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.
They are struggling to put you in a box so they can treat you as a caricature/strawman of your “tribe”.
As it is, they are required to reason with you as an individual and address your points instead of lobbing dismissive stereotypical insults at your “tribe.”
I can understand you looking at it that way.
But I think the reason we're asking is much different. Let me give a different example.
Let's say 4 people here were the primary contributors on a thread about Buddhism. One was a current abbot of a certified temple in Thailand. Another was a former Thai monk who was disrobed for sexual offenses. Another was an American who had read about Buddhism. And a fourth was a Saudi Muslim who had never experienced Buddhism, but had a few impressions about Buddhism from watching Keanu Reeve's movie "Little Buddha".
All of those four people have a right to their opinions on Buddhism. But their qualifications differ. I will place a different weight on value on the opinions each of them express.
Once when I was taking a grad course in education, a few sessions into the class several us who were experienced educators were taking during a break and were talking about us not seeing what the professor was teaching as being very accurate about how schools work in terms of school finance (the course was something like "Managing School Finance". So when we went back into class, one of the students -- a teacher of 20 years -- asked what kind of public schools the professor had experience in. The answer -- he'd never worked in a public school, not as a teacher, or administrator, or counselor, or district level administrator, and hadn't even worked in a job that was connected to public schools.
The poster we're discussing has made posts interpreting Buddhism and Christianity. Why is it a secret what his experience in those two religions is (it seems as if he has also posted about Islam, but I may be remembering that incorrectly). And all we get from him when asked about his "qualifications" is, "Did I say I was Buddhist?" and "Did I say I was a christian?". If he is, or isn't one of those things, he still gets to state his opinions. The difference is that if he is or isn't one of those things is going to make a difference in whether I judge those opinions as being with some authority or with a (huge) grain of salt.
Roger on that, wingman. Incoming radar signals sweeping the sky come in loud and clear every time I enter contested air space. They can't lock in on the target when I am in stealth mode. Atheists have no moral obligations. They fight dirty.
Reads more like an episode of "The Outer Limits" to me.
Roger on that, wingman. Incoming radar signals sweeping the sky come in loud and clear every time I enter contested air space. They can't lock in on the target when I am in stealth mode. Atheists have no moral obligations. They fight dirty.
Rather it is the theist apologists who do that. Easiest thing in the world to do a pot -kettle accusation. But you can't escape the tracer forever. Sooner or later the religious apologest gets pinned down and has to run away shouting 'I win!'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
They are struggling to put you in a box so they can treat you as a caricature/strawman of your “tribe”.
As it is, they are required to reason with you as an individual and address your points instead of lobbing dismissive stereotypical insults at your “tribe.”
Typical 'dirty trick'. Every slip is grabbed by the theist to try for a cheap point. We do assume that those arguing on RS for theism are Christian, probably protestant and Bible - believers. Not unreasonable and all they have to do is put us right - not treat it as a one shot win. Dirty tricks that is.
I would say rather that the "suckers" are the ones who buy into the conspiracy ideas about 911 without evidence. Not the ones believing the science from different and well qualified sources over the years that indicates it happened as has been explained to the public , including , I believe the engineering dept at MIT.
Believing in factual science seldom makes one a "sucker". That moniker is much better suited to those who choose to believe wild ideas despite the lack of evidence to support them .
I don't buy any conspiracy theories or accept explanations for the 911 incident. I pay attention to my reaction to that incident and just stuff it. This is what I intuit Jesus meant when he said to turn the other cheek. Violence begets violence. It is my moral obligation to never be incited by it.
I don't buy any conspiracy theories or accept explanations for the 911 incident. I pay attention to my reaction to that incident and just stuff it. This is what I intuit Jesus meant when he said to turn the other cheek. Violence begets violence. It is my moral obligation to never be incited by it.
All you have to do is say what your views are on religion and we won't have to guess. You won't do yourself any good by being evasive. Not buying any conspiracy theories or accepting explanations seems to leave you nowhere. Your interpretation of 'turn the other cheek' as 'don't respond to any questions other than evasion' doesn't look too good, especially for someone who made an analogy of himself as a stealth fighter teaming up with another in order to attack atheists without being put under pressure himself.
You didn't say you were Christian...so you said. But you refer to a Gospel saying and your posted "God loves them no matter what?" What are we supposed to assume? Flying without identification marks does not make you a stealth- aircraft.
Anybody that withholds information while at the same attacking others is shady (agenda is more important that factual). Sure, they don't have to but when they don't its a red flag. At least here at CD with the type of discussions. And when they don't they are hiding something. They can't defend their position on equal footing so they use the handicap.
I agree that straight and honest discussion even if there is strong disagreement will lead to respect. Not doing that relies on the assumption that everyone will back up the dishonesty, whatever. That's why I reckon atheists have to be honest and open, or they're done. We can't afford the lawyer -trickery of religious apologetics. It's why I rejected the proposal to rename ourselves 'Brights'. The first step to deceptiveness is a step on the slippery slope downwards.
Anybody that withholds information while at the same attacking others is shady (agenda is more important that factual). Sure, they don't have to but when they don't its a red flag. At least here at CD with the type of discussions. And when they don't they are hiding something. They can't defend their position on equal footing so they use the handicap.
I can think of a few people on this forum who criticize other people’s worldviews while not stating their own worldview. Like “simply a lack of belief” atheism, it seems like a way to criticize others while insulating oneself from criticism of one’s own worldview.
Most don’t hide their worldview, but some will rarely mention it and almost never discuss it.
Some people even hide their personal profile, but I don’t know the reasons. Doing these things doesn’t communicate confidence, but I can imagine other reasons for doing so. Like, maybe it’s done to keep a personal photo gallery private, or similar.
Last edited by Iwasmadenew; 02-08-2021 at 06:01 PM..
I agree that straight and honest discussion even if there is strong disagreement will lead to respect. Not doing that relies on the assumption that everyone will back up the dishonesty, whatever. That's why I reckon atheists have to be honest and open, or they're done. We can't afford the lawyer -trickery of religious apologetics. It's why I rejected the proposal to rename ourselves 'Brights'. The first step to deceptiveness is a step on the slippery slope downwards.
you can't state this and push to get some beliefs stopped and some evidence suppressed because it doesn't get you anywhere.
You let all the evidence out and you can keep repeating its not helping your type of atheism. But let it out and if your position, and types of atheist belief, is strong enough it can handle a little pressure from a dope like me without having to avoid it.
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.
