 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: GUEST,Musket sans sin Date: 10 Jun 13 - 04:12 PM Errmmm. Errr... Naw, if its all the same to you, I'd rather laugh at you rather than with you. If you insist on pigeon holing people based on assuming everybody is as fucked up as you, perhaps questioning yourself rather than rational people might just be more useful? Just out of interest, there is a difference, and a huge one, between bullying others into accepting your stance and trying to point out to a thick sod like you that some of us don't have a stance. Just fed up with others thinking we all want share their delusion. Getting bored now. Piss off, there's a good chap. Oh and carry on being American in your language. The use of the word arse seemed strange when coming from one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 10 Jun 13 - 05:21 PM Yes bullying people in to accepting your stance. You have a stance, no one is stupid enough to think that you do not have a stance. No one but you. Musket/Ian You are not as F***ed up as me. You are way way more f***ed up. You have made hundreds of posts on this forum apparently trying to convince yourself that you don't have a stance which is obvious to everyone but you. Canadian language, you ignorant braying ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Jun 13 - 07:25 PM May that be because, with all respect to Joe, it doesn't actually say anything? Well yes. I admire the efforts of those who interpret God for themselves to fit their own personal mould. Unfortunately, this generally involves so much watering-down of the God concept that, well, the valiant interpreters might just as well be atheists themselves. As for this: And could it be that all the sacred myths and sacred writings and sacred rituals of all cultures, serve at their best to awaken in us a mindfulness of the sacredness that surrounds us? And could it be that through time, there have been people who embody the sacred for us, in whom the sacred is incarnate? As I pointed out recently (and got ignored for, but hey), all this sacredness is a bit relative. What's a sacred ritual in your culture might be abhorrent in someone else's. I can't help detecting a hint of implicit religious imperialism here. Had you perchance been born into certain other religious cultures and typed what you just typed, you might well have had in mind the sacred rituals of removing the foreskin of a month-old baby boy or the whole of the external genitalia of little girls, or the enforced subjugation of women to the extent of their having to wear clothing that permits only a postbox-sized part of them to be shown in public. To someone or other, all these similarly religion-derived things are just as sacred as the stuff that gives you so much edification. It might come as something as a shock to those who find such solace in these sacred rituals and traditions to hear that some of us find equal, if not greater, awakening of joy in the triumphant ordinariness of nature in all its beauty and diversity. Looking for sacredness in holy writings of dubious origin, and in traditions handed down from a thoroughly authoritarian regime which just happens to be the one you were born into, smacks rather strongly of a lack of trust in good old Mother Nature (not to speak of good old Mother Common Sense, to quote that most down-to-earth fellow John Seymour). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 10 Jun 13 - 08:15 PM You are a piece of work Mr. Shaw. "As I pointed out recently (and got ignored for, but hey), " Consider please that people are ignoring you because your hatred of religion keeps causing you to keep trying to shovel condescending piles of shite like this in people's faces. "all this sacredness is a bit relative. What's a sacred ritual in your culture might be abhorrent in someone else's. I can't help detecting a hint of implicit religious imperialism here" Joe basically said he is religious because he enjoys the experience in HIS religion. That has nothing to do with any other religion and certainly no hint of Imperialism. And THEN you go on to being an accident of birth away from committing any number of things done in the name of OTHER religions. Stop embarrassing yourself you incoherent JERK, shut up!. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Jun 13 - 08:34 PM Have another vat of wine, Wacko. You were telling me off elsewhere a few minutes ago for gratuitous name-calling, as I recall. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 11 Jun 13 - 12:08 AM Yes and I am telling you off here for being rude and condescending. When I called you a jerk it was not gratuitous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: GUEST,Musket sans respectability Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:16 AM Well, if all atheists can be lumped together, why not all Americans? You wrote the op, I just carried on in the same silly manner. I thought it would be what you wanted. .... Carolina /Canada. All the same, dear chap. Either can claim you belong to the other for starters. Bbbbbrrrrrraaaaaaaýyyyyyyyyyyy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:27 AM "Carolina /Canada. All the same, dear chap" .,,. Oh, come, Ian. Can't have that sort of lamentable lumping-together, you know. Great diffs, as ass/arse shows, in linguistic usage, with much more of the English & French influence farther north. Why, by the merest coincidence, a clue [which I got as it went by!] in this week's 'Poirot' {ITV Sunday 8 pm} enabled the egregious Hercule to identify the villainess's claim to be a Yooser & identify her as being actually Canadian, when she described something complete as being 'from A to zed', when a true American would have said 'A to zee'. Zo there! ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 11 Jun 13 - 05:17 AM I guess pointing out to you that I have said at least twice on this thread that no group can be "lumped together" would not make any difference? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: GUEST,Musket sans Agatha Christie Date: 11 Jun 13 - 07:58 AM I saw that too. I am usually slow on the uptake whilst watching the telly. But I felt rather proud of myself when I noted at the time that she didn't know of Paddy Parade and said zed. You are conversing with an ex disk jockey here who through genuine ignorance at the time played songs by zed zed topp. Nobody picked me up on it either. It took listening to an interview with John Peel before I noticed. Everything fell into place regarding the marketing use of EZ for that matter. If atheists spoke differently and didn't walk around all day knocking on doors asking people if they had let Dawkins into their lives, do you think ignorant imbeciles might stop asking if they can be lumped together too? I may have mentioned this before. In Canada the other year, I saw an excellent T shirt with a dictionary entry. Canadian (noun) unarmed American with healthcare. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 Jun 13 - 08:46 AM ""Please note everyone else . This is not an attack on any group of people. Just one person, Ian Mather, who demonstrates extremely poor moral character while posing as "Musket" on this forum."" If you have so much of a problem with Ian posting as Musket, a perfectly normal moniker as far as anybody but "little old religious zealot you" is concerned, how come you haven't the guts to come out from behind "Jack the Sailor"? Put your money wher your big whining mouth is, or STFU about others. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 Jun 13 - 08:57 AM ""Yes it was a joke. It was a joke based on a Ricky Gervais movie about the only liar in the world. It was a joke and an allegory to try to answer Gillymoor's question in a lighthearted way. You may be arrogant and silly enough to seriously speculate about the actions of people who now only exist as fossil fragments. I am not."" Another Mandy Rice Davies moment Jack! Well you would say that wouldn't you, after being told you are talking rubbish! Besides you don't possess a sense of humour, which is normal for passive/aggressive "perennial victims". Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian Date: 11 Jun 13 - 10:03 AM I suppose he needs to be able to pigeon hole people and two names confuses him. I deserve his vitriol mind, dismissing him as a lunatic and then poking fun at him isn't clever. Although I do enjoy it all the same, as boorish as it is, because he responds by showing his arse even more. Hence the downward spiral. .... You see that's the problem with trying to lump people in one box as he insists. In the words of his fellow Canadian- Nothing is perfect in God's perfect plan. I doubt he will let his name out, as is his right. He tends to be secretive. He asked me nicely never to visit whichever of The Carolinas it is he lives in. Presumably reckons I have nothing better to do than drift down into Dumbfuckistan when I am in The States. Doing his best to ensure Musket is Ian Mather however, seems to be a passion. Just the same as saying I .. Whatever bollocks he says, I tend not to let it sink in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:04 PM "didn't walk around all day knocking on doors asking people if they had let (whoever) into their lives" Musket? The percentage of religious people who actually do that is absolutely tiny. Mostly it's some Jehovah's Witnesses and some Mormons who do, in my experience. So...why do you speak as though that's what "religious people" as a general category do, when hardly any of them actually do it? That's what Jack is referring to as lumping people together, and he started the thread NOT to lump all atheists together, but to point out that it's stupid to stereotype people BY lumping them all together as though they all shared some characteristic you don't like. I know you're not dead stupid, so you probably have realized that...but you can't seem to be bothered to acknowledge it. Is it more fun for you just to continue the feuding and wisecracks and deliberately avoid recognizing the actual point Jack is making? He's saying that you treat people without respect and stereotype them if they happen to be "religious". That you lump them all together. And he appears to be quite correct, going by your many remarks on the subject. The fact that the two of you have gone on about it this long indicates that you're both unwilling to let go without getting in the last word. Typical of battling egos. My bet is that you'll still be going on about it a year from now, and nothing will have changed, but you'll have at least provided some idle amusement for people like me who read the thread every day...and perhaps occasionally comment on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:14 PM You know, I'm thinking....I should've PM'd that to you. Then you wouldn't have an audience when and if you respond. And therefore no one to perform for when you respond. That is one of the key problems on this forum...the people here, like politicians, are very self-consciously playing to their entire forum audience every time they post...pulling the beards of their usual enemies and looking for knowing grins and applause from their usual allies. It doesn't do much to assist any real communication between 2 people. Rather, it obfuscates the process. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 11 Jun 13 - 03:06 PM steve says "believe me i really dont want to know..." thankyou for agreeing with me when i suggested that the challenger did not want to know the answer,by demonstating that this in fact is the case.i reckon that puts the rest of your reply to me into perpective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: GUEST,Musket sans respectability Date: 11 Jun 13 - 04:10 PM Little Hawk. Don't fear. I won't get a stiffy from playing to a crowd. Neither do I have a stance from which I won't budge. I merely read the op when he posts and respond in kind. My views and reasons for my approach are up there somewhere without boring people further. Do you actually think I reckon all Christians knock on doors? I doubt you do, so why say it? I accept that irony and turning people's stupidity back at them can go over the heads of some but your post did disappoint me all the same. Sad really. Whilst I don't share your views over everybody having some belief even if not conventional, I do see where you are coming from. Hence my flippant Sheffield Wednesday references. Knowing grins are difficult when nobody can see you. I would be bemused if anybody agreed with my serious points and horrified if sailor baiting was popular. ... He may be your mate but his arse is on full view whilst ever he has this fascination with clumsily pushing his Creed by claiming lack of Creed is an organised assertive movement. He can't get the idea of irreligious. Can you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jun 13 - 04:31 PM Yeah, sure I can get the idea of irreligious. After all, I grew up in an irreligious family, took it for granted, and was entirely irreligious myself for about the first 1/3 of my life. I'm still not all that "religious" (in the sense of specific beliefs, doctrines, labels, etc), but I am spiritually minded, meaning, I find spiritual reasons there behind all the religions, rather than feeling I must belong exclusively to one of them. "Do you actually think I reckon all Christians knock on doors?" No. (smile) Not for a moment did I think that. But you said it, thereby advancing the stereotype. It's a way of talking...like mentioning "tinfoil hats" or "little green men" or "conspiracy theory". It sets a certain tone. It denotes an attitude. Jack is not my "mate". ;-) In fact, we have often butted heads and disagreed about stuff in the past, we seem to really annoy each other at times for some reason, but I do happen to agree with the point he's making in this particular thread. That doesn't make me his mate...just means I agree with him on this occasion. "Knowing grins are difficult when nobody can see you." Yup. ;-) That's why a keyboard isn't all that good a communicator. I don't think Jack is pushing "his creed" here. I haven't heard him trying to convert anyone or "save" them. I think he's simply objecting to the same few people rising like jack-in-the-boxes (no intended reference to Jts) every time the words "God" or "religion" or "spirituality" are mentioned just so they can ridicule it...and trotting out the usual extreme stereotypes in order to do so. Yeah, sure, I get that you are saying a lot of the stuff you say with a bemused smile. So am I. ;-) Alas, the typeface just doesn't show it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Jun 13 - 07:05 PM What pete the liar says Steve says: steve says "believe me i really dont want to know..." What pete the liar concludes from this blatant untruth of his: thankyou for agreeing with me when i suggested that the challenger did not want to know the answer,by demonstating that this in fact is the case.i reckon that puts the rest of your reply to me into perpective. And now the crunch, folks, what Steve actually said: Believe me, I really do want to hear an answer. And believe me, you have never answered it before. Now I wonder what the explanation for this can possibly be. Let's try a few stabs: *pete is so stupid that he can't understand plain English when he reads it (after all, he certainly can't write it himself). *pete is a liar who hopes that no-one will take the trouble to scroll back up the thread to discover what Steve actually said (after all, pete is the past master at insulting every honest scientist on the planet, so why not insult the intelligence of the people on this forum as well?) *pete thinks he remembered what Steve said so he churned out, as a verbatim quote I might add, what he thought he'd remembered, and couldn't be arsed to go back just to do a quick check (after all, he has consistently shown himself to be by far the laziest bastard on this forum, never got round to this, haven't managed to look up that, had no time yet for the other). Well if you ask me pete embodies a good dash of all three. What a plonker. Pretty unchristian, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Jun 13 - 07:14 PM I don't think Jack is pushing "his creed" here. I haven't heard him trying to convert anyone or "save" them. I think he's simply objecting to the same few people rising like jack-in-the-boxes (no intended reference to Jts) every time the words "God" or "religion" or "spirituality" are mentioned just so they can ridicule it...and trotting out the usual extreme stereotypes in order to do so. Hmm. Not only do you demonise a good few people who put a lot of thought into what they post as you confuse ridicule with criticism, you also get your jack-in-the-box analogy completely arse about face. You are defending the man who, almost single-handedly, starts all these fights by starting thread after thread after thread on the topic. There's your jack-in-the-box for you, not us. The only true part of the above quote is the first three words of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jun 13 - 07:51 PM "Demonize"??? I'm "demonizing" people merely by pointing out that they apparently enjoy ridiculing other people simply for having different beliefs about something? How does this equate to demonizing anyone? I'm just saying you shouldn't treat people that way, that's all. Do you feel demonized by my questioning your crass interpersonal behaviour toward others, Steve? You poor, poor man. I never meant to cause you such pain...I just didn't realize you were that sensitive. (ironical smile) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Jun 13 - 09:41 PM You may rest assured that nothing anyone says on this or any other forum makes me feel demonised, sensitised or pained. I post under my real name (unlike you and hypocrite Wacko Jacko) and I play a dead straight bat at all times. What I say is what I think, no more, no less. Even Don would probably not mind my usurping his soubriquet ever so slightly by my telling you that what you see is what you get. If you think you can get at a bloke who's like that, you're a better man than I am. Having cleared up your misconception, let me make it quite clear to you that, as far as I'm concerned, anyone is entitled to believe whatever they want. In fact, I'd fight for their right to do so. Let me make it quite clear also that I am not entitled to ridicule anyone for holding a particular private belief. Now did you, by any chance, spot the great big clue in that last sentence? Well, as you're not a man of subtle understanding, permit me to explain. For all I care, you can believe in great big fat fairies in the bottom of your garden. That's approximately as likely as the truth of belief in God. Where I start to get bothered is when you try to get other people to believe your improbable notion. Tell the world about your big fat fairies and we'll smile indulgently in your direction. Tell the world about your God, the same. But tell your kids that they must believe in your God or sign them up at birth to your God-club, or that your God is as likely as not to exist (a big lie), or that he's a better God than other people's Gods, or that people who reject your unlikely God are threateningly militant bullies, or that he broke all nature's laws in order to create everything from nothing in some kind of flash of magic, in the face of all the hard-won evidence of science, and I'm parting company with you. And the more you go on about it (the job of religion), the more I'll resist. And if you keep on, you are opening yourself up to ridicule, and you deserve it. I don't ridicule anyone here for holding particular beliefs (don't confuse lusty challenge with ridicule a la Wacko), but I might give them the ridicule they deserve for the way they express those beliefs and the way they cultivate elaborate delusions for themselves and diss hard-working scientists. Religion needs to be fought. It's a very bad thing, old chap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 11 Jun 13 - 10:41 PM How can you communicate with a person who won't stand by his own words less than three hours after he puts them in writing? I fear that Mr. Shaw has lost his marbles as well as his memory. 07:14 PM Hmm. Not only do you demonise a good few people who put a lot of thought into what they post as you confuse ridicule with criticism, 09:41 PM You may rest assured that nothing anyone says on this or any other forum makes me feel demonised, sensitised or pained. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 11 Jun 13 - 10:54 PM That was a very well written post of 4:31. I hope you take it as a compliment that I consider my agreement to be the last word on this thread. Joe, You can close this thread if you please, as far as I am concerned, As LH pointed out, it really has descended into serious personal abuse. and the Militant Atheist one as well, so I won't complain if you close it. but if you do, please give Mr. Shaw and Mr. Mather each a chance to have a last word.
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jun 13 - 11:30 PM You clearly have a quarrel going on with someone about how they handle their religion, Steve....but it isn't me. ;-) What I wonder is, who is it? "or tell your kids that they must believe in your God" Who did that? Not me. And I wonder...did he also tell them that they must believe in flag, country, and some damned political party? Or did he just very strongly imply all of that by already doing so himself? That's what usually happens. As to which does more harm to children, that depends on specific circumstances, but ALL people who have children inadvertently program them into having a certain outlook on things, regardless of whether they try to do so or not. It just happens that way, because children imitate what their parents do...when they're quite young. That may change later on when they hit puberty, of course. ;-) It very often changes radically at that point. "Having cleared up your misconception" Oh, YES, Steve! I am soooo grateful for that kindness on your part. You will surely be my moral deliverance and slowly move me in the direction of reason and sanity. La de da... "as you're not a man of subtle understanding" (Snort!) Oh, GOOD one, Steve! Your satiric wit is razor sharp, as always. I am cut to the quick! I may have to commit ritual suicide, Japanese style, now that I am faced with the knowledge of my tragic lack of subtlety. "Where I start to get bothered is when you try to get other people to believe your improbable notion." Really? Hmm. When did I try to do that? What is my improbable notion? Tell me. "or that he's a better God than other people's Gods" Say what? "He?" Where do you get "He"? What other Gods? Be specific now. "and diss hard-working scientists" Sorry. I don't do that either. I like science. I'm not sure who you have in mind, but it isn't me. "Religion needs to be fought." Aha! Now you have stated your position in a crystal clear manner, Steve. If you feel that religion has to be fought, then you're at war with religion. And that's what Jack's been saying all along. What you're mostly doing, Steve, is fighting that war on these various threads, and assuming that anyone whom you think is on the other side of it fits all the loony stuff you're already assumed they would fit...such as "broke all nature's laws in order to create everything from nothing in some kind of flash of magic". Yeah, right...heh! In short, you are continually battling a straw man you have imagined, rather like Don Quixote charging at the windmills, convinced you are fighting the good fight to save society, children, etc. Get serious, man! You'll wear yourself out tilting with those windmills. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian Date: 12 Jun 13 - 01:55 AM I suppose it is up to me to be flippant and irresponsible Someone has to. .. Mr Mather can't have any last word purely because he doesn't exist. Musket exists, on the basis of posting. Ian exists and Ian Mather exists but Mr Mather has never posted on these threads. If my title of Dr seems somewhat pedantic then let's not forget my comment is aimed at someone who picks up on the flimsiest word and extrapolates it to mean whatever twisted crap he wishes. Then gets confused when I return the compliment. I wasn't aware the op had the right to close threads? Surely once you display your arse others have the right to take photos? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jun 13 - 02:11 AM No, I don't think the OP has the right to close threads. I asked for that once myself, and I was informed that the thread, once started, belongs to the forum, not to me...even if it was my original idea. ;-) That means this thread could theoretically go on FOREVER! Or at least until the forum ceases to exist. That means there's no escape other than: 1. forbearance 2. one's own death 3. the end of Mudcat Cafe 5. the cessation of the Internet itself 6. a permanent power failure 7. worldwide nuclear war 8. an act of God shutting down this thread (joke!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: GUEST,Musket sans body Date: 12 Jun 13 - 02:41 AM You forgot reaching a stage where knocking on the door and running off isn't as much fun if there is nobody at home. Most seem to have reached that point. Me too. However, if the last word by default sums up the thread then I suppose it would be sad to leave it wallowing in the fantasy of the op. I suggest anybody reading this scrolls to the top and you will see what I mean. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Jun 13 - 02:50 AM Well yes. I admire the efforts of those who interpret God for themselves to fit their own personal mould. Unfortunately, this generally involves so much watering-down of the God concept that, well, the valiant interpreters might just as well be atheists themselves. Once again, we have evidence that those who oppose religion, are able to see religious faith only through fundamentalist eyes. If believers have a concept of God that actually makes sense, they are dismissed as "might just as well be atheists themselves." Hmmmmm? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Jun 13 - 05:47 AM You clearly have a quarrel going on with someone about how they handle their religion, Steve....but it isn't me. ;-) What I wonder is, who is it? "or tell your kids that they must believe in your God" Who did that? Not me. And I wonder...did he also tell them that they must believe in flag, country, and some damned political party? Or did he just very strongly imply all of that by already doing so himself? That's what usually happens. As to which does more harm to children, that depends on specific circumstances, but ALL people who have children inadvertently program them into having a certain outlook on things, regardless of whether they try to do so or not. It just happens that way, because children imitate what their parents do...when they're quite young. That may change later on when they hit puberty, of course. ;-) It very often changes radically at that point. "Having cleared up your misconception" Oh, YES, Steve! I am soooo grateful for that kindness on your part. You will surely be my moral deliverance and slowly move me in the direction of reason and sanity. La de da... "as you're not a man of subtle understanding" (Snort!) Oh, GOOD one, Steve! Your satiric wit is razor sharp, as always. I am cut to the quick! I may have to commit ritual suicide, Japanese style, now that I am faced with the knowledge of my tragic lack of subtlety. "Where I start to get bothered is when you try to get other people to believe your improbable notion." Really? Hmm. When did I try to do that? What is my improbable notion? Tell me. "or that he's a better God than other people's Gods" Say what? "He?" Where do you get "He"? What other Gods? Be specific now. "and diss hard-working scientists" Sorry. I don't do that either. I like science. I'm not sure who you have in mind, but it isn't me. "Religion needs to be fought." Aha! Now you have stated your position in a crystal clear manner, Steve. If you feel that religion has to be fought, then you're at war with religion. And that's what Jack's been saying all along. What you're mostly doing, Steve, is fighting that war on these various threads, and assuming that anyone whom you think is on the other side of it fits all the loony stuff you're already assumed they would fit...such as "broke all nature's laws in order to create everything from nothing in some kind of flash of magic". Yeah, right...heh! In short, you are continually battling a straw man you have imagined, rather like Don Quixote charging at the windmills, convinced you are fighting the good fight to save society, children, etc. Get serious, man! You'll wear yourself out tilting with those windmills. As I've been at pains to point out, I'm not fighting anyone. I react in these threads to what people say. The fighters are the thread-initiators. And a word of advice. You lost it big-time in this post. It doesn't chime at all with what I said in mine (misrepresentation, as I've said before, is the most accomplished dark art on this and most other discussion forums). You were flailing around, not for the first time. Stay cool and stay on top. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Jun 13 - 05:49 AM I'll try that again, with the italics in the right places. Sorry about that. You clearly have a quarrel going on with someone about how they handle their religion, Steve....but it isn't me. ;-) What I wonder is, who is it? "or tell your kids that they must believe in your God" Who did that? Not me. And I wonder...did he also tell them that they must believe in flag, country, and some damned political party? Or did he just very strongly imply all of that by already doing so himself? That's what usually happens. As to which does more harm to children, that depends on specific circumstances, but ALL people who have children inadvertently program them into having a certain outlook on things, regardless of whether they try to do so or not. It just happens that way, because children imitate what their parents do...when they're quite young. That may change later on when they hit puberty, of course. ;-) It very often changes radically at that point. "Having cleared up your misconception" Oh, YES, Steve! I am soooo grateful for that kindness on your part. You will surely be my moral deliverance and slowly move me in the direction of reason and sanity. La de da... "as you're not a man of subtle understanding" (Snort!) Oh, GOOD one, Steve! Your satiric wit is razor sharp, as always. I am cut to the quick! I may have to commit ritual suicide, Japanese style, now that I am faced with the knowledge of my tragic lack of subtlety. "Where I start to get bothered is when you try to get other people to believe your improbable notion." Really? Hmm. When did I try to do that? What is my improbable notion? Tell me. "or that he's a better God than other people's Gods" Say what? "He?" Where do you get "He"? What other Gods? Be specific now. "and diss hard-working scientists" Sorry. I don't do that either. I like science. I'm not sure who you have in mind, but it isn't me. "Religion needs to be fought." Aha! Now you have stated your position in a crystal clear manner, Steve. If you feel that religion has to be fought, then you're at war with religion. And that's what Jack's been saying all along. What you're mostly doing, Steve, is fighting that war on these various threads, and assuming that anyone whom you think is on the other side of it fits all the loony stuff you're already assumed they would fit...such as "broke all nature's laws in order to create everything from nothing in some kind of flash of magic". Yeah, right...heh! In short, you are continually battling a straw man you have imagined, rather like Don Quixote charging at the windmills, convinced you are fighting the good fight to save society, children, etc. Get serious, man! You'll wear yourself out tilting with those windmills. As I've been at pains to point out, I'm not fighting anyone. I react in these threads to what people say. The fighters are the thread-initiators. And a word of advice. You lost it big-time in this post. It doesn't chime at all with what I said in mine (misrepresentation, as I've said before, is the most accomplished dark art on this and most other discussion forums). You were flailing around, not for the first time. Stay cool and stay on top. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Jun 13 - 05:51 AM Wacko, dear fellow, have a little think about the difference between being demonised and feeling demonised. Then go to the back of the class with Little Hawk in the misrepresentation naughty corner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Jun 13 - 06:01 AM But Joe, we end up with so many "concepts of God" that the concept becomes almost meaningless. He's a spirit that exists in all things. Or he's a force that drives nature. Either of these can be sentient or non-sentient. Or he's a big beardie-weirdie in the sky. He sets up the world to let it run on its own (justification for the all the nasty things that happen on his watch). Or he's all-seeing and all-knowing and he can intervene arbitrarily if we ask him to in our prayers (otherwise, why would you ask?) You can have "your own personal concept" that manages to wriggle round all the objections that make you feel a bit queasy about him. Pointing out to you this incredible diversity of elaborate concepts is not seeing things through a fundamentalist lens. It is simply pointing out the absurdity of it all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Jun 13 - 06:15 AM I have a hypothesis that people who start a thread and then ask for it to be closed usually do it because they wish they hadn't started the bloody thing in the first place, got out of their depth in it, made a twit of themselves in it and hope that, once it's closed, it will sink down the list without trace. So that, after a few weeks of dignity-repair, they can come back and start another stupid thread or two. When you think about it, Wacko, we're doing you a big favour by subverting that process by keeping this one going. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: TheSnail Date: 12 Jun 13 - 07:18 AM Since the "Militant" thread seems to have gone even further down the road of childish abuse than this one, may I draw attention to my post there thread.cfm?threadid=150071&messages=918#3522330? I which never really received a satifactory response from either Joe or Steve.
(copy the "printer-friendly" link) That being said, I don't have anything to say in response. I think we're more-or-less in agreement, except perhaps for semantic differences. -Joe-. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Jun 13 - 07:21 AM That's a massive thread that takes yonks to load. Copy 'n' paste it, yeah? No joining the pete lazy-school! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 12 Jun 13 - 08:42 AM ""That's what Jack is referring to as lumping people together, and he started the thread NOT to lump all atheists together, but to point out that it's stupid to stereotype people BY lumping them all together as though they all shared some characteristic you don't like."" Then he failed dismally, having spent almost all of this thread and two others he started, lumping all non believers together as an anti religious movement. DUH? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jun 13 - 11:02 AM Steve, I am simply having some fun with you. I'm taking the piss. Comprendo? You're so busy trying to somehow embarass me by proving that I'm not as "smart" as you are? Or as "subtle"? You hope to thereby crush me and make me crawl off miserably by scoring some devastatingly clever comeback? Well, hey, that's what (virtually) ALL egos do to other egos in a Mudcat debate. All the time. You do it. Jack does it. I do it. Don does it. All the competing egos here do that. They can't help it, they're just made that way. But don't make the mistake of taking it seriously and imagining that it matters, because it doesn't. I do actually care about the subject matter of this thread. Yes. But I don't actually care what you think about it, because it simply doesn't matter to me. Your thinking is something you have to live with, not me, so why should it matter to me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: TheSnail Date: 12 Jun 13 - 11:41 AM No, Steve, I won't clutter this thread with stuff that's easily available elsewhere. It takes seconds to download so who's being lazy? You could have responded properly in the first place. Perhaps you are just looking for ways to dodge questions that don't fit your version of science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Stringsinger Date: 12 Jun 13 - 11:45 AM "Once again, we have evidence that those who oppose religion, are able to see religious faith only through fundamentalist eyes. If believers have a concept of God that actually makes sense, they are dismissed as "might just as well be atheists themselves." Joe, this thread is a load of crap perpetrated by ignorant people who have their own agenda and axe to grind. By supporting this stuff, you are enabling not a legitimate conversation but a futile defense. If there isn't a decent discussion about this topic, I'm outa' here and that probably means Mudcat in general. I'm annoyed at all the name-calling and condescension by those who purport to be religious. I was called names when I was trying to have a decent conversation about a topic I care about. The personal diatribes and brickbats thrown mean to me that Mudcat is no longer serving the purpose of fostering legitimate conversations but is a propaganda mechanism to be used by ignorant louts. The words "god bless you" have sounded more like a curse than a nice greeting. Good bye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 12 Jun 13 - 12:03 PM Can I have the last word? Can it be "undercarriage"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jun 13 - 12:08 PM "If there isn't a decent discussion about this topic" There never ends up being a decent conversation about any such topic here, stringsinger. That's a given. I used to try with all sincerity to have decent conversations about serious topics on Mudcat...I tried for over a decade...but it's hopeless. A bunch of the same ill-natured people here just get into their usual personal attacks, putdowns, insults, and silly ego-enhancement games and it all goes down the toilet in a very short time. I don't bother anymore to talk seriously to people who have nothing but snide ill will, lofty sneering, and rancour to offer in return. Instead, I amuse myself a bit with them, that's all. If I want to have a decent conversation with someone, I do it where it actually can be done...in real 3-D life. One on one. Disrespect is way too easy for people on the internet. They can't see the other person, they can't read tone of voice or body language, and there appear to be no consequences to their own callous behaviour. That makes it a very poor environment for any kind of decent communication. But it's so EAAAAASY! And that's why people do it. They don't even have to get dressed or get out of their chair. This is how the world ends, not with a BANG, but a keystroke. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 12 Jun 13 - 12:43 PM Some here might find this BBC series interesting. Hosted by the excellent Johnathan Miller (The Body in Question) he converses one on one with 6 prominent atheists. The Atheism Tapes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 12 Jun 13 - 01:31 PM Looks like I mistakenly lumped Denys Turner together with some atheists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Jun 13 - 01:37 PM Steve, I am simply having some fun with you. I'm taking the piss. Comprendo? You're so busy trying to somehow embarass me by proving that I'm not as "smart" as you are? Or as "subtle"? You hope to thereby crush me and make me crawl off miserably by scoring some devastatingly clever comeback? Well golly and gosh, we do seem to have a little complex, don't we now? But I don't actually care what you think about it, because it simply doesn't matter to me. Your thinking is something you have to live with, not me, so why should it matter to me? Then why do you keep on not ignoring me? You do seem to get awfully worked up about stuff that doesn't matter to you and that you care not a jot about. Keep calm 'n' carry on... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Jun 13 - 01:48 PM No, Steve, I won't clutter this thread with stuff that's easily available elsewhere. It takes seconds to download so who's being lazy? You could have responded properly in the first place. Perhaps you are just looking for ways to dodge questions that don't fit your version of science. What "version of science"?? Frankly, you could have responded to the post that got your goat within the thread it's in. Claiming that you didn't because of all the childish abuse there is just piffle. There's just as much of that in this thread as there (those bloody Christians...). It's bad enough having all the natter-Jack threads on atheism without your mucking things around even more with you attempts at cross-stitching. Respond over there, and, if it's of any interest, I'll be right with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Jun 13 - 03:08 PM I think Stringsinger has a point. This subject has become tedious - and when Mudcatters get bored, they call each other names. And that's distasteful. I think that most of us who have participated in this thread, have ideas that are really not that far apart. Most of us are fairly rational, and most of us are not fundamentalists. But most of us need to have a little more tolerance. I suppose that the only thing proved by this "atheist" series of threads, is that Jack the Sailor likes to fight, and Steve Shaw likes to fight. It does at times make it difficult for the rest of us to carry on a civil discussion and come to some kind of meeting of the minds. Can't say I know what to do about that. I don't do "disciplinary" moderation any more. Max removed me because I was fast becoming the most hated person at Mudcat, and being a hated person is not the "real" Joe Offer. So, now I do music editing and tech work and new member registration. Most of the negative responses were due to my refusal to stop certain people from speaking, no matter how obnoxious they might be. So, now such things are handled by an Anonymous Moderation Team, which doesn't handle things much differently than I did. But it has never been officially announced who they are, so people are left to guess. Mudcat remains a free forum for a wide variety of discussion, both the good and the bad. When I get tired of the bad stuff, I stay in the music section. It's still very nice there - most of the time. And there is lots of research work left to be done on the vast collection of folk songs that have been posted in the Forum. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Jun 13 - 03:39 PM Thread #151015 Message #3525521 Posted By: Steve Shaw 12-Jun-13 - 06:01 AM Thread Name: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together?
But Joe, we end up with so many "concepts of God" that the concept becomes almost meaningless. He's a spirit that exists in all things. Or he's a force that drives nature. Either of these can be sentient or non-sentient. Or he's a big beardie-weirdie in the sky. He sets up the world to let it run on its own (justification for the all the nasty things that happen on his watch). Or he's all-seeing and all-knowing and he can intervene arbitrarily if we ask him to in our prayers (otherwise, why would you ask?) You can have "your own personal concept" that manages to wriggle round all the objections that make you feel a bit queasy about him. Pointing out to you this incredible diversity of elaborate concepts is not seeing things through a fundamentalist lens. It is simply pointing out the absurdity of it all. But then we get down to brass tacks, Steve. One idea about God that is almost universally held, is that God is ineffable, that God is beyond definition. Any attempt to define or even name God, falls short. So, all the words said about God, are approximations. As I've said before in one or the other of these too many threads, the tradition in Judaism is not to pronounce the name of G-D / YHWH, writing God's name without vowels. The Orthodox Christian tradition is to always speak of God in oxymorons, as I do when I speak of That Who Is Beyond and That Who Is Within. So, than it ends up being a choice, not a matter of proof. You choose belief, or you don't. Either one is OK by me. People don't usually choose belief based on "blind faith" (which usually means doing what somebody else tells you to do). They choose belief because it makes sense in their lives, for one reason or another - oftentimes, it's because they have had one or several experiences that they perceive as the Presence of God. Belief should have some sort of rational basis, but it is by definition beyond rationality. So, that's the deal, as I see it. Most or many nonbelievers see faith as some sort of control mechanism or some sort of obeisance to authority, but it's not that way in my life. My wife will tell you that I don't have an obedient bone in my body, and that I'm totally out of control. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian Date: 12 Jun 13 - 03:48 PM Errrr... Bollocks? Just thought I'd add to the conversation in the manner expected. Joe is right on this. Once the argument reaches the point you need to move more fundamentally than you are comfortable wr revert to name calling. Twas ever thus. I decided to get there sooner than most and to be honest I feel vindicated. A pity because now and then I tried posting seriously and to be fair it was generally well received but when I started taking the piss out of Sailor Jack reality took a back seat. I still reckon he tries to be a dangerous idiot but luckily the good catters can see through his clumsy preaching disguised as questions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Can all Athiests be lumped together? From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Jun 13 - 07:45 PM I suppose that the only thing proved by this "atheist" series of threads, is that Jack the Sailor likes to fight, and Steve Shaw likes to fight. If you think that you can get to me by way of this entirely dishonest gambit, think again. There is no equivalence between me and Wacko Jacko. There is not one rational member of this board that would see me and him as some kind of equal and opposite. I don't even need to go into the reasons. I know precisely what you're trying to do here, and you should be ashamed of yourself. So, than it ends up being a choice, not a matter of proof. You choose belief, or you don't. Either one is OK by me. People don't usually choose belief based on "blind faith" (which usually means doing what somebody else tells you to do). They choose belief because it makes sense in their lives, for one reason or another - oftentimes, it's because they have had one or several experiences that they perceive as the Presence of God. Belief should have some sort of rational basis, but it is by definition beyond rationality. Unfortunately for your rather circuitous argument, most people who end up believing have not chosen belief. They have had belief foisted on them by accident of birth. They have been instructed by religious "education" exactly what to believe, and that has included an all-too-clear threat of the sanctions for demurring. Your belief may well make sense in your life, but there are far better ways of making sense in your life that you have chosen to (or been forced to) reject. Belief in God cannot enjoy any scintilla of rational basis, as it is based on the summary rejection of all the evidence belonging to the contrary view. It is blind faith every time, in the sense that you close your eyes to rationality. Now I know that there are more things in life than rationality. We are not all Mr Spocks. But let's at least be honest about what comes under the umbrella and what doesn't. Joe Offer may well be a particularly enlightened example of what a believer can potentially be, but he is not a microcosm of the whole of the rotten world of religious faith, not by a long chalk, and that argument is a pretty poor defence of religion. |
