Arrowman

I agree entirely - on Cliff's site, and in general. I like to put it as "do you want to make a point, or make a difference?" Ridicule can be fun, and has its place as entertainment (and, it must be said, self-reinforcement of beliefs) but don't expect it to make a difference to those you ridicule.

Foot-aim-fire. Oh bugger!

Now I know Catholics are evil

Arrowman

gurdur: I'll reply in length later. Meantime, since you have indicated that you will start a separate thread on this subject, would you please post here a link to that thread when it is started. Just so's we can come and play with you when the time comes.

Cheers.

barbelle

Friends, with all these neurons running, do you think we'll ever change the world? Think we can heighten our evolutionary curve, at least?


Although Ishalon's first post was perhaps more sarcastically scathing than necessary, I rather agree with him. In the time it took to read through this whole weighty thread, what struck me was the deep-felt committment of many atheist Posters to logic and clear sight. I warm at that: a lover of empirical truth, myself; and I have to say that I bristle a little at TheistGal's tone. It reminds me too much of my experience with Christians who go through life with their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears, singing sing-song happy songs and ignoring reality (to a greater or lesser extent. It varies). (TheistGal: please forgive my abrasiveness on this point. It is only focused on this point, and my observations: I do not mean to make value judgments about you, necessarily, or your history.) If we look for answers beyond ourselves, try to understand life, and desire to live well both for our own sake, and the sake of our neighbors, it seems to me that the best way to go around is with our eyes open and deal with life as it is. So, after reading for quite a while, I chuckled a little at Ishalon's moderately-apt sarcasm.

I am so glad to meet you, friends: those of you interested in seeing clearly and objectively, above all else. It's a comfort.

May I also say that quite a few worthy sentiments about community and human respect have been raised; Kudos to you all: again, it makes me happy that I'm here.

Finally, Gurdur: I agree and appreciate Many of the thoughts you've expressed on this post. My one critical (ach, Mensch! diese Madchen!) point: In defending one attacked (and, rightly so) make sure you continue to keep a clear head about the victim, and not forgive them for anything more than you would the attackers.

My best regards to you all. All criticism meant respectfully. Hab ein gutes Tag.

b.

p.s. In light of it's relative length, and not wanting to be either exhaustive or combative, I have generalized my comments to some extent. If anyone would like me to be more specific, or back up my statements, I would be willing to oblige at a later date.

Ciao.

barbelle

oohh, You tempt me. One more thing.

I just happen to have this on my bulletin board, above my desk, two feet away. (And I can't resist)

We're assuming that it's a good thing to not be false to any man. However, the question arises of whether we're talking about 'personal truth' or 'empirical truth'. Personal truth, in the sense of internal comfort and honesty, is, of course, a good-social-necessity. However, in the light that this statement can be taken to mean, "do what feels good to you; what feels good to me" (a premise that I believe is socially self-evident, at least from my experience of American culture) I say it is untrue, unwise, if you will: because if a personal-truth is an empirical-fallacy, it can be hurtful to others.

~~Though, I guess you could say that empirical truths can hurt, too. But at least that's reality, eh?

Any one want to start another thread?

Arrowman

OK Gurdur, let's roll

First off, let me say that I am going to say some things which are critical of the way you have expressed yourself in this thread. I do not wish this to be taken as a personal attack - in a Californian relationship counselling kind of way, I just want to talk about "when you say that, it makes me feel..." or, I want to give you an honest and frank description of how I think you're coming across. Enough of the disclaimers already.

There are many topics to discuss; let me try and be orderly...

I said That said, strong challenging of A Theist Girl's position is justified
and Gurdur said 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 disagree. 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.

Certainly, as a recent participant in these forums, and being known for "honest and thoughtful posts" as you put it, she is perhaps entitled to more consideration than a person completely unknown to us. But I think "...quoted initially without her knowledge" and the suggestion that someone should have "asked her politely if she'd mind discussing it" is stretching the netiquette just a little far.

If I suddenly changed my philosophy in some radical way which might amuse and outrage the people in this forum ("Poor Arrowman... and I thought he was such a nice, reasonable, rational, sexy man...") and published as such on my own website, I'd expect to get talked about here. I wouldn't take offence, and I don't think ATG has either. You seem to be protesting an injustice which the "victim" of the injustice hasn't complained about.

I said In particular, glib though it might appear, I think the "She wasn't a True Atheist" remark is entirely appropriate.
and Gurdur said Nonsense. The reasons have been given.

The only "reason" I can find, is your opinion that based on your prior knowledge of her through her posts, her position was genuinely held. I will defer to that as a very credible opinion, as I do not have that background. At the same time, it is an opinion, and subject to challenge.

I do not believe that "it is impossible for a True Atheist to ever convert to religion". I am not that ideologically arrogant (and I think you are right to suggest that some, too many, atheists are).

However, I think it is legitimate for someone who doubts the sincerity and depth of someone's original deconversion, based on their own description of that deconversion and its surrounding and subsequent events including the reconversion, to make the assertion "you can't have been a True Atheist ™ then". It is for ATG to rebut that assertion if she wishes, and not for you to describe the assertion as "nonsense". Well, I suppose it is legitimate for your to express your opinion, but you have done so in a way which implies that the original assertion was in some way inappropriate and that any other view is "nonsense".

At this stage, you are starting to sound - well, we'll come to that.

I said Someone who left Catholicism for two years based largely on a desire to please her partner, and then returns promptly after dumping him....
and Gurdur said Actually, it wasn't "promptly"; re-read her posts.

OK. 7 years a Catholic, 2 years an atheist, unspecified time period between dumping boyfriend and returning to the RCC post-9/11. (Funny how an Australian can lapse into using US shorthand for dates, in this case. I think "9/11" means something very specific now and will for years to come)

General tone is "prompt" - I suppose I assumed 12 months maximum for the period between boyfriend dumping and reconversion. For such a major life change, I call that "prompt". And again, 2 years an atheist after 7 years Catholicism, followed by reconversion a relatively short time later casts, to me at least, doubt on the depth of the atheism in the first place. Sounds more like a "lapse in faith" to me, but I'll let ATG answer that for herself.

Maybe I assumed too much? But I see nothing in her posts which makes it so obvious that it wasn't "prompt"; you seem to think I've made a major blue here. OK, I did make an assumption without supporting evidence but - for crying out loud, how long was it? so we can stop the semantics?

I said I also don't find ashibaka's "ReligionOfTheMonthGal" jibe particularly insulting or ad hom. I just found it very clever/appropriate/funny.
and Gurdur said Mind if I call you "It's-OK-That-Some-People-Should-Be-Called-"Shitheads"-Because-We-Know-We're-Right----Arrowman" ? You do know what discussion I'm referring to, no ?

Actually, I wouldn't mind if someone used that sort of thing on me. I wouldn't exactly LMAO and of course it is a misrepresentation of my position, but it's just a cheap shot. Cheap shots are not the substance of an argument, should not be used as the substance, and not highlighted by the opponent when they are used in avoidance of the substantive issues. They're just cheap shots. Sometimes they're funny, sometimes they're not. So what. Mountains and molehills. It's not as thought ashibaka was making the cheap shot the main foundation of his argument.

I like the witty cheap shots people make on this board sometimes. Even when I disagree with the sentiments expressed. Hell, I even liked Dougie's "that would be an Unhappy Meal" crack in another thread.

(Interlude - My favourite "one liner from someone I disagree with" was from Ernie Bratzee (?) on the Baptist Board, when some people were trying to make the case that "Christians in the US are persecuted" (wtf?) in the face of reasoned arguments from the (then) resident atheists, including me. Ernie said something to the effect that - "Well I don't think there's enough persecution going on - if we were doing our jobs properly, we'd really be copping it". End interlude)

BTW I do of course know the discussion you're referring to, and I do believe that is a misrepresentation of my position

and then Gurdur said The one you never came back to to defend your and others' assertions ?? Tsk tsk tsk.

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?

Anyway - I stand rightly accused of the message board sin of non-responsiveness - a sin I am all to ready to find in others (Helen from the BB, are you there???). Three Hail Marys for me. I did intend to post a "thanks Gurdur, but I'll pass on this debate" but I never got around to it.

then Gurdur said Or mind if I call you
"While-I-Don't-Completely-Act-Myself-That-Way,-It's-OK-When-Atheists-Behave-Like
Bigoted-Ranters-Because-We're-Right---Arrowman" ?
Or "It's-OK-To-Slam-Deaf-Lesbians-Because-We-Want-To----Arrowman" ?

What I said above. Go for it.

Neither of these assertions is true, of course, but you realise that; you are just illustrating the point. My point is that whatever the accuracy or otherwise of such a "faux screen name", I could care less about the fact that it was used. And in any case, I think it's a long stretch from the relatively mild and arguably on-target "ReligionOfTheMonthGal" to the wild misrepresentation of the examples you have made up. Do you really think they are in the same category?

But for the record - no, I don't think "it's OK for atheists to behave like bigoted ranters because we're right". And I don't see a whole lot of that on this thread. I think you're projecting and over-reacting.

then gurdur said I say all of this for good reasons; I distrust your moral reasoning on this issue.

Well now you're starting to sound pompous, judgemental and self-righteous. What in the heck have I said on this thread, apart from a difference of opinion on how we discuss ATG's reconversion, that could bring into doubt my "moral reasoning"? Please.

I've changed my mind once on this board (on hate crimes) faced with cogent arguments from others (pats self on back); I'm prepared to do so again. And I am sure you are a formidable debater, Gurdur, when you get off your soap box, and you may well be able to persuade me to vary my position on some things. But let's not start with aspersions on my "moral reasoning", please.

then Gurdur said I wish to discuss this --- 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.

Chapter and verse please. I have no idea what you're talking about. When I have time I might look up the thread in question - but since I have no recollection of saying anything remotely like that, I suggest the onus might be on you to quote (not interpret) me.

While we're casting nasturtiums - given the way you have misrepresented my clearly written opinions in this and the other thread to conform to what appears to be your preconceptions - I distrust your judgement on this

then gurdur said Let's see if we can hammer this one out now, OK ?

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.

If you're talking about more general issues, please be clearer in what the subject matter is. Did you say you were going to start another thread? Shall we take it there?

then Gurdur said Please pardon me if I come on strongly on this one; while I know you yourself are generally polite, it's the condoning of certain behaviours that worries me, OK ?

I'd like to know exactly what behaviours I'm "condoning" apart from our disagreement on some of the finer points of appropriate behaviour on this thread.

I'll always pardon someone for coming on strong - but I won't necessarily take you up in detail on every point if it's something you care deeply to discuss and I do not. I'll tell you when I don't wish to pursue (agree to disagree perhaps) and I promise I will only ever do so for reasons of time and priority - not to duck an issue.

And I think you're over-reacting.

then Gurdur said Moreover, the characterization of Theist Gal as Religion Of The Month is completely inappropriate, given that she doesn't float between a huge range, simply Catholicism, agnotiscism, atheism and fideism --- some of which are not incompatible.

Pedantry. I thought that too when I read the "characterisation". I just didn't think it was reason to jump all over it as though ashi had committed some major breach of debating ethics and etiquette. Cheap shot, mildly humorous, not entirely accurate. So what.

then Gurdur said Arrrowman, as you can see from my above posts, our behaviour on this board is very important to me - and the coherency of the underlying ethics too. So let's go over this, OK ?

Subject to what I have said above, sure. And I am sure others will join in too.

Gurdur: (this is the Californian counselling "you make me feel" part)

With the greatest respect, I find your attitude on this thread and the other to which we refer, to be hectoring, self-righteous, mischaracterising the legitimate opinions of others based on your own prejudices and preconceptions, and over-reaction to minor issues. Not to mention, an incapacity to recognise a legitimate "agree to disagree" on even the most minor point, and let it go. I see a lot of me in you sometimes But that's the "me" that I try not to let out in public too much. People think I'm a grumpy, opinionated, not-fun-to-be-with Skeptic-Atheist when I do that.

(Acknowledging your apparent offline reconciliation with Cheap Thrill about which I have no idea of the detail.)

You seem to be projecting your own major concerns (in the case of this thread, the sometimes intolerance by atheists of other views etc) - concerns which may be legitimate - into the first example (this thread) which presents itself.

It's a bit like - I don't know - maybe I hate dishonesty, so I jump down the throat of someone who makes what I know to be a fake excuse to miss a social occasion. Pick your targets better.

And in your haste to jump all over individuals on this thread for specific (as you see them) transgressions, couched in some very colourful and eloquent language, I think your key underlying (and probably valid) points are being completely missed. Will the promised new thread address this, perhaps?

I'm not saying you are all those things - I do not know you well enough. But, that's what's coming across. You might like to consider that.

Oh, also - Kally was right. imho.

At this stage I feel I should come up with a massively-long-hyphenated-faux-screen-name-for-Gurdur including some of the above polysyllabic pejoratives. But I'm tired.

Cheers.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

HelenM

Hi Arrowman

What I like about you is that you are able to step back and realize how you might come across to others; and to make decisions about whether to modify the way you post, in order to present yourself differently, if you realize that your posts are receiving negative responses because of tone, etc.

I think that level of awareness and self-control is valuable.

It doesn't appear to be something that everyone has.

I think you are the person I interacted with a while ago on a thread about divorce, on SL&S, whose thoughtful responses impressed me deeply

(If not, feel free not to disillusion me )

love
Helen

Gurdur

Dang, I said I would stay away from this thread till I had my long posts ready; but Barbelle's and Arrowman's posts demand answers.
Sigh.

First off, Barbelle's point here to me is the strongest one made so far to me here; while I've dealt with it to a small degree previously, in saying why atheist bigotry concerns me more than theist bigotry on this board, a longer answer on this is really necessary.
However, that longer answer is so long that it will just have to wait till my long posts are ready.
Sorry.

HelenM

Barbelle

I understand 'to thine own self be true' to not necessarily be inconsistent with being considerate of the needs/desires of others.

One can both be true to oneself and also be a considerate person.

Or so I believe.

Being true to oneself, to me, is about being oneself and not pretending to be 'someone else' just to please others.

However, one can be oneself and at the same time do it in ways that do not force one to disregard the feelings of everyone else.

Again, this is my simply my opinion.

love
Helen

Gurdur

Taking points a tad out of order:

*snicker*

You mean with her stupid "stroke out" comment ?
That was simple abuse, and coming from the direction it came from, also hypocritical and rather funny.
Or do you mean something else ?
Maybe you should be clearer, mate.

Let's get back to you: 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 the rest of your post reflects your unwillingness to deal with exactly this.

Now I'll deal with rest of your post in a post below.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

HelenM

Could you clarify whether you are for or against abuse?

Or - are you for it when you do it and against it when it's done to you?

I'm confused...

love
Helen