It’s the difference between seeing or hearing something and, say, flexing (or is it fexing?) your muscles. Try a simple experiment. Raise your left hand? Did it work? Good, now raise your right hand. Again? Alright. Now, I want you believe, seriously believe, that your hands are made of cream cheese. Do you? Well, if you do, either you’re much better at self-hypnosis than I am, or you need some therapy.
People act against their beliefs and impulses all the time. Have you ever had violent thoughts? Did you act on them (every time)? I personally believe there’s nothing wrong with marijuana, but I wouldn’t walk down the streets with a joint in my hand, because I know the trouble it would cause. I can’t suddenly change that belief, though it may change sometime later as I have new experiences. It is completely within my control however, to either act according to or against that belief.
Again, I apologize for this hijack. Perhaps it should be moved to GD.
It’s the difference between seeing or hearing something and, say, flexing (or is it fexing?) your muscles. Try a simple experiment. Raise your left hand? Did it work? Good, now raise your right hand. Again? Alright. Now, I want you believe, seriously believe, that your hands are made of cream cheese. Do you? Well, if you do, either you’re much better at self-hypnosis than I am, or you need some therapy.
People act against their beliefs and impulses all the time. Have you ever had violent thoughts? Did you act on them (every time)? I personally believe there’s nothing wrong with marijuana, but I wouldn’t walk down the streets with a joint in my hand, because I know the trouble it would cause. I can’t suddenly change that belief, though it may change sometime later as I have new experiences. It is completely within my control however, to either act according to or against that belief.
Again, I apologize for this hijack. Perhaps it should be moved to GD.
I had an immediate, negative reaction to Jodi’s post, but wasn’t sure why. It took me until I’d finished reading the whole thread, but I did finally work it out. (By the way, you all owe me my standard hourly rate. Quarter, please.) Okay, a call for civility in debate. I can support that. But why only with regard to The Allegedly Extant Supreme Being Concept I Refer To In Writing As ‘Gawd’?
Without the probably-unintended-but-inferred exclusion of oft maligned sacred cows of the non spiritual kind, your rant is essentially that some people are sometimes mean.
No cite, but the butt of any joke is unlikely to find it as funny as the joker. I believe you followed up later in the thread that it was the people who just can’t let a reference to religion slide without some kind of zinger who really get your goat, but, again, I’m sure the same holds true for anyone with a strong belief in anything. I was raised to hold tact and decorum in at least some regard, but I also know that there are times and circumstances in which all of that goes out the window and it’s time to mock and leer. It’s not nice to be mean, but it does provide comedic and purgative benefits.
Of course, all of this is pretty self-evident. Certainly not the stuff of which four page threads are made. I think a lot of the angry responses were due to the fact that you made a distinction between rudeness relating to your deity and rudeness in general. It’s easy to read a request for or assumption of special treatment into what you wrote, which might strike some as highly ironic. I’ve been living in a largely non-Christian country for the past decade (with the highly visible exception of these pairs of guys riding bicycles wearing dress shirts and ties), and it makes it even harder for me to sympathize with the plight of the Underdog Western Christian. I’m sure this wasn’t what you intended. I’ve read a lot of your posts in the short time I’ve been on this board, and none (AFAIK) have the reek of the Jerk. Without the occasional Jerk for reference, though, how would we know?
Another gem from Fenris, how are we expected to keep up? He is SO intelligent and knowledgeable. I lie awake at night just wishing again and again I could be him. You are the MAN, everyone tremble with AWE for the great condescending Fenris has spoken!
Am I reading you correctly? First, contemplate Jodi, CJ, and myself as people who are motivated by a commitment to a God in whom we believe and who expects certain behavior of us. For this argument, it does not matter whether that God exists; the commitment does. It constitutes a part of ourselves which, though we could suppress, is so intimate a part of our self-image that we are adamantly opposed to doing so.
By the same token, you could certainly closet yourself, repress any same-sex desire, and of course (as the fundamentalists are insistent in telling us), you could “change” to heterosexual if you really wanted to. Now, what proof do you care to offer to refute this? That you have a “right” to exercise your sexuality without anybody interfering in your business? How does that right differ from the right of a believer in a deity, including that of Christians in their God, to carry out what they feel called by Him to do? (Ignoring, perhaps the objectionable attitude of some Christians that God as they understand Him loathes your sexuality and they are therefore entitled to suppress your right to live your life according to your own desires choices.) Can you prove that your sexuality is unchangeable and an integral part of your personhood? Where’s the evidence?
There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence of Christians who claim to have had personal encounters with their God – including myself, reported on this board – with surprisingly consistent understandings of Him and His messages if one simply assumes these to be delusional (and that is a fair question to raise). There is a great deal of evidence of His supposed interventions in history, ranging from Biblical material to Joan of Arc. There have been numerous attempts to demonstrate His existence and nature based either on deductive logic or induction from the world He is supposed to have created.
If you find this evidence unconvincing, in part or in whole, that is your privilege. pldennison is one person who has been through precisely that sort of analytical system and found it inadequate, and I respect his conclusions. But it’s simply unconscionable for you to suggest that “there is no evidence” simply because the evidence at hand is unconvincing to you. This is the sort of immoral chicanery perpetrated by the anti-gay campaigners who would have me disbelieve that your sexual orientation cannot be changed by any reasonable means (as you would claim) and that your basic motivation is due to Satan actively tempting you to engage in gross immorality – and that you will get bored with gay sex and go out and molest little boys next.
I hasten to clarify that I do not accuse you of any of the above. I know quite well that such is not the case, and would under other circumstances be quick to defend you against such claims made by the sorts of people I know are apt to make them. I am simply stressing that while I can understand the reasons why you might reject any belief in a system that has been perverted to slander and abuse you, you are simply engaging in the precise converse of what you hate in others.
Jodi and I and several other Christians believe that you and gobear and the rest of the gay contingent deserve love and respect and support in your fight for equal rights under law. As I noted above, a main aspect of why we believe this is our understanding of what the God in whom we believe expects of us.
Since we are supposed to turn the other cheek and forgive (another element of His teachings), such love and support and respect are not contingent on your having any compassion or respect or even common courtesy for us and how we feel about things, including our faith. You’ll get that regardless of how you treat us. But is it really asking too much of you to expect that you give us an equal measure of respect as we try to give you?
The difference between thinking and acting is obvious, thanks. But what i’m saying is that actions are the consequences of thoughts. If I don’t want to flex my muscles, I won’t flex my musles. You seem to think there’s some difference between the will and other kind of thought.
But they act against their impulses and beliefs because they have other impulses and beliefs which contradict them! If I refrain to act on my violent thoughts, it’s because I’ve other thoughts. For instance I believe (and according to you I’m not responsible of this belief) that it’s wrong to hit you in the face. Or I don’t want to be jailed (but I’m not responsible of my fear of punishment). Whether it will be my desire to hit you in the face or my belief that it’s wrong to do so which will win, in both case I’m not responsible, in your system.
If my only thoughts are : I want to hit you in the face, there’s nothing wrong in hitting you in the face, you deserve to be hit in the face, hitting you in the face is worth going to jail, I’m not affraid of jail, I definitely will hit you in the face. And since i’ve no control on any of these thoughts, I’ve no control on their logical consequence, either.
If I happen to believe that hitting you in the face is wrong, or not worth going to jail, I won’t hit you in the face. But I won’t have any control on this “choice”, either, since what prevented me to do so was my belief (over which I’ve no control) that hitting you was wrong.
In this system, we don’t have any control of our actions since we don’t have any control over what motivate them. You seem to believe that we have no control over some of our thoughts (like the belief that you’re an evil person I must hit in the face) but can control some others (like the belief that it’s wrong to hit someone in the face). That’s not consistent.
[quote]
I personally believe there’s nothing wrong with marijuana, but I wouldn’t walk down the streets with a joint in my hand, because I know the trouble it would cause. I can’t suddenly change that belief, though it may change sometime later as I have new experiences. It is completely within my control however, to either act according to or against that belief.
[quote]
Not in your system. You have reasons not to smoke a joint why walking down the street. The belief that it’s not worth the trouble, for instance. But you could have the belief that it’s worth the trouble in order to make a public statement. Or you could think it’s worth it because you couldn’t care less about the consequences. If you had different life experiences, you would think differently. And you would make a different choice. I’m not sure why you think you have no control over the “there’s nothing wrong with Majijuana part” and some kind of control over the “I believe it’s not worth the trouble” part…
Let’s assume I use a magic wand and change your “it’s not worth the trouble” belief and replace it by a “it’s worth the trouble” (since you don’t control your beliefs, it doesn’t matter whether I change them magically or they change due to other outside events). What will you do, since you have now zero reason not to walk down the street with your joint, and zero motivation to avoid doing so? You will smoke it why walking, not caring for the consequences (or awaiting eargerly for a police officer to arrest you in order to make your public statement, or thinking you won’t get caught, etc…)
Please write in the same way the two parts of your sentence, like in "“showing contempt and hostility for one’s religious beliefs” and “encourage to show contempt to my and other atheists opinions”.
Very true, yes. Never said you can’t have conflicting beliefs, but that you don’t choose them, you discover them.
Once again, you misquote me. I did not say I have control over that belief. In fact, I’ve been saying the opposite. I am saying you have control over how you act on those beliefs. So please, instead of telling me what I’m saying, please tell us how one can choose a belief, which is what you’ve been saying.
I’m going to sum up my position and give up with this argument.
I think that comparing the belief in god and the belief in fairies is a perfectly valid analogy, and is very useful in a debate about religion.
There are people who will be offended by this comparison. But it doesn’t make it any less valid and useful. Furthermore, there will always be people offended by whatever I could say, even a plain “god doesn’t exist” (which is actually the same statement than the fairie comparison presented differently, anyway). It’s totally impossible to argue in favor of any position without offending someone somewhere. Each one has to draw a line somewhere and the fairie comparison will stay on my side of the line. Anyway, it would be untrue to state that christians are offended by this comparison. They usually aren’t , IME. Also, finally, most people complaining about this comparison wouldn’t mind at all if a similar comparison was made concerning a marginal belief they find ludicrous. Only a tiny minority would, and I think it 's obvious just by reading the posts on this board.
Also, even if this comparison was intended to make fun of christians, I still would think it’s acceptable. Derision, fun stories, humor, irony will always offend someone somewhere, be it making fun of a behavior, of a political opinion, etc… I’ve zero intention to support a ban on derision and humor. Especially not when :
a) the “insult” is extremely mild IMO
b)The statement isn’t directed toward a person but toward his opinions or beliefs
c) The statement isn’t hateful toward anybody (apart god)
c)The statement is related to something the person is assumed to have chosen (and to refer to the other debate, if you think you can’t help believing in god and feeling insulted, I can’t help not believing and wanting to make such comparisons either, so the point is moot) not to something he has no control over.
So, for the OP : I vaguely assumed that some extremely defensive christians found this comparison offensive. Perhaps there are more of them that I thought. The fact they’re offended IMO proves they’re thinking their belief is somewhat special, hence that the comparison is even more necessary to remind them that this belief is not special, and not different from any other belief, including the belief in fairies.
So, for these reasons, I don’t intend to stop using this analogy, even if you’re offended that your so special and so reasonnable belief is compared to a so despicable and so ludicrous other belief.
And just for the sake of it, a short question : would it make a difference if instead of chosing a particular fantastic being (fairy), I was to choose another equaly fantastic being (djinn), knowing that the later, being clearly mentionned in the holy koran, is a much more mainstream belief nowaday? What about comparing god and satan? god and the devils?. God and the Rackchasas? Read the post I wrote in response to an agnostic above, and tell me exactly, amongst the list of fantastic/divine beings I gave, what comparisons are valid and what comparisons are insulting, and why exactly one is insulting and not the other. Please, do…
Well, this certainly has escalated. Now I’m a the spokesman of the atheist cabal, I’m spewing venom, and I’m arguing for the right to be violent to Christians. Let’s hear it for misrepresentation.
If at some point, as a Christian, you begin to feel that there may not be a pro-Christian, anti-atheist mood at large in today’s society, do a search for this thread. It’s amazing to see what’s come of it.
I’m particularly amused by the insistence of the posters here that explaining my position on the OP is off-topic. It’s the old “have you stopped beating your wife” tactic, updated for message board culture. When you start a thread, you have no way of controlling how people respond to it, and asking leading questions without expecting people to explain their answers is unrealistic. I’ve noticed that no-one who objected to the “turn” the thread has taken has stopped arguing the points brought up.
If a religion becomes so pervasive as to take for granted the idea that unbelievers poking fun at its deity is deeply insulting, then they deserve to be the object of more jokes, in my opinion. If you take your beliefs so seriously that you can’t stand someone pointing out how ridiculous they seem from an outside perspective, then you may have lost the idea that there is an outside perspective that may be just as valid as your own.
Nowhere have I asked for any more consideration than I’m showing you. I’m not trying to deny you your right to worship, I’m certainly not advocating violence, I’m not saying that your moral positions are necessarily wrong because they’re inspired by an invisible entity you can’t explain. I’m just saying you’re funny.
That’s all this thread is about, after all, right? You’re asking people not to make fun of your god. You’re not asking for equal consideration for other religions or beliefs, either; just your god.
There hasn’t been an acceptable explanation of why I should refrain from making fun of your religion alone. If I was to follow polycarp’s suggestion that I base my criteria on the commitment of believers, then I’m still left with everything from phrenology to Roman Catholicism; people are committed to an enormous amount of unprovable beliefs. If level of commitment enters into it, then we’d all better stop dissing Charlie Manson.
So, who are Christians to ask me to refrain from using ridiculous terms in describing what, to me, is their ridiculous god? Why them, and them alone? Where should I draw the “I shall not ridicule” line? I shall not ridicule major religions, the various denominations of which form the majority in my country? I shall not ridicule the deeply-held beliefs of anybody, no matter how wacky they may seem to me? I shall not ridicule anybody who might feel ridiculed?
You’re asking for considerations that are not extended to any other belief by this board. You say that it’s elementary, that it’s common courtesy not to show respect for a belief you hold so deeply.
What bothers me is that that is common courtesy; that simply poking fun at the deity held by the majority in this country has become taboo. That even humorous jibes are somehow considered to be unacceptable. This does not bode well for a society built on the free exchange of ideas.
“Don’t say that, it’s not polite” is, arguably, a more effective tool than “Don’t say that, it’s illegal”; the former doesn’t provoke the same sense of indignant rebellion that the latter does. Both are very effective ways of quelling dissent, however.
clairobscur, while I realize you probably won’t believe this, for me personally to show contempt for an atheist’s beliefs is as difficult for me as it would be for me to shoplift. My moral beliefs do not permit me to do so. Thus the closest I could come was “encourage my fellow parishioners to show contempt to you”. Realistically, I won’t do that either, but right now, I am seriously considering not writing that essay.
Then again, I am a believer, thus a fool and beneath contempt, if I’m to believe the tone of the things which some have written here.
You realize this represents flawed thinking? By which I mean, your conclusion is not logical. If I ask for respect for A, that does not mean I approve of disrespect for B through Z, anymore than if I plea for peace in the Middle East, it means I’m great with war everywhere else. If I tell my (hypothetical) kid “Don’t hit your sister in the ribs,” that doesn’t mean Kid can hit her anyplace else. In other words, in a set of A through Z, positive A does not mean negative B through Z, and I frankly don’t think it’s reasonable to read that way.
Totally incorrect. First, the OP was not a rant. Second, the point made was that some people using the term did not realize that it could be offensive to others. They hadn’t thought about it that way. So the OP was intended to say “Hey, do you know that this sounds kind of offensive to some believers? If so, will you think about not tossing it around so freely?” The OP is about this phrase as used on this Board by people that IMO were not (most of them) using it meanly. So your interpretaton is absolutely wrong: “Some people [no – posters here in this forum] are sometimes [no – I’m talking about one particular phrase, used in one particular way] mean [no – thoughtless, maybe, but not mean].”
When would that be? And even if true, are these circumstances one of those times when “mocking and leering” is appropriate?
I never – NEVER – made this distinction, and I defy you to point out where I did. I never asked for more common courtesy in matters of religion than one might expect to be granted for any other topic you know is important to the people to whom you are speaking. You use flawed logic to read into my OP something that very clearly is not there: “This rudenss is not okay [so every other rudeness must be okay].” I did not say this, nor did anyone else. You are of course free to interpret my posts however you want, but I will not allow you to misrepresent what they say.
And I think you’re just the cutest thing ever, with your desire to marry your boyfriend and your contention that homosexuality is all just A-okay. I’m not saying your moral positions are necessarily wrong. I’m just saying you’re funny.
This made me laugh. As if anyone reading the posts of the believers here, and then reading your posts, would think “Gee, those nasty ol’ diests are sure being mean to that atheist!” I don’t think you’d want to point Christians to this thread for proof of how gosh-darn tough it is to be an atheist. Ass if one thread one one message board proofs anything about the mood at large in today’s society, anyway.
I wish this thread did reflect the mood of society at large, because I think it’s been a great thread. A lot of people have seen the justice of the original request; most of the people who have decided it was not a justified request have stopped to think it through and been polite in explaining why they’ve so concluded; nobody’s slagged off the nonbelievers; almost nobody’s slagged off the believers; and so far nobody’s lost their temper.
Society would be a hell of a lot better off if it could tackle such issues as productively.
That’s precisely my issue. How can have control on how you act on the basis of motivations you don’t control. Once again, if your set of beliefs result in you having zero motivation to do or not to do something, how could you do/not do this thing. You can choose to eat a slice of cake or not. Now, if you are hungry, like the cake, don’t think you need to follow a diet, don’t think you’re depriving someone else from their share of the cake, and the slice is in front of you, what on earth would make you decide not to eat the cake? The same question is valid for burning your neighbor at the stake because he annoys you.
In other words, is there anything you can think of apart your beliefs, morals, motivations, desires, preferences, etc…which make you favor a given course of action instead of another? What do you make believe that if you have no control about what motivate you, you have a control about the result of these motivations?
Honnestly, from a “philosophical” point of view, I don’t believe in free will. Hence I don’t believe one actually choose a belief. But I the logical consequence is that one doesn’t really “choose” a particular course of action, either. But I “choose” to ignore this fact, and go on living as if I was actually a free agent. Which isn’t really a problem because this issue is essentially theorical and has no real bearing on my motivations. To make a comparison, I don’t think life has any purpose, either. It doesn’t prevent for still wanting to live, to ride horse, to have sex, etc… What I abstractly think is much less important than what I feel.
I won’t expand on this because it’s a complicated issue I would be unable to debate in a foreign language I don’t master enough to clearly convey my thoughts.
So, in theory, yes, I could say “X didn’t actually choose his belief hence it’s no more right to criticize him for his belief than for his skin color”. But I would also have to say too : “X didn’t actually choose to burn the heretics at the stake, hence it’s no more right to criticize him for the slaughter than to criticize him for being born in Spain during the XVII° century” (but of course, there would be no reason to criticize me for criticizing him, either)
But the point we’re disagreeing about is when you state that people aren’t responsible for what motivates them but somewhat can act independantly of any motivations they have…Apart if they throw a dice to decide whether or not they will do something, I can’t figure out how it could be possible…
Go right ahead. Being laughed at is part of life; no matter who you are, what you believe, what you do… somebody is going to find you funny. And railing at them to stop laughing at you is just going to make you seem even more hysterical.
I continue to disagree. The difference between your position on Christianity or monotheism itself and the issue raised in the OP is much more analogous to the difference between “Why don’t you like Sam?” and “Fer Pete’s sake, do you have to go out of your way to hassle Sam every time you’re both in the same room?”
Of all the things in the debate fora that bug me, the one that genuinely gets under my skin is when people don’t read the thread to see if people have already made comments that respond to what they’re saying.
Boy howdy, you really haven’t read jack here, have you?
The question is not, “does group A recognize that group B may have an equally valid perspective?” It’s "once we find out that our perspectives are different, should we try to be somewhat polite as we debate (or just mention aspects of) our differences, or should we feel free to ridicule and lampoon each other’s beliefs at every turn?
BTW, don’t you have it backwards, within the context of the SDMB? The Christian regulars here don’t give atheists any crap about being atheists. But a goodly number of the atheists here (including you) seem to have the attitude that anything less than full-blown ridicule of religious belief at every turn constitutes intellectual dishonesty.
Double standard much?
Say what the fuck?!
Exactly how many pages ago did I generalize to beliefs and nonbeliefs in general? And earlier in this page, I drew together yosemitebabe’s example of people hassling her about her vegetarianism, reprise’s example about references to sexual activity being responded to by safe-sex lectures, and my own example about people posting to baseball debates just to dis baseball entirely, and equated them all to the matter under discussion here.
That should encompass every other belief, and then some. Exactly what does it take?
It would take you reading the thread.
Getting back to double standards, Polycarp hit the nail on the head with his comparison of religious experience to sexual orientation.
In both instances, there’s no exterior evidence that the phenomenon described exists - we have to take the word of those who’ve had the experience.
In the case of gays, I take your word that there really is such a thing as a homosexual orientation, and that droves of people actually have experienced this. I take their word that it would violate their fundamental integrity to give up gay sex and try to live a heterosexual life.
But really, the only evidence I have that these things are true is the testimony of gays to that effect.
Similarly, the only evidence we have of a God is that persons of varying religions have reported contact with this being. But again, droves of people have testified about such contact, and their testimony is about as consistent as what gays have to say about their sexuality.
And those who have had such experiences also say that it would violate their integrity at the deepest of levels to abandon or repudiate the beliefs that are tied to their experiences.
So if it’s a choice, you choose to make yours first, OK? Then get back to us and we can talk about it.
I give up. You clearly haven’t read a word I’ve said. You’re creating a ridiculous straw-man of my position, one which I’ve gone out of my way to distance myself from. (Please see the * footnote.) Why, then, should I read any more of what you write in this thread?
*[sub]Examples I gave of impoliteness near the bottom of page 3:
(1)
So if I happened to drop a mention about my church picnic, you’d consider this an invitation to debate (or simply disparage the possibility of) the existence of God?
(2)
Poster A: Our denomination is riven over the issue of whether to allow gays to be ministers…
Poster B: Well, that wouldn’t be a problem for you if you didn’t believe in the MSP.
Yeah, baby, eliminating this sort of rudeness would completely choke off debate. :rolleyes:
OTOH, I’d been very clear earlier about when the debate was about religion itself:
But if they say “X is true”, then you can pull out all the stops. By asserting the truth of their faith, they have opened its truth or falsity up for debate, and you can take it on with whatever weapons are forum-appropriate. [/sub]
yosemitebabe, the vegetarian example was one I was thinking of:
Many people on this board have stated that they do not eat meat. All right? And that’s a choice they made.
So…does that mean it’s okay to show contempt for that, talking about “broccali heads?”
Polycarp, that was extremely profound, as usual.
All right, how are my beliefs a part of me?
Probably the fact that I’ve been raised Catholic, attended a Catholic school for nine years, and attended a Catholic college. A lot of my ideals and principles come from my faith. The most important being that of love and respect and generosity. It’s a cultural identity anymore. It is something that will always be with me. It’s my heritage. It is who I am. I could be an atheist as well, but that upbringing would still be a part of me.
As for religion being dangerous-yes, there is that risk. But, are there no benefits? What about Archbishop Romero? What about Martin Luther King Jr? Ghandi? All people motivated by their religious beliefs to do great and wonderful things. Religion has brought us good AND bad. Like it or not.
I have no contempt for atheism whatsoever. That is YOUR belief, what YOU have discovered, and what is true for you. I have never made any nasty remarks about atheism, or what have you.
Yet, for some reason, people still want to hold to their prejudgments, their old grudges, and their anger. Fine.
But don’t try and tell me you’re open-minded, enlightened or rational. Or that you’re somehow more “informed” than I am.
THAT’S IT! That is exactly what I was trying to say, and yosemitebabe? You are my new hero!
Jodi posted a request that people should understand that using such words and phrases were perjoritive, and several people said “Well, that’s okay because your beliefs are ludicrous.” AND they continue to say so.
This was not a thread about whether or not you feel our beliefs are ludicrous. It was a thread asking for common courtesy. And I feel that Jodi was not excluding any other beliefs there, either. She was using MSP as an example of what she was talking about, because that happens to be something in HER life that is her belief that has been derisively treated. The fact that it turned INTO a thread debating how “ludicrous” our beliefs are just proves her point, IMHO.
To continue with yosemitebabe’s excellent example, if she said “I am a vegetarian” and someone said “Oh?” And she said “Yes, and that meat you are eating is going to kill you…frankly I cannot fathom how any intelligent person could EVER eat meat, you must be a real lackwit.” THEN that person could be forgiven for saying “Oh yeah? Well, I don’t think it is healthy NOT to eat meat, and if you had a brain you would REALIZE that!” And so forth.
If all she said is “Yes, I believe it is best for my health (or whatever reason she has for BEING a vegetarian) that I do not eat meat.” Then I believe that common courtesy would dictate that the other person NOT call her an idiot, or infer it. If she/they wished to discuss their conflicting viewpoints, then fine, but it should be possible to do it with CIVILITY.
Is that really so much to ask no matter WHAT the topic of discussion?
I’m sure this wasn’t what you intended. I’ve read a lot of your posts in the short time I’ve been on this board, and none (AFAIK) have the reek of the Jerk. Without the occasional Jerk for reference, though, how would we know?
As if anyone reading the posts of the believers here, and then reading your posts, would think “Gee, those nasty ol’ diests are sure being mean to that atheist!” I don’t think you’d want to point Christians to this thread for proof of how gosh-darn tough it is to be an atheist. Ass if one thread one one message board proofs anything about the mood at large in today’s society, anyway.