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.
It is problematic when you define respect as "that which doesn't offend or critique me or that fails to embrace my own beliefs as valid and justified".
Good thing I didn't do that. Rather, in this case, lying about what I said constitutes disrespect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I have engaged with people here who I consider deliberately obtuse and intellectually dishonest, and have said so. But I still respect them enough to continue to engage with them, so long as they respect me enough to continue to engage with me, in honest discussion.
Precisely. So let's be honest about what others have said and have not said. And let's stop with the making up things no one else said, just to have something to argue against.
Good thing I didn't do that. Rather, in this case, lying about what I said constitutes disrespect.
I have zero motivation to knowingly misrepresent your views. You and I are in fact, more than not, natural allies, all things being equal. I would prefer that most if not all of your ideas could earn my respect.
Rather, I am a reasonably intelligent person who sees you repeatedly take these views, and then, when called on them, deny that you take them or that you meant them with qualifications that, as a reasonable person, I didn't see in the original statement.
You seem -- to me -- and please do disabuse me of this if I am mistaken -- to believe for example that if someone's sincere religious beliefs feel invalidated, that they are invalidated as persons, and that the motive of the person who came bearing inconvenient truths can be legitimately determined to be one of marginalization and disrespect for the personhood and character of the person holding those beliefs.
You have on a number of occasions suggested that I am a "fundamentalist atheist" for an alleged failure to respect someone's faith claims.
I have consistently rejected this as a false equivalency because a person is not their beliefs. And I am well aware that my actual motivations don't include denigrating others personally, and that you don't have special insight into my personal thoughts and motivations in any case.
If you are so big on respect, perhaps you can explain why I register so little of it coming from you. Respectfully, of course.
I have zero motivation to knowingly misrepresent your views.
And in this case it wasn't you. <shrug>
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
You have on a number of occasions suggested that I am a "fundamentalist atheist" for an alleged failure to respect someone's faith claims. I have consistently rejected this as a false equivalency because a person is not their beliefs.
IIRC, when, in those prior threads you're alluding to, I considered your comments fundamental atheism, I generally viewed your defenses as rationalizations, on the order of "Hate the sin love the sinner." We would have to dig into specific examples to dig deeper, but that's not appropriate in this thread, as this thread is not about our discussions with each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
If you are so big on respect, perhaps you can explain why I register so little of it coming from you.
Perhaps you register so little of it for the same reason you rationalize being called to account for disrespecting the beliefs and values of others when doing so encumbers you in no appreciable way, as I alluded to above: You just aren't looking for it and therefore aren't receptive to acknowledging it is there. However, I really don't feel comfortable speculating about why you don't perceive the things you don't perceive. All I can do in that regard is guess. It is something that you'd really need to dig down deeper yourself, when you're inclined to do so, and IRL rather than online.
Anxious and/or compulsive people have dysfunctional and often disordered thinking (and that's not a knock, I am close to several such people). Properly controlled and disciplined thinking is never a problem, just as properly controlled and disciplined emotion is never a problem.
The whole purpose of thinking is to determine right action. If you are paralyzed and can't act and stuck in endless loops with your thinking then you should no more blame thinking for that then a person who can't walk because their leg is broken, should blame their leg.
If they have an extra 3rd leg that gets in the way, perhaps they should blame their leg, but not the working two legs.
There is nothing "spoiled" or "childish" about expecting someone who is talking about respect to exhibit the bare minimal amount of it.
Is this the kind of behavior that's considered acceptable these days? Is that a demonstration of what happens when the analytical mind is all that is consulted, and the moral precepts of being accountable for one's actions and owning up to failures in that regard are ignored?
Exactly. These are same comments and questions that I would point at you. All I asked for was details, and I get none. All I get is insults about my "probably narrow experience."
You have demonstrated no good morality what so ever. No empathy. And at the same time, I haven't seen any demonstration of analytical skill nor critical thinking. Does that mean I know you through and through? no. I own up to my own failures at most times that I notice them, have you noticed yours?
Again, please provide details about the dogmatic atheists that have colored your view. Atheism isn't some religious system that is responsible for every view any Atheist has. None-Stamp-Collecting (Even if there was a club) is not responsible for what every none-stamp collector does or chooses to believe. Most likely, the "dogmatic atheists" you have come across are expressing themselves as extremely bitter due to their own experience which has made them bitter on this issue, most likely from seeing and interacting with people who literally see themselves as representatives of "real/correct" theism or "all accepting/vague" theism. Both groups can be extremely annoying and inflexible.
Exactly. These are same comments and questions that I would point at you.
Part and parcel of attempting to deflect attention away from points you don't like but for which you have no legitimate response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
All I asked for was details, and I get none.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but it doesn't matter because the matter of lying about what I wrote needs to be addressed first. After you acknowledge the unjust disrespect you directed at me, we'll be able to have a reasonably respectful discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
All I get is insults about my "probably narrow experience."
Something I didn't say. So I'm still waiting for an apology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
You have demonstrated no good morality what so ever.
And I suppose your next personal attack on me will be that my mother wears Army boots. How about you address the topic instead of trying to engage in personal attacks. The personal attack approach doesn't seem to be helping you make your point.
This seems to be a recurring problem. Dogmatic atheists seem to expect respect but show none, when the extremists among them are highlighted. It seems like some kind of instinctive reaction, and it cuts off all means of constructive discourse. The message they project is that they must own the discussion about atheism, or they get belligerent, and abusive, toward folks who point out the parallels between the dogmatism they criticize and the dogmatism many of them practice. It's so consistent; you can go back and check prior threads where the same reactive response is evident.
Back in post #21 I pointed out how an atheist in this very thread saw fit to oppose reasonable conclusions drawn from the OP because that atheist claimed there were matters where morality was not concerned, i.e., matters where only analytical thinking applied. In post #37 I highlighted the most prominent examples of this dogmatic atheism in practice in our society, including an increasing number of liberatarians, including a set of in-laws, and a small number of members of the churches I've attended who exhibit the same kind of inability to "follow your heart (while taking your brain along with you)" that the graphic provided earlier touted. From personal experience, even IRL, I see this parallel. There seems to be a driving need to disparage moral perspective when it inconveniently conflicts with what is preferred, when what is preferred is supported by a strictly analytical perspective.
Part and parcel of attempting to deflect attention away from points you don't like but for which you have no legitimate response.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but it doesn't matter because the matter of lying about what I wrote needs to be addressed first. After you acknowledge the unjust disrespect you directed at me, we'll be able to have a reasonably respectful discussion.
Something I didn't say. So I'm still waiting for an apology.
And I suppose your next personal attack on me will be that my mother wears Army boots. How about you address the topic instead of trying to engage in personal attacks. The personal attack approach doesn't seem to be helping you make your point.
This seems to be a recurring problem. Dogmatic atheists seem to expect respect but show none, when the extremists among them are highlighted. It seems like some kind of instinctive reaction, and it cuts off all means of constructive discourse. The message they project is that they must own the discussion about atheism, or they get belligerent, and abusive, toward folks who point out the parallels between the dogmatism they criticize and the dogmatism many of them practice. It's so consistent; you can go back and check prior threads where the same reactive response is evident.
Back in post #21 I pointed out how an atheist in this very thread saw fit to oppose reasonable conclusions drawn from the OP because that atheist claimed there were matters where morality was not concerned, i.e., matters where only analytical thinking applied. In post #37 I highlighted the most prominent examples of this dogmatic atheism in practice in our society, including an increasing number of liberatarians, including a set of in-laws, and a small number of members of the churches I've attended who exhibit the same kind of inability to "follow your heart (while taking your brain along with you)" that the graphic provided earlier touted. From personal experience, even IRL, I see this parallel. There seems to be a driving need to disparage moral perspective when it inconveniently conflicts with what is preferred, when what is preferred is supported by a strictly analytical perspective.
I am so glad this is settled. I'm sorry for any hurt feelings.
But not sorry for the violation itself. Message received. I guess respect is not as important to you as you made it sound. I guess I'll have to live with that, and expect that dogmatic atheists will maintain this kind of stance indeterminately.
But not sorry for the violation itself. Message received. I guess respect is not as important to you as you made it sound. I guess I'll have to live with that, and expect that dogmatic atheists will maintain this kind of stance indeterminately.
Exactly. We all have to live with these kinds of mistakes popping up at different times here and there (to err is human), all we can hope to do is spread education about civility in benevolent and powerful ways.
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.
Rather, in this case, lying about what I said constitutes disrespect.
