Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Brian63 · 06-30-2002, 09:27 AM

Ok Typhon,

I believe I see where you're coming from. It seems it is more of a question if AtheistGal ever really truly did not believe in the existence of God. She claims to have disbelieved, but perhaps "deep down" she really did believe in God, making her a theist (and never really an atheist). If that is true, I'd agree with you that she never really was an atheist.

Of course, the most reliable means we have of telling whether a person is an atheist or not is just by what they tell us. You pointed out that there are some seemingly contradictory statements, or at least statements suggesting that while she called herself an atheist, she really did believe in God. I may have just glanced over that part in the thread or the website without noticing it. My bad.

It is no big deal (I think we can agree) if she was or was not an atheist.

Brian

06-30-2002, 05:06 PM

What? There is even serious discussion that her conversion indicated that she was never a true scotsman, erm, atheist?

I�m sorry people, that�s just idiocy. Of course she was an atheist. Granted, she was either an atheist for the wrong reasons or forgot her reasons, but it�s presumptuous and downright insulting to dictate to other people their ability to change their mind.

Goodness gracious, don�t sink to the level of those who insist that apostates were never really sincere in their faith before they changed their mind.

ManM · 06-30-2002, 06:19 PM

Meta,
I am far from threatened.

Helen,
I hope that someday I will live up to the label of "True Christian".

Arrowman · 07-01-2002, 01:47 AM

Hello Gurdur

First off, I won't prolong this thread any longer than necessary. (Timewise that is - this is to be a rather lengthy post.)

I will however pick out some points you have made, which make direct (and inaccurate) accusations about me and my attitudes and behaviour. In particular, I have been accused of
1. Condoning rudeness in message board posts, provided "you're right".
2. Inconsistency [hypocrisy?] in my application of the "heat-kitchen" analogy.
3. Running away from a debate because I had no answers to the points made by my opponent, and by implication, lying about my reasons for doing so.

These are serious (albeit unfounded) accusations and I wish to respond.

I am acutely aware of your accusation that I have 'thrown up my hands and refused to respond when the going gets tough' (and I will discuss this further below), and I must point out that I am not doing that here; my sole purpose here [in being selective about the points to which I respond] is to limit my responses to those points where you have directly accused me of certain attitudes and behaviour (as opposed to disagreement on some issues).

To progress discussion, on this thread anyway, on any of the other more general points (on subjects such as atheist behaviour on threads such as this, consistency and coherency of moral arguments, etc) would imho extend this thread beyond its useful life and, since some of them are interesting and important points, they deserve their own, more focused thread(s). In particular, I suspect you and I are the only ones listening to this thread at this stage, and we'd be wasting our breath if we tried to progress them here. Fair enough? Please have a crack at me if you think I'm ducking anything.

(In all that follows: Quotes from Gurdur in plain text, from me in italics)

On "condoning certain behaviours"

Quote:

Gurdur said to me (my emphasis):
a point you consistantly refuse to deal with is incoherency in ethics of treatment of people here; you keep on insisting it's OK to be massively (overly) rude about people as long as one is in the right, a very dubious premise unless you can show that you are in fact in the right, and also that your rudeness is appropriate to the situation.

- and later:

...in the previous Deaf Lesbian Shock-Horror-Scandal thread, you objected to me being unbearably sarcastic about some of the more simply abusive posts in that thread; you insist that it's OK to be rude if one is "in the right", even when the appropriateness of that rudeness is called into question in a hard way. I.e. here, you're saying it's OK for others to be rude about Theist Gal, and you've also (possibly) said it's OK for Kally to be rude about me, but it's not OK for me to be rude about the rude people. Now just where do you get off, hmmmm ?

- and again:

and you yourself brought up this very point in the previous discussion I'm referring to; you asked if it was really OK to simply be insulting in the cause of "rightness", but you never really did condemn it, more condoning it.

- to which I replied:
Chapter and verse please. I have no idea what you're talking about....

- to which Gurdur's response was a quote from my first post on the "Turkey Baster" thread, beginning:
...Observation: In watching Cipher44 and Gurdur go at it, I was struck by something. Because I agree with Cipher's position, and he expressed himself in terms that I would have, I was inclined to "take his side" when he was accused by Gurdur of going over the top. But then I realised that had I seen the same sort of language from someone I disagreed with, I might not have been as tolerant. I think there's something in that for all of us. We're inclined to judge people for being rude, personal attacks or whatever, more harshly when we don't agree with the sentiments they express.

So, on several occasions you have accused me of condoning certain behaviours (in particular, rudeness) because "it's OK when you're in the right". And your evidence for this is the quote given above.

The above quote paragraph
1. Was preceded by a paragraph in which I took both Cipher44 and Gurdur to task for "letting a decent fiery debate descend into personal slanging..." and in which I concluded "...I can't blame you both for getting fired up, but can we please take a breath?" and
2. Is an observation of a tendency which I believe we all have from time to time (ie being more tolerant of over-the-top behaviour when it comes from those we agree with) - from noting and then discarding that tendency in my own reaction to the thread in question.

I cannot see that what I said in any way justifies the assertion that I think "it's OK to be massively (overly) rude about people as long as one is in the right, a very dubious premise unless you can show that you are in fact in the right, and also that your rudeness is appropriate to the situation" or that I have "never really condemned, more condoned" such behaviour.

On The "Internet Heat and Kitchen"

This is a small point, but it rankles.

Quote:

I said:

ATG published her thoughts and opinions on the internet. We pick up and discuss sutff and people from elsewhere on the net all the time. We talk about the characters on the Baptist Board - etc. Publish on the internet, and expect to get talked about, even criticised or even ridiculed, elsewhere on that same medium. Heat-Kitchen.

- and Gurdur responded to the "Heat-Kitchen" remark with

This is where you yourself are in an ironic position, since you have now objected at least twice to the heat I put on.

Not quite. My "heat-kitchen" was a specific response (as was clear from context) to your words

Quote:

Not at all necessesarily; her website was quoted initially without her knowledge.
Asking her politely if she'ld mind discussing it might very well be in order here.

I was disagreeing with your apparent opinion that it was inappropriate to discuss ATG's website without her knowledge. I do not object per se to the 'heat you have put on'; I have been critical of the way you have expressed your opinions, but I have not put myself into "an ironic position".

On My Lack of Response to Gurdur on the "Turkey Baster" Thread

Quote:

My last post on the "Turkey Baster" thread read as follows:

Damn, Gurdur! Now you've made it hard for me. If only you had just ranted a bit and thrown some sarcasm at me (in which case I could have just flipped you the bird), instead of providing detailed, rational arguments (to which I feel obliged to respond). Now I'm getting drawn in to a debate that I never really wanted to enter to that depth.

(At least, I never really wanted to enter the debate on "should this couple have..." but I do find the more general debate on "what is a disability" etc more appealing.)

I am interested in the discussion on "what is a disability" and I think you make some very valid points, many of which I agree with. As I think you say, the last step in the process is to decide how much moral judgement one may feel justified in making on another's actions, but there are many steps one must go through before then. In this thread we've started at the end and that has probably distorted some of the argument. After all, at the end point we may agree to disagree but the really productive argument, from which we all may learn, is along the way.

I do not have the time right now to do justice to your arguments; I will come back to them. Perhaps even in a new thread in some cases.

Quote:

On this thread, in response to Gurdur's accusation that I had "run away" from the thread in question, I said:

It's a fair cop, but society is to blame

In my defence I will point out that IIRC in the thread in question I said I might get back to you, but I really wasn't sure I felt like pursuing the argument. I jumped in to that thread on impulse, and I didn't really want to spend posting time on that discussion. We all have to be selective, in order to preserve our lives, eh?

(Yes, error in recalling what I had said - see below)

- and in response Gurdur said

No, all you wanted to do on that thread was condemn my behaviour; it kinda got you when I was simply too rational to be so condemned, no ?
Too much like hard yakka, mate, for you to actually answer me there rather than simply condemning me ?

- and in response to my words

...Well, if you're talking about "deaf lesbians" no thanks. I should never have entered that debate because I didn't really want to pursue it. Bad message-board-iquette on my part.

Gurdur said:

tsk tsk tsk, you attacked me on that thread, then you get all uptight when your reasoning is logically
challenged on this.
Perhaps I should think about simply "flipping you the bird" on this ?

and later, Gurdur said:

...here yet again you become condemnatory of me, do not adequately ground your disparagements of my good self, demand full grounding from me, then probably you'll simply throw up your hands and declare you should have never gotten involved in this if I produce requested grounding, and that it's all just too difficult to justify your moral condemnations when requested to do so.

I take this seriously, as I believe one should not enter any message board debate unless one is prepared to "follow through" - or at least, gracefully withdraw when life's other priorities prevent your full participation. Otherwise, one risks being accused of the message board sin of "non-responsiveness". (A point I have made to Baptist Board Helen from time to time

) But we all make mistakes from time to time.

To begin with the mea culpa: my recollection of my final post on the "Turkey Baster thread" was faulty. I thought I had said "might get back to you" when in fact I had said "will get back to you". In fact, several days later I realised that I had neither the time nor the inclination to continue the discussion with the degree of rigour and detail required to do justice to Gurdur's posts. I had intended to post an apology and graceful withdrawal (although Gurdur's attitude as expressed here makes me wonder if that would have been worthwhile) but I - sigh - never got around to it.

Nevertheless, I think I made myself clear in my initial response to Gurdur on this subject. In fact, Gurdur did not pick me up on my error of recollection, which makes me wonder just how closely he followed my explanation. Instead, he simply refuses to believe my explanation (in effect accusing me of lying) and re-states his assertion that I was "running away".

I cannot say it more clearly than this.
I jumped into the thread in question to express my opinion on the subject at hand.
Gurdur posted a lengthy response, to which I responded.
Gurder in turn posted two more lengthy responses.
After thanking Gurdur for taking the trouble to make such a detailed response, I said "I'll get back to you".
I later decided that I did not wish to / did not have the time to pursue the debate with the level of rigour demanded by Gurdur's responses. So I withdrew - forgetting to make a post to that effect.

I may therefore be legitimately accused of "non-responsiveness" but to ignore the explanation I gave, and then simply repeat the accusation, is simply an insult to my integrity and an implicit accusation that I am lying.

I will anticipate here the argument that one should never enter a debate in the first place, if all one wishes to do is spout an opinion and then leave. And that is a fair point, but, I submit, if we all followed that guideline this message board would become a very dull place indeed! I will (and I suspect most of us would) reserve the right to withdraw from a debate when we no longer wish to participate, for legitimate reasons, and not have that automatically construed as "you can't answer me".

And yes, I know there have been more than a few insults and critiques of people's behaviour on this thread - but for the most part they do not involve the assertion that "You never meant to respond to me; you ran away because you had no answer to me; your claim that there were other reasons is a lie" and therefore I take this one more seriously than the others.

----------------------------------
As I said at the outset, my purpose in making this post is simply to defend myself / set the record straight on some specific accusations that Gurdur has made about my attitudes and behaviour. I will happily participate (at my option, and to the extent time permits

) in any other threads on the more general issues which Gurdur has raised both here and in the "Turkey Baster" thread. Whatever the disagreements between Gurdur and me in these threads, I do agree that those issues are worth pursuing. However, to date those issues have been raised in the context of threads on specific subjects, and that has somewhat confused the discussion.

Cheers
Arrowman

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

Gurdur · 07-01-2002, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrowman:
....
In fact, several days later I realised that I had neither the time nor the inclination to continue the discussion with the degree of rigour and detail required to do justice to Gurdur's posts. I had intended to post an apology and graceful withdrawal (although Gurdur's attitude as expressed here makes me wonder if that would have been worthwhile) but I - sigh - never got around to it.

So you threw your hands up in the air as it being all too much trouble, but hey, my 'attitude' is a handy thing to blame it all on, hmmm ?

Quote:

So, on several occasions you have accused me of condoning certain behaviours (in particular, rudeness) because "it's OK when you're in the right". And your evidence for this is the quote given above.

Wrong.
The quote I gave from you was as evidence of the fact that you yourself had raised abuse and politeness as an issue - something which you appeared to be questioning my recollection of when I stated that you had done so.
Your condoning of personal abuse is implicit from the history of the Turkey Baster thread and this thread --- you have made no protest at all about the more stupid pieces of personal abuse coming out on those two threads, simply apparently because they emenate from people who reflect your position.

Quote:

.... Instead, he simply refuses to believe my explanation ....

In essence, since I find you hypocritical on this score.

Quote:

I may therefore be legitimately accused of "non-responsiveness" but to ignore the explanation I gave, and then simply repeat the accusation, is simply an insult to my integrity and an implicit accusation that I am lying.

This is now the second thread where you've jumped in to attack me for my condemning of inappropriate abuse. You failed to follow up on the Turkey Baster thread, preferring to attack me here on the grounds of my supposed hectoring. Apparently, while you like to utter your own moral condemnations, should I do so,it is a major problem for you.

Quote:

I will anticipate here the argument that one should never enter a debate in the first place, if all one wishes to do is spout an opinion and then leave. And that is a fair point, but, I submit, if we all followed that guideline this message board would become a very dull place indeed! I will (and I suspect most of us would) reserve the right to withdraw from a debate when we no longer wish to participate, for legitimate reasons, and not have that automatically construed as "you can't answer me".

Yes, yes, yes,

, you really want that freedom of condemning someone, implicitly supporting personal abuse, and whatnot, while demanding that your opponent fully justify his stance --- as you did on the Turkey Baster thread, while not taking the trouble to justify yours.
Hey, hey, hey, it's understood, man, it makes life so much easier, no, to have such an attitude ?

Quote:

And yes, I know there have been more than a few insults and critiques of people's behaviour on this thread - .....and therefore I take this one more seriously than the others.

Priorities differ.

HelenM · 07-01-2002, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:
<strong>Helen,
I hope that someday I will live up to the label of "True Christian".</strong>

I hope I will, too, someday!!!

love
Helen

Gurdur · 07-01-2002, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenSL:

I hope I will, too, someday!!!

Naw, most you can hope for, Helen, is to live up to "True Calvinist Christian", and ManM will have to hope to live up to "True Orthodox Christian", while I of course will hope to live up to "True Unorthodox Atheist".

Gurdur · 07-01-2002, 03:15 AM

I must add this great quote from some 19th-century bishop whose name I unfortunately forget:

Quote:

Orthodoxy is my doxy; heterodoxy is another man's doxy.

If you don't know the meaning of "doxy", look it up.

Gurdur · 07-01-2002, 03:19 AM

Ah, here we go:

from John Bartlett (1820�1905), Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. 1919.

Quote:

ATTRIBUTION: �I have heard frequent use,� said the late Lord Sandwich, in a debate on the Test Laws, �of the words �orthodoxy� and �heterodoxy;� but I confess myself at a loss to know precisely what they mean.� �Orthodoxy, my Lord,� said Bishop Walburton, in a whisper,��orthodoxy is my doxy; heterodoxy is another man�s doxy.�

�Priestley: Memoirs, vol. i. p. 572.

Stephen T-B · 07-01-2002, 05:25 AM

Here are some reasons why people adopt or retain religious beliefs:
1. They were brought up to, and have never seen the need to analyse them because they don't impinge greatly on their lives and anyway, the hymns are jolly, the prayers are comforting, the ritual is familiar, the company is pleasant and the preacher is one cool dude;
2. Not to have them can get you killed.
3. Or sacked.
4. Or ostracised.
5. Or not promoted.
4. A crisis occurred in which god was the only source of help.
5. Religious belief delivers a good feeling: talking about god, reading about god, hearing about god, singing about god, praying to god and giving money for god's work trigger a range of pleasurable emotions, from joy to ecstasy.
7. Without a sense of god's protection, love and forgiveness, life would be unbearably lonely and exposed.

Fervent religious belief is a gut thing which believers should not attempt to rationalise. They should simply enjoy it and have a good life. (But sometimes they don't because congregations fall out, splinter into factions, and then its just horrible. But not as bad as when a couple who share religious beliefs discover they can't stand the sight of one another any more.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-30-2002, 09:27 AM	#151
Brian63 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: My own little fantasy world Posts: 8,911	Ok Typhon, I believe I see where you're coming from. It seems it is more of a question if AtheistGal ever really truly did not believe in the existence of God. She claims to have disbelieved, but perhaps "deep down" she really did believe in God, making her a theist (and never really an atheist). If that is true, I'd agree with you that she never really was an atheist. Of course, the most reliable means we have of telling whether a person is an atheist or not is just by what they tell us. You pointed out that there are some seemingly contradictory statements, or at least statements suggesting that while she called herself an atheist, she really did believe in God. I may have just glanced over that part in the thread or the website without noticing it. My bad. It is no big deal (I think we can agree) if she was or was not an atheist. Brian

06-30-2002, 05:06 PM	#152
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	What? There is even serious discussion that her conversion indicated that she was never a true scotsman, erm, atheist? I�m sorry people, that�s just idiocy. Of course she was an atheist. Granted, she was either an atheist for the wrong reasons or forgot her reasons, but it�s presumptuous and downright insulting to dictate to other people their ability to change their mind. Goodness gracious, don�t sink to the level of those who insist that apostates were never really sincere in their faith before they changed their mind.

06-30-2002, 06:19 PM	#153
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	Meta, I am far from threatened. Helen, I hope that someday I will live up to the label of "True Christian".

07-01-2002, 05:25 AM	#160
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	Here are some reasons why people adopt or retain religious beliefs: 1. They were brought up to, and have never seen the need to analyse them because they don't impinge greatly on their lives and anyway, the hymns are jolly, the prayers are comforting, the ritual is familiar, the company is pleasant and the preacher is one cool dude; 2. Not to have them can get you killed. 3. Or sacked. 4. Or ostracised. 5. Or not promoted. 4. A crisis occurred in which god was the only source of help. 5. Religious belief delivers a good feeling: talking about god, reading about god, hearing about god, singing about god, praying to god and giving money for god's work trigger a range of pleasurable emotions, from joy to ecstasy. 7. Without a sense of god's protection, love and forgiveness, life would be unbearably lonely and exposed. Fervent religious belief is a gut thing which believers should not attempt to rationalise. They should simply enjoy it and have a good life. (But sometimes they don't because congregations fall out, splinter into factions, and then its just horrible. But not as bad as when a couple who share religious beliefs discover they can't stand the sight of one another any more.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.