Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apparently some of the things you say and the way you say those things trigger my irrational emotions.
As you say I can not help you much with this. I wish you well in dealing with it though. It is not something I can understand myself as I think that to be angered or offended by someone I have to actually know them or care what they think.
Although I am interested in the opinions and ideas of people on this forum and many of them help me improve my own opinions and knowledge.... which is why I debate at all. If I am wrong about something, which I must be somewhere or else I would be perfect and I am not perfect, then debate is the best way for people out there to help me find out where.
However I do not actually care what anyone here thinks at the same time. So it is therefore impossible for them to ever anger or offend me, despite some of them like gldnrle trying very, very hard to troll an emotional response out of me by dressing up arrogance in feux 70s jive language to try and annoy. To me it just makes him look bad, and is certainly not about to make me angry.
Again off topic but I hope that helps you somehow and you can apply some of that thinking yourself to help deal with your issue. We all have issues. While it is impossible for anyone here to anger or offend me for the reasons I outlined above... I do occasionally get impatient and that is MY issue. When I write a response to someone for example that is 1 or 2 hundred words long and then I get dismissed in a one liner than acts like position is entirely different to the one I actually took the time to write about well..... as you have found out yourself..... you are not in for a pleasant reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by looking4answers12
to get through some of your more offensive statements (purely opinion) in order to find some of your "pearls of wisdom"
Again my approach if it helps: The way I do this is to forget about whether it is offensive or not. Forget about how they are saying what they say, in what tone, in what manner, or how politely. Focus instead on finding out WHAT a person is saying and WHY they are saying it. You seem to balk every time I ask you to substantiate a claim you made or something you said - almost acting offended that I would even dare ask you to on a discussion forum - but it is my focus on stripping everything away except the what you are saying and the why you are saying it that makes me do it.
NAH!...the merit and validity of my statement isn't predicated solely on "numbers" and an "appeal to popularity", and you know it.
If I said, "Theism is best because most people think so"...then you'd have a point.
But when I say, "In the "Arena of World Influence" Theism is the Grand Champion, and no other elective concept has been or is more powerful and influential...OTOH, Atheism is just about nothing in that regard"...that has nothing to do with an ad pop basis...it's merely a statement of fact.
For example, and to use Theology as an analogy: Within Theism there are concepts that are held by many less than others, but are much, much more influential as respects World Influence...like Judaism. So while popularity can be, and typically is, a big factor...it's not all there is to Power & Influence.
"Numbers of adherents" to a concept does not necessarily equate to great influence.
Of course...having both factors...Numbers AND Influence (like Theism does) gives a concept "double barrel mojo".
Theism is the superlative at both...Atheism is way down on the list for numbers, and even further down for influence. That's a FACT of REALITY...period!
If you are so "logical"...you can see that my argument has way more going for it than "numbers" alone.
Furthermore...it's NOT a fallacy...Theism DOES, in fact, trounce Atheism (and everything else) in the "Arena of World Influence".
Contest and debate THAT...don't try to weasel around it with a bogus "Ad Populum Fallacy" claim.
You repeatedly say that theism is "better", and only sometimes say "in the arena of world influence". Your basis is solely numbers. Still, if that's all you want to say, that theism influences people more than atheism, and you are saying nothing else, then why are you even posting here? NO ONE SAID theism has less influence than atheism. Your entire posts are pointless because you are merely rebutting an imaginary argument.
I think that atheist only target Christians because I found out that David Silverman (President of American Atheist) is Jewish, and I wouldn't think he wants to target his own people.
Also, many atheist know that if they insult Muslims, they are risking their life.
I think that atheist only target Christians because I found out that David Silverman (President of American Atheist) is Jewish, and I wouldn't think he wants to target his own people.
Also, many atheist know that if they insult Muslims, they are risking their life.
Wow, tons of misconceptions here. Atheists don't target only christians. The reason YOU may think that's the case depends on where you live. If you live in an area where 75% of the population is christian, they're going to be the most common target. But if you think we only criticize them and not the jews or muslims, you got another think coming. Despite what you'd like to believe, you're not being singled out.
Wow, tons of misconceptions here. Atheists don't target only christians. The reason YOU may think that's the case depends on where you live. If you live in an area where 75% of the population is christian, they're going to be the most common target. But if you think we only criticize them and not the jews or muslims, you got another think coming. Despite what you'd like to believe, you're not being singled out.
I live in Rockland County, NJ where around 30% are Jewish (+ many other non-Christians) and only seen billboards targeting Christians only. Even in NYC area where there are 50 - 60% Christians only it's still them being targeted.
A question - what area anywhere in the US are less than 75% Christians? Very few except some cities.
I think that atheist only target Christians because I found out that David Silverman (President of American Atheist) is Jewish, and I wouldn't think he wants to target his own people.
Also, many atheist know that if they insult Muslims, they are risking their life.
Christians are targeted because they target others. Christianity continues to target all non Christians in order to impose their beliefs on them.
Christians want to impose their belief system on the all aspects of the country and on everyone.
That is why they are targeted.
Jews aren't targeted, because they don't behave like Christians. Jews just want to be left to practice their religion in peace and to not have the religious views of other imposed on them.
I think that atheist only target Christians because I found out that David Silverman (President of American Atheist) is Jewish, and I wouldn't think he wants to target his own people.
Also, many atheist know that if they insult Muslims, they are risking their life.
You repeatedly say that theism is "better", and only sometimes say "in the arena of world influence". Your basis is solely numbers. Still, if that's all you want to say, that theism influences people more than atheism, and you are saying nothing else, then why are you even posting here? NO ONE SAID theism has less influence than atheism. Your entire posts are pointless because you are merely rebutting an imaginary argument.
No Dude...you still don't "get it".
I'm not saying it's "better" in the way you are purporting. How can this be so hard to understand?
Here LIYF, I've got a good analogy to help you get my point:
Atheism is to Theological discourse and the world in general, as Jon Huntsman is to the Rep. Party and the Presidential election in general...he has some merit to his concepts but he is just not "viable", MOF he's so far removed as a factor in the race he may as well not even be there.
People can back him and his concepts & ideas all they want...but, they are "spinning their wheels" and wasting their time.
Huntsman is, IN FACT, a "sure loser"...not in a bad sense, but in the REALITY of his ability to carry power and influence...and anyone who backs him (though they have every right and are free to do so) is going to come up empty.
Does that mean he is "worse" than the front-running candidates? Maybe not in the theory of his concepts and message...but certainly in his relevance to anything that has any ability to do anything of real meaning.
The few people that are backing Huntsman may be well intentioned, dedicated, and feel he has the most "merit"...but in the end their effort is sure to be wasted on anything besides principle and their own satisfaction...because other than that, backing Huntsman is a "losers game".
One could say that it's because of a lack of "numbers" or "popularity"...but it goes beyond that.
If Huntsman had the "mojo"...he would have the numbers/popularity--He doesn't...because he doesn't.
Such is the subscription to, and endorsement of, Atheism.
Ultimately, anyone doing it is backing a "loser".
I know that those that endorse Atheism don't like that...but that is REALITY.
And I did apply this to the issue of the OP: Atheists targeting Christians is a matter of a contestant of near negligible viability calling out "The Champ", so they might at least get themselves noticed.
Deep down, logically and reasonably, they HAVE to know (they would be deluded if they didn't) they will never be anything near to them...but they must figure if they can be mentioned in the same breath they might boost their credibility by association with them.
Such is the Reality Of The World...I didn't make it that way...that's just, like it or not, The Way It REALLY Is.
So in your warped world any segment of society that is a minority are "losers". So you think us atheist may as well throw up our hands an give up then, along with any other minority...
Just think ( you do think don't you?) where society would be today had all minorities had done that...You would still be in the dark ages and ruled by the Catholic church, the world would still be flat, and science and technology would have been squashed, we would still be bleeding the sick to remove evil "vapors"
Your very nation was founded by what you call "losers" who fled the old country to gain their freedom from the tyranny of the majority.
Without minorities rising up there is only tyranny.
So in your warped world any segment of society that is a minority are "losers". So you think us atheist may as well throw up our hands an give up then, along with any other minority...
Just think ( you do think don't you?) where society would be today had all minorities had done that...You would still be in the dark ages and ruled by the Catholic church, the world would still be flat, and science and technology would have been squashed, we would still be bleeding the sick to remove evil "vapors"
Your very nation was founded by what you call "losers" who fled the old country to gain their freedom from the tyranny of the majority.
Without minorities rising up there is only tyranny.
No, sans...you know I don't mean "loser" losers...I mean loser as in can't possibly "win".
Also...you already know I believe in True Democracy...of The People, by The People, and for The People.
Poll EVERYONE, and enforce the majority view.
That's the most fair way. Anything else is less so.
That's not tryanny...that's satisfying the most possible, since you know you can never please everyone.
If you want your way to "rate"...get most people to see it as the most meritorious.
You can do that even from a current minority position.
For example: Even if a group is in the minority...if they can convince the populous that slavery is wrong, then they don't have to worry about ANY (even minorities) being enslaved.
You don't need to BE the majority...just convince the majority to adopt a certain position...then you're good to go.
Oh, and Atheists don't need to "throw up their hands"...just understand their place/position in "The Grand Scheme of Things"...which, in reality, ain't such a much.
Not that it always has to be that way...who knows?...things change over time. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
