamental problem with the notion of critical questioning, itself?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

dlowan Wrote:

Quote:

I am not in the least hurt, MA.

I am glad of that, dlowan. I'm afraid you are offended though and I am deeply sorry for offending anyone.

I shall repeat part of my post in another thread, to which you did not respond: ( http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1824738#1824738 )

(I am in normal type, quotes from MA in italics.)

If you want to be "left to what I believe or feel" you are likely going about it the wrong way by debating the issue in a forum such as this.

You keep saying you are being picked on.....some have certainly been rude to you, but you are NOT being picked on, you are being debated with.

Ok, I will accept that. I can deal with it.

And this is exactly why I am feeling baited, dlowan. I have made this comment to someone and it seems to have found it's way to the surface. That's fine. I made the comment. I stand by it. Yes, I believe there is a spiritual warfare going on. However, I don't know to what extent it is. And yes, I do believe that for some (and Doktor S, forgive me but you have professed yourself as a Satanist so I would have to say that you apply) there is a spiritual warfare going on. But, even if that is the case, it doesn't mean I have to be cruel or nasty to anyone because of it.

I have in private conversations said things about others in frustration or anger, yes. I won't deny that. It doesn't make it right, but I have done it. So, if there is anything else you want to ask if I think or have said or whatever, lay it out there, dlowan. I have no problem with addressing it.

Well dlowan, are you trying to tell me you didn't bait me? Are you trying to tell me you didn't know about what I said in that other site when you posed these questions to me?

I am not sure by what criteria you consider a public web site to be "private conversation".

Here is a fact.

What you write on a public website is not private conversation.

I remain interested in whether you believe you are in some sort of crusade here against the forces of evil and the devil?

This is relevant to a "christian whoppers" thread since I do not think that is how you have presented yourself here.

I am especially intrigued as to whether you believe you are on the right side in a war against we evil folk, because it does not really go well with your hurt complaints that people do not respect your opinions, does it?

First of all, I don't recall calling anyone "you evil folk." If I did, can you point it out to me? I'm always going to think God is on the right side, dlowan. God, not me. I don't care if you respect my opinion. I want you to respect the right that I have to one and just let it go when I say we can agree to disagree and stop forcing it down my throat like I get accused of doing with religion. It goes both ways and I know that.

Seeing us as tools of the devil is a tad suggestive that you do not have respect for our beliefs, does it not?

Well, that would depend, now wouldn't dlowan? I guess that would depend on exactly who I might think would be a tool of the devil. Just so you know, I have never had that thought about you.

I don't see that as an especial problem if you are honest (most people think some watered down version of this about their ideas, but mebbe most can at least laugh at it?) though I, of course, think it daft....so it goes....

Nimh has captured my quarrel with you here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1830584#1830584

There is no need to dramatise it as hurt feelings and such.

I simply think it very dishonest, and it irks me.

Well, I understand that. I have told the truth in my explanation of the situation. I have told what I did, why I did it, and am willing to take responsibility for it.

Ma said:

First of all, I don't recall calling anyone "you evil folk." If I did, can you point it out to me? I'm always going to think God is on the right side, dlowan. God, not me. I don't care if you respect my opinion. I want you to respect the right that I have to one and just let it go when I say we can agree to disagree and stop forcing it down my throat like I get accused of doing with religion. It goes both ways and I know that.

Er, no, you did not say evil folk, it was something about the father of lies, ie the devil, working through people who opposed your views.

How many times do we have to say that nobody is saying you do not have a right to your opinion?

On a knowledge exchange and discussion board, people have a right to challenge that opinion.

Honestly, is there any way that you are going to grasp that difference?

Challenging your opinions does not equal saying you have no right to hold them.

Challenging your opinions does not equal saying you have no right to hold them.

Challenging your opinions does not equal saying you have no right to hold them.

Challenging your opinions does not equal saying you have no right to hold them.

Challenging your opinions does not equal saying you have no right to hold them.

Challenging your opinions does not equal saying you have no right to hold them.

People would not continue to challenge your opinions if you did not continue to post them.

If you let it go, others will let it go.

While you argue, others will argue.

I have no quarrel with your cotinuing to argue, just with your moaning aboout it when others do the same.

MA said:

Well dlowan, are you trying to tell me you didn't bait me? Are you trying to tell me you didn't know about what I said in that other site when you posed these questions to me?

Well, bait to me means stuff like calling you a religious wacko and a poopity head.

If your definition of bait includes what I did, so be it.

What I WAS doing was seeing how you would react to having your actual words posted elsewhere repeated to you, given that they contradict so much of your presentation of yourself here.

Interestingly, you chose to lie, and say they were just part of letting off steam in a "private conversation" and act all ill used and such.

That was a new strategy to me, and one I had not predicted. I thought you would recognize your publicly posted words, and either acknowledge them honestly, or wriggle and squirm and cry poor you. Well, you DID do all of that, but you added a layer of attempted deception in doing so.

So be it, it is uncomfortable being confronted with our hypocrisies, and squirming and getting defensively aggressive about it is a common human reaction.

I was certainly very intrigued about how you would react, but I do not think you baited or ill done by. Unless confronting people with their own words is doing ill by them.

MA said:

Well, I understand that. I have told the truth in my explanation of the situation. I have told what I did, why I did it, and am willing to take responsibility for it. [/

I do not think you are, actually, willing to take responsibility...since you are still complaining about people doing you wrong, when I think that what has happened is just that you have been caught out, and you are naturally feeling bad about it, and your attempts to deal with those feelings, in very human ways, have compounded the problem.

You are no orphan in dealing with difficult stuff badly. It is very hard, and those who can do it with grace are some of the people I admire most, and I wish I was like them.

However, well said.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

What on earth is it about [fill in: a certain group of Christians, conservatives, truth-out'ers] that they systematically interpret criticism of something they do as an attempt to dictate, silence or stifle them? Is it really a fundamental problem with the notion of critical questioning, itself?

Bingo. Pick a prize from the top shelf.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Is it just my imagination, or has there been an influx of members with the same mindset as Setanta et al of late?

Imagination.

Yours.

0 Replies

Thanks, J_B!

J_B wrote:

Excellent post, nimh.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

nimh wrote:
What on earth is it about [fill in: a certain group of Christians, conservatives, truth-out'ers] that they systematically interpret criticism of something they do as an attempt to dictate, silence or stifle them? Is it really a fundamental problem with the notion of critical questioning, itself?

Bingo. Pick a prize from the top shelf.

I'd like Dys's Stetson please.

0 Replies

Wolves scratching at the door I see.. :wink:

0 Replies

I think the problem here is that many A2K members have a very clear--even rigid--idea of Truth.

We tend to be offended by "footnoted truth" as in "Oh, you see that shouldn't count because...."

I can't speak for other posters, but for me, my word is my bond. When I say something I mean what I say. I don't change my mind or juggle facts to make what I say less damning or make myself look more respectable.

Also, when I say "I take responsibility for my actions," I take responsiblity. I don't wiggle or whine or plead for special understanding.

I've known most of the posters on this thread for years. They have reputations of integrity and forthrightness. I don't think I'd be insulting these people if I said that they probably share my rigid definition of Truth.

We may have divergent opinions but because we respect, even revere, the truth we have a great deal in common.

0 Replies

Indifference/ The Most Effective Response to Irrationality

Quick Links

My Account

able2know