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.
You don't have to go to another country; you can find out right here in the US. Just ask any Indian!
Of course...hadn't thought of it. After the settlers killed over half of them and forced them onto reservations their spirits were dampened to the point that they never fully recovered. Well...they are kinda getting even with us now at the casinos they operate
sometimes the atheist can be the first to throw the digs so its not always the fundie's ,but i think thats more due to the fact that some of them put alot into their post's and although they make a very good point they never get heard really because as fullback32 said,they just wont come out of that box,
but as for the athiest's on this site,i find most of them to be alright,and the more i'm here the more i find that pretty much all of them are sound
I posted this point in a thread that was subsequently closed::
Herein lies the problem---The norms of basic etiquette are at work here... the Believers take exception with the Atheists because of the nature in which they present their platform.
I'll explain this with an illustration of the following analogical conversational interactions:
Mr. X: I just got this Grass Eat lawnmower and I love it...I'm sure it will be a good and reliable unit.
Mr. Y: I had that brand of lawnmower...It's a piece of junk...it will be ok for a while but then will probably break down and go bad on you. Thinking the mower you just bought is going to be good and reliable is nothing more than a fairytale.
Mr. Y's response is a socially acceptable response considering the subject: a lawnmower...because it's not personal, Mr. X doesn't really "love" the lawnmower or have an emotional attachment to it...the focal entity of the subject is not something held dear to Mr. X.
Mr. Z: I just married this Italian girl and I love her...I'm sure she will be a good reliable wife.
Mr. Y: I had an Italian wife...she was a skank...she'll be ok for a while but then she will probably start cheating and go bad on you. Thinking that girl you just married is going to be a good wife is nothing more than a fairytale.
Mr. Y's response is NOT socially acceptable here...because, well, you get it.
Same with Believer vs Atheist. The Believer telling the Atheist his platform is messed up is socially acceptable because he/she is not denigrating anything in particular the Atheist loves and holds dear...MOF he/she is really denigrating "nothing"..since that is what the Atheist believes about God.
OTOH, if the Atheist denigrates the belief in God, or scoffs at the belief in God as a "fairytale", it is socially UNacceptable because he/she is denigrating something personal and dear to the Believer.
Telling someone that they lack logic and reason because they "believe" in something through "faith" is just outright rude. "Feelings", and other "affairs of the heart" can never be disputed for they are manifest of the intuition and perception of the person that has them. Just as you can't tell someone they lack logic and reason because they "love" or "hate" someone or something...on the basis that there is no empirical basis for love or hate. That is understood by anyone and everyone. Validity of feelings and beliefs can't be questioned on the same basis as validity of data. To question a persons logical capacity, or ability to think reasonably, because of their "faith" and "beliefs", is a KNOWN social slight...and found to be unacceptable in most circles of polite company.
Put your position out there...even why you think or believe the way you do...but don't label another's theological "feelings" and "beliefs" as indicative of their lack of ability to think logically and reasonably.
I didn't make the "rules" of social correctness...I have just lived enough to know what they are.
Oh, and BTW, I admit to falling short of the standards myself on occasion.
Telling someone that they lack logic and reason because they "believe" in something through "faith" is just outright rude. "Feelings", and other "affairs of the heart" can never be disputed for they are manifest of the intuition and perception of the person that has them. Just as you can't tell someone they lack logic and reason because they "love" or "hate" someone or something...on the basis that there is no empirical basis for love or hate. That is understood by anyone and everyone. Validity of feelings and beliefs can't be questioned on the same basis as validity of data. To question a persons logical capacity, or ability to think reasonably, because of their "faith" and "beliefs", is a KNOWN social slight...and found to be unacceptable in most circles of polite company.
Put your position out there...even why you think or believe the way you do...but don't label another's theological "feelings" and "beliefs" as indicative of their lack of ability to think logically and reasonably.
I didn't make the "rules" of social correctness...I have just lived enough to know what they are.
Oh, and BTW, I admit to falling short of the standards myself on occasion.
Except there are times a person does lack logic.If a person "feels" they will float gently down to earth when stepping off a high rise building,then they are wrong,regardless of their feelings.And if they begin to try to convince others of this,then they are dangerously wrong.Some facts in life ARE facts,and feelings or intuitions do not factor into it.Now I am not saying it is necessary to be rude to get your point across,but at the same time there is really no need to be PC and pretend that telling them they are not thinking logically is wrong.It isn't.
In real life I get along fine with people who hold different beliefs than me. That is, of course, so long as they show a basic amount of respect for those who hold differing opinions and views than they do. I don't go around asking anyone if they're religious or not and, if so, explain to them why they shouldn't be. I expect something similar to that in return.
In internet land, things are different. You can either discuss something with people, or get into a p****** contest with them about everything. It's all about winning, it seems, here in cyberspace discussions. Being right is very important.
Not that I haven't been provoked into saying some not-so-nice things at times here at C-D. (mainly when I first started posting here). I try to take the high road these days. Really, I do
Of course not everything is equal or should be treated as such when it comes to certain topics. Discussing spiritual things can be subjective; other things, such as evolution and whether it happens or not, isn't. You are either right or wrong about those things, just like you are about whether square wheels work better than round ones.
So no, I don't think it's possible to get along when it comes to certain issues. Just mentioning evolution endangers this thread of going waaaayyy off course for about, I'd say, a good 200-300 pages.
Except there are times a person does lack logic.If a person "feels" they will float gently down to earth when stepping off a high rise building,then they are wrong,regardless of their feelings.And if they begin to try to convince others of this,then they are dangerously wrong.Some facts in life ARE facts,and feelings or intuitions do not factor into it.Now I am not saying it is necessary to be rude to get your point across,but at the same time there is really no need to be PC and pretend that telling them they are not thinking logically is wrong.It isn't.
As I'm sure you understood...I wasn't talking about being deluded into thinking that life threatening risks are acceptable because one "feels" it is so. I was talking about "feelings" and "beliefs" relative to a theological mindset based on intuition and perception.
One denotes crazy delusions that, through faith, one can avoid sure harm...the other, simply a faith in a sensed "Higher Power". Warning against the former is in no way the same as criticizing the latter.
Yeah...if they would just stop that public praying and ten commandments stuff.
I often wonder how people in other countries feel about Christian missionaries being there trying to change their cultures?
Well, the Hawaiians responded appropriately by slaughtering those missionaries. Frankly, if the N.A. Indians (sorry; Native Americans or First Nations as they prefer up in Canada) had taken this approach perhaps their culture would not be so diffused and diluted. I do understand that many of them are now gathering, celebrating and documenting the tattered remnants of that wonderful spiritual culture.
BTW, Fullback, as an atheist, I have no problems with your people's cultural spirituality. It "fits" with the natural life, and through icons and dedication and personal behavioral sacrifice, it leads to an enhanced communication with the important natural world that the Catholic Church, for instance, has annihilated.
I have no problem with people who are religious and believe in a god as long as they are tolerant of anyone who does not believe in the same religious ideals as they believe in.
When I am provoked and pushed and ridiculed on what I believe in, then I do have a problem. This includes condescending questions to atheists and questions asked of us that are sure to spark a fight.
Herein lies the problem---The norms of basic etiquette are at work here... the Believers take exception with the Atheists because of the nature in which they present their platform.
You make good points, and I'd like to add a few things.
Quote:
I'll explain this with an illustration of the following analogical conversational interactions:
Mr. X: I just got this Grass Eat lawnmower and I love it...I'm sure it will be a good and reliable unit.
Mr. Y: I had that brand of lawnmower...It's a piece of junk...it will be ok for a while but then will probably break down and go bad on you. Thinking the mower you just bought is going to be good and reliable is nothing more than a fairytale.
Mr. Y's response is a socially acceptable response considering the subject: a lawnmower...because it's not personal, Mr. X doesn't really "love" the lawnmower or have an emotional attachment to it...the focal entity of the subject is not something held dear to Mr. X.
Even so, Mr. Y could have been more polite. He could have said, "If you're asking about other people's experiences with the Grass Eat, I have to tell you that mine wasn't good. It worked well for a while, and then it broke down. Maybe I just had a lemon. I hope you have better luck with yours. Anyone else have good or bad experiences with the Grass Eat lawnmower?"
That response leaves open the very real possibility that Mr. Y's experience was an anomoly. It also leaves out the gratuitous "fairy tale" comment. Although Mr. X doesn't have the emotional attachment to a lawnmower that he would to his wife (as least, I hope not), most people do take pride in their decision-making abilities when it comes to purchasing items.
Quote:
Mr. Z: I just married this Italian girl and I love her...I'm sure she will be a good reliable wife.
Mr. Y: I had an Italian wife...she was a skank...she'll be ok for a while but then she will probably start cheating and go bad on you. Thinking that girl you just married is going to be a good wife is nothing more than a fairytale.
Mr. Y's response is NOT socially acceptable here...because, well, you get it.
Agreed. But Mr. Y's response is determined in part by the context of Mr. Z's comment. Is Mr. Z simply announcing his recent marriage? Then the only polite response is "Congratulations! I hope you two are very happy." Or is Mr. Z on an advice forum, asking other men about their experiences with Italian wives? In that case, Mr. Y might mention that his marriage didn't go well, but only if he has constructive advice to offer (e.g., cultural differences between Americans and Italians that he didn't understand beforehand).
Quote:
Same with Believer vs Atheist. The Believer telling the Atheist his platform is messed up is socially acceptable because he/she is not denigrating anything in particular the Atheist loves and holds dear...MOF he/she is really denigrating "nothing"..since that is what the Atheist believes about God.
OTOH, if the Atheist denigrates the belief in God, or scoffs at the belief in God as a "fairytale", it is socially UNacceptable because he/she is denigrating something personal and dear to the Believer.
I don't entirely agree. The believer and the atheist each came to their opposing conclusions using their powers of reason and/or intuition. The believer tends to place more weight on feelings than the atheist does, whereas the atheist tends to place more weight on pure logic than the believer does. So when the bliever tells the atheist that his platform is messed up, he's attacking the atheist's thought processes and decision-making abilities... just as the atheist is attacking the believer's thought processes and decision-making abilities when he says that the believer's platform is messed up. It's emotionally loaded either way.
Quote:
Telling someone that they lack logic and reason because they "believe" in something through "faith" is just outright rude.
Making a general claim that the person lacks logic and reason is indeed rude. But telling the person that you think a particular conclusion they came to isn't based on logic, and explaining why you think so, is different. Again, it's a matter of context. If you post something in the general Religion and Philosophy forum, it's assumed you're open to debate and discussion. If you post it in either the Christianity forum or the Atheism and Agnosticism forum, it's more likely that you only want comments from either fellow Christians or fellow atheists or agnostics.
Quote:
"Feelings", and other "affairs of the heart" can never be disputed for they are manifest of the intuition and perception of the person that has them. Just as you can't tell someone they lack logic and reason because they "love" or "hate" someone or something...on the basis that there is no empirical basis for love or hate. That is understood by anyone and everyone. Validity of feelings and beliefs can't be questioned on the same basis as validity of data. To question a persons logical capacity, or ability to think reasonably, because of their "faith" and "beliefs", is a KNOWN social slight...and found to be unacceptable in most circles of polite company.
And that is at the very heart of the difference between atheists and believers: the former don't think that beliefs about what is objectively true can or should be based on feelings and faith, whereas the latter do. "I love abstract art" is a statement based on feelings that can't be debated (unless you observe that I always make insulting comments about abstract art). "Abstract art is the greatest form of art" is debatable, but it can never be resolved, because there are no universally agreed-upon criteria for what constitutes art, let alone the greatest form of art. "I believe that God exists" isn't debatable, nor is "I love the God that I believe exists." However, "God exists, and my proof is that I feel it to be true, because feelings are a valid means of determining objective truth" is debatable.
Quote:
Put your position out there...even why you think or believe the way you do...but don't label another's theological "feelings" and "beliefs" as indicative of their lack of ability to think logically and reasonably.
Again, telling someone that they lack an ability to think logically and reasonably in general is rude -- but it isn't necessarily so when discussing a particular position. By definition, a position based solely on feelings or faith isn't logical. The debate is about whether the position can be valid nevertheless. What complicates matters is that most discussions involve some logic, even when the premise is faith-based: "At its heart, my belief is based on faith, feelings, and intuition, but I also have some logical evidence to bolster my belief."
Let's face it: there are people on both sides of the debate who are needlessly rude. On the believers' side, you have people who say things like, "I know the Bible to be 100% true, because it says so in the Bible. Jesus and me are gonna have a good laugh when you atheists realize you're wrong and end up burning in eternal hellfire." On the atheists' side, you have people who say things like, "I have no need of your Sky Daddy, who, if he did exist, would be be the most egotistical, petty, psychotic, prolific mass murderer of all time. If you're stupid enough to believe in God, just don't force your beliefs on me."
Quote:
Oh, and BTW, I admit to falling short of the standards myself on occasion.
Who of us has not?
Last edited by HonuMan; 05-11-2010 at 02:47 PM..
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.
