Sabine Grant

I do not consider my perception opposed to yours of whether or not Amie was mistreated in her thread to be a matter of who is right and who is wrong. It is purely a matter of what you consider acceptable and what I consider unacceptable. If sentimentality is acceptable from one participant than it should be from all. Since it appears that Amie's sentimentality is what caused some of those reactions, I should expect similar reactions from the same individuals to anyone's sentimentality. Should not I ?

What you evaluate as failures to provide argumentation from myself when it comes to theological questions, is purely that you or other freethinkers may expect answers based on what they generaly encounter among christians. That is the need to justify God, the need to establish his existence and the predominant need to quote the Bible as infaillible. The reality is that you cannot attribute thoughts to other individuals unless they have clearly stated that this is their thought. The same challenging arguments are thrown at any christian... but does it occur to you that possibly some christians have a different level of experiencing faith that has nothing to do with the arguments you want to discuss?
I think both Amie and I have in common a faith which does not claim to be justified by reason or logic and we are content that way.
I also think that we both get annoyed by a persevering "opponent" whose endeavor seems to prove that faith has no value whatsoever to the betterment of anyone.
I do not know if Amie is reading this ... please correct me if you feel I have not percieved where you are at in your faith correctly.
You see Blake, you may find ridiculous that a person has faith unproven by any reason or logic. And that is fine. But I find ridiculous that anyone may undertake to prove faith ineffective in the betterment of a person.
Yourself or others may benefit of a positive action perpetuated by a christian.... unknowingly.
So here is where the walls erect....the claim by any christian that faith can be proved by reason. The claim by any atheist that there is no productivity in faith.
I have had extremely positive exchanges with some freethinkers in the IIDB who do not have to deal with any claim to provide evidence on my part that God does exist and the Bible in infaillible and they recognize the effectiveness of faith for some believers.
I must add that those freethinkers are genuinely interested in knowing the individual thinking of the christian they deal with and do NOT stereotype, generalize or attribute thoughts to that individual which are reflected by the christian majority.

Personaly I get tired of the ongoing baits such as " prove the existence of God" or " hell " or " God is a tyran" when my faith is on a different level that has nothig to do with proving God's existence, the fear of any hell or justifying that the representation of God in the Bible is of divine inspiration.
As I recently wrote to someone in another thread.... " you may want to bark at another tree".

Sabine Grant

I think a good way to test how many participants separate the ideology from the ability of the individual thru their faith to be better versions of themselves would be to open a thread which addresses the question.

Betterment of mankind as I define it is mostly betterment of the individual himself. I believe faith can enable a person to be a better version of himself. As a result that individual will contribute to humanity. It makes sense to me that a person who will dwell in developing a sense of forgiveness rather than resentment will be more productive. That does not mean IMO that faith is a necessity for all individuals to develop such a quality. But when someone uses his faith to accomplish self transformation,it is going to impact on his attitudes and behavior with others.
Helen I find the behavior teachings of Christ to be a mode of improvement to myself. They enable me thru a process ( a long one) to rid off what I consider to be the nasty parts of my individuality. One may think that those teachings can have no benefit to any person. However, no argument based on reason or logic stands to deter anyone from choosing a spiritual path they consider to be an improvement for themselves.
It would be as senseless as trying to deter a humanist from humanism.

Blake

Your opinion of your own perception is preventing you from recognizing that you made some demonstrably false statements about that thread, & that I showed how they were false. Your opinion that it's just a matter of opinion doesn't change the fact that you made declarations that are untrue. In fact, you've done it again with this sentence. You think that it is my perception that Amie was not mistreated in her thread; but it is not. What I said was, "In short, while Infinity Lover and Sabine Grant may be right that there are examples of gratuitous abuse of theists at II, so far neither of them has furnished an actual real-life example that stands up to scrutiny." The word gratuitous in that sentence plays a key role. It is what makes that sentence a reply to your statement, "It is only because Amie is a theist that she recieved such treatment." My contention is that Amie's treatment had little or nothing to do with her theism.

By the way, you have repeatedly used the word "purely" in this thread. That indicates to me that you think many of the issues we are discussing are simple and easily distinguished. They aren't; there are many factors at play here. For instance, here:

It's an oversimplification to say that Amie's sentimentality is what caused any of those reactions, I think, at least by itself.

Actually, it's an impression of your manner of conversation overall; for instance, in this thread, which isn't about theology.

Sabine, this is the second time that you have made assumptions about me and my probable mode of thinking or argument. For the second time, you have been completely wrong. Why don't you take some of this "examination of prejudices" that you're recommending so heartily to some unspecified freethinkers and apply it to yourself? Nearly your entire reply to me was not a response to anything I said; are you reading & making an effort to understand & reply to what I'm saying, or are you just replying with some ideas that have already occurred to you & thinking they're applicable to me?

No doubt; I can understand that. But I don't see how it's relevant to the current topic of conversation.

Ronin

You brought it up, dearheart, so encourage your own assertion and address the question in a thread that doesn't detract from this OP.

As for me, you have mischaracterized my position in this manner tirelessly in the face of facts to the contrary.

I merely refute the mythical/supernatural position of theology in favor reality in plain view and rational thought.

That you happen to espouse the nonsensical simply puts us at odds, Sabine, nothing more.

It doesn't mean that you are not a good person for whatever reasons, you may or may not be.

Your God may favor the odor of burning martyr, however, I do not ~ so please try to refrain from playing the persecution card and try your best to explain how the blood of the innocent could ever purify the acts of the guilty or how this, Luke:19:27 ~ But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me., comes from a principle of unbridled love and goodness while your at it (note that I am being extremely kind in limiting the assorted inconsistencies and cruelties attributed to the king of the christian fable).

That you may find it brings you comfort, in spite the irrational nature of this belief, is not the issue.

It is your constant assertion that it is sensible to equate christianity with the common notion of true love that I counter.

There is nothing for me to resent or forgive. However, I will refute your position at every occasion ~ as it is simply lacking in honesty and integrity on so many levels.

Ronin

Wherefore art thou, Infinity Lover?

Any final comments regarding your inquiry?

brighid

I am sorry I have not had a chance to respond sooner.

I am not sure why any one makes the assumption that because I have presented my honest opinions that somehow I am not open to either criticism, or that somehow I hold an absolutist, dogmatic view of those opinions. I have been wrong, and surely I will be wrong again. Unfortunately, within the medium of cyber discussions there are some very important human elements missing: the nuances of inflection, facial expression, the ability to read body language and very often the history of a relationship with any given poster. Even in personally intimate relationships no one knows all they need to know about what takes place in the mind of another to know with absolute certainty what does or does not motivate a person. Cyber discussions are thus limited by design. However, much can be gleaned from any given conversation and human behavior can be, but is not always rather predictable. Furthermore, in discussions (such as those mentioned) we are dealing with personal opinions based upon the limited facts presented by the group engaging in conversation. Of course I don’t know everything. Of course the poster knows more about the intimate situation then what has been revealed, and of course it is entirely possible that I (or anyone else, at any given moment) could be WAY off base. Just as you could be equally off base in your “analysis” of this, or any other situation! That is part and parcel for the course of things.

I, just as all other people, conclude things based upon personal experience. That experience is obviously quiet subjective, open to error and constructive criticism. Advise can be taken or discarded, as it should because the ONLY person who can factually conclude the accuracy of any thing pertaining to their life is THEE person the advise is directed at because they solicited it openly (and in the case of ii on a public forum.)

Personally, my feelings don’t get hurt by things people say unless there is some reason for it. Why would they? The same goes for guilt and guilt trips. Someone can try with all their might to make me feel anything, but without my consent (and therefore my responsibility) they can not affect me. I feel (now remember this is a subjective opinion, and this is why I usually qualify it with I feel, it seems, perhaps, etc. even if I fail to achieve perfection with every interaction) that most people react similarly in most cases.

Furthermore, I cannot be sensitive to feelings I cannot reasonable be aware another has or will have. Often times people only desire advise that supports their position. They want to be told that what they are doing is ok and they praise you to the high heavens when you give such advise, but “heaven forbid” that your honest advise or experience be something to the negative, or the suggestion that PERHAPS (leaving open the possibility that this MAY not be the case) something else may be motivating something and PERHAPS it could a, b or c!

I am sorry, but I am not capable of telling someone it is raining when in reality someone is pissing on his leg. Nor do I desire that from others. I interact with others as I wish to be interacted with, some times succeeding and sometimes failing. I also think I have proven, on a number of different occasions and specifically in the threads mentioned that I am VERY open to constructive criticism and take it to heart – both publicly and those who have done so privately because I desire to learn from my errors, but change cannot happen if people simply kiss each others proverbial “arses” so feelings can remained coddled. Furthermore, I think it is wrong to either remain silent or tell someone what they are doing is okay when in fact I feel differently.

I also do not feel that it is always, or even generally wrong to point out something that may very likely make another feel uncomfortable, hurt, or otherwise. In most, but of course because of my human failings, not all conversations I do feel I tread lightly. However, I do have room for improvement and more often then not I am privately contacted by those individuals either soliciting my advise, or thanking me for it. I have also publicly and privately apologized for either being boorish, off base, or a plain old bitch. I have even privately solicited constructive criticism from those whom I respect and they have given it to me, bluntly. I appreciate those opportunities to grow, and the people who have helped me see myself through different eyes.

Social interaction does not come with the right not to be offended, have your feelings hurt, or otherwise be uncomfortable with the assessments others make. If they are off base toss them to the wind, but if they garner a reaction from you assess why you have reacted so and go from there. I am not omnipotent, perfect, or otherwise. I am simply Brighid, a person who has lived a somewhat diverse life, who has much to offer, who will sometime err, who will eat a piece of humble pie (or the whole damned thing if necessary), but who will not apologize for placing personal honesty over coddled social interaction. If I offend anyone, my email address is available to all. Take my advise or leave it. No one is under any obligation to do otherwise.

Brighid

Benjamin Franklin

But the language one uses usually indicates how sure one is of one's opinion.

And you are not reading me accurately. Maybe I am not clear in what I am trying to say. I am not advocating that one does not speak the truth because of sensitivity to other people's feelings but rather using too strong a language to express what one's perceives to be the "truth" exaggerates one's error when it turns out that one has preceived reality wrongly.


BF

brighid

Which reality would that be? The reality that has gone unexpressed, but is the view one has within ones own mind OR the reality as it is expressed in the written or spoken form that does not accurately reflect one inner workings or the totality of events, thoughts and personal opinions that shape "reality'?

The problem with these sorts of situations is that parties not privy to the totality of anothers mind, thoughts and experience (that shape ones "reality") are only able to work with what is known. If pertinent information is not known, it is not always the error of the other "perceiving" the truth of any given situation. It is the fault of the person who has not provided all the necessary data to come to a more accurate conclusion of that "reality." However, that is what communication, discussion and debate are for.

Personally, I am generally confident of the opinions I provide others based on the information I have been provided by him/her all as filtered throught the VERY subjective lense of my own experiences. I have and will continue to make mistakes. I do not see how that is of much significance. If I have provided you, or any one else with opinions or advise that do not jive with your reality, and I have been thus called on it I will and have apologized for any perceived slight. That is all that can be expected in human interaction, especially since NO ONE actually have omniscience.

So forgive me if I fail to get your point, either via an error in my ability to perceive your point, or your inability to fully express your point and how that relates to the OP - guilt trips.

Brighid

brighid

I think both people would have to agree on the actual defintion of belief, because it can imply different things to different people. I also think one must have the intent of laying a guilt trip on someone for that line of thinking to be reasonable.

Is stating ones honest opinion a form of moral blackmail because it doesn't agree with anothers belief? Even if that is deliberately reiterated in an attempt to make a point that appears to be missed by another?

(edited out question that was answered by rereading earlier parts of thread.)

IMHO, (and I haven't gone back to review that thread in detail so I am only going by my memory and it has none to be faulty) most (but not all) people seemed to be attempting to make the point that this "belief" (also shared and defended by Amie) carried a lot of unexamined consequences. I won't address any of those that may have gone too far.

I personally feel it is important for people to examine things from many different angles, including closely held and emotionally charged beliefs such as that of a belief in God(s.)

I don't think it is moral blackmail to state your opinion about the beliefs of another. Even going so far as to state "well- you're- an- ignorant- hazzard- to- society- for- thinking- that- way" is not equivalent to moral blackmail (as defined as the extortion or coercion by threats esp. public exposure or criminal prosecution.) I think you have a point that such things may be intended to make another feel guilty for holding a differing belief, but is it actually immoral to point out a potential (although presently benign) action or belief to said person in a way that is either intended to procure feelings of guilt, or do so by consequence? Guilt can be a powerful motivator to do what is right and it can be seen as a sign something needs to be changed.

Furthermore, I firmly believe that guilty feelings are the sole responsibility of the person feeling "guilty", and in this respect should be a sign to said person to look into why he/she is feeling guilty. Maybe that feeling of guilt is found to be mistaken upon closer examination, but it may also be found to be an indicator of some other problem. In this case, the feeling of guilt can be seen as the morally correct sentiment to embrace in order to make changes for personal and societal betterment.

I also don't think it should be concluded that statements as you have suggested ARE actual guilt trips, or moral blackmail because the result in a specific situation is that another feels bad, guilty or otherwise uncomfortable.

Brighid

Infinity Lover

I was upgrading my computer. It's my sisters old motherboard/cpu/memory, but a definate step up from a P2 266mhz with 32Mb to a P3 550 with 128 Mb to me.

Final comments...

...if anything I'd say this thread ha led to some interresting thoughts by those contributing, so it's been fruitfull.