MRVISIBLE –
I find this inexpressibly sad. If that’s the experience life has given you, I truly and freely wish you the best of luck. I think you’re going to need it.
Sadly, I’m starting to think it is. At least, several people here have said exactly that.
Well…We’ve to cope with a lot of shit, in our lives. Being made un of is really not the worst…and by far…Actually, contrarily to a lot of other displeasant stuff, it certainly has a positive side…
** Polycarp, ** as ever, you come up with the strongest argument yet. And just so you know, you personally are deserving of en endlessmeasure of respect for a hundred reasons.
However, simply as a matter of debate on this subject, here is the flaw in your otherwise quite compelling argument and analogy: homosexuality is a condition and a practice which really can’t reasonably be said to exist apart from homosexuals themselves. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Wicca, whatever…these are all ideas which do have a very real form and existence, if you will, completely apart from any person who embraces them, and as such can be judged separately from any person who embraces them. The same cannot be said of homosexuality. These facts are even more difficult to disagree with if you are among the faithful, since you really do believe that there is a God and the Bible is his word.
Just hadda point that out.
That’s what I thought a couple of years ago when the term invisible pink unicorn, an oxymoron, was in vogue here. I got used to it.
I’m a person of deeply held faith as well, but I recognize what attracts many people hear is the straight dope which mostly requires logic and science to support an assertion. I cannot support my faith by logic, nor could I possibly pursuade others to my faith through that route. I have come to appreciate at least the honesty of those atheists who can quite legitimately compare the concept of God to the MSP. However when such terms are used in a deliberate attempt to put someone down , I feel very uncomfortable.
How about Og?
Does anyone DARE deny OG!!!
OG SMASH!!!
I’m glad you brought that up Guin. This is a perfect example of disrespecting a person by misappropriating a phrase from the text central to his faith. This follows by the way your recent “Jesus H. Christ on a stick” outburst against a poster who took you to task for another attack on me. Of course you had no intention of showing disrespect to me
Nah. Don’t need much luck. I find that a sense of humor helps a lot, though.
Man, this thread really started cooking on page 4…
Actually Jodi, I had missed that. Good point. However, none of the theistically-leaning members of the board have indicated where exactly the line should be drawn between acceptable derision and unacceptable derision. Intensity of belief doesn’t cut it, since some people believe intensely in Bigfoot’s crop circles.
[Channeling Polycarp]: The key distinction is laughing at someone vs. laughing with someone.
Ok, but sometimes you need to give someone a good whack on the head. They need it, oh so badly. And, contrary to what MrVisible may imply, I believe that derision can be a pretty powerful tool. One that should be handled with some care (but not invariably avoided by most, IMHO).
Building the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable derision
One might ask oneself whether the derision is complementing a detailed argument or substituting for it.
One also might inquire whether the derision is gratuitous.
And one might ask whether it is counter-productive.
IPU represents an entity that nobody believes in (though some pretend to). As such, it can provide a decent answer to the question, “But how can you not believe in God?” This is not a lousy question btw. IMO. IPU provides the sort of edgy thought experiment that penetrates the cloud created by a narrow world view. (Narrow world view: one that can’t imagine the possibility that one’s conception of the world isn’t accurate.)
OTOH, comparing a deity to fairies, tooth fairies or Santa Claus seems to me to be a somewhat different argument: implicitly it compares the believer to a small child. This sort of characterization may be acceptable to clairobscur, but it gives flowbark the agnostic some pause.
Dang, the field of etiquette actually has something going for it…
IMO, it would be a shame if colorful phrases such as, “Jesus Christ on a Stick!” and the like became unacceptable, especially when they are used as exclamations by a confirmed believer with no real hostility towards J of Nazarath.
I’m a teacher. In my classroom, if Jenny is teasing Laura and Brian is giving Elvis a kicking, I know that if I say, “Jenny, please stop teasing Laura” Brian is going to continue walloping Elvis. In fact, your post was not, ‘Please don’t Tease’ in general. It was ‘Don’t make fun of the Deity’. Now, you are correct that it doesn’t logically follow that you’re okay with other forms of abuse on the board, but could cause one to wonder why you’ve picked this one case out of all possibilities.
Totally incorrect? That’s a bit strong. Okay, you did say “not really a rant” at the end of the OP, but I have a hard time believing that a significant number of people were unaware that some might find the use of MSF insulting. We do know that theists take their deity seriously. If they didn’t, most people wouldn’t bother taking the piss. The point of “Some people are sometimes mean” was that if you took out the specific language relating to Gawd, your post would read something like ‘Referring to <whatever> as <perjorative phrase> is highly insulting to people who have a deep reverence for <whatever>, you know. Please stop it’.
So your position is ‘don’t make disrespectful references to anything revered by anyone, ever’? How about in when someone says that my wife and daughter (buddhist and undecided, respectively) are heathen sinners destined for eternal torment in a flaming pit? Can I say MSF then?
I hear you. But look at it from this perspective. I don’t think people should mistreat others based on race. If I used as my example of what kinds of racial abuse should be avoided the countless times I (a white male) have had the staff at the local McDonald’s close a register in my face and look for a Chinese person to help instead, wouldn’t you scratch your head and wonder a little? White Males are not exactly a downtrodden, persecuted group when you’re talking about racial discrimination.
Again, I don’t disagree that people should (usually) debate from a position of mutual respect. Just pointing out that another (totally incorrect?) reading of your OP might have undermined what you were trying to convey.
IRAE, with all due respect, I have enough trouble defending what I [i[did* say around here. I have neither the time nor the inclination to defend something I did not say. Provided the point I am trying to make is reasonably clear – and I think this one was, and I think the fact that only you have misunderstood it and even in your case apparently only hypothetically, underscores that it was – I do not concern myself with whether a another totally incorrect reading of the OP might have undermined my point. It seems to mean that a totally incorrect reading of the OP would almost by definition undermine my point. I’m just not sure what I can do about that, provided I have been as clear as I know how to be.
That should read "it seems to me . . . "
First I’ll say that I haven’t read this entire thread. I found it after it was waaaay long. Take this into account.
It’s not the particular phrases that offend me. It’s the assumption that I must be a total moron to be a Christian, which has been pretty much said again in this thread. This of course means that I AM a total moron, because if enough people here believe it…
I understand that many people don’t believe. Most don’t. I live in the real world. I’ve dealt with the real world. I understand that religion has been misused, etc. Bad people misapplying things are not good arguments about whether or not broad belief systems are true.
Why is it that whacko religious types seem to be able to be used as proof that all religious people are inherently whacko? Imagine this line of reasoning used along racial lines on this board.
I realize that this is not the GD forum, but I feel a bit compelled to point out that there are a lot of weak arguments made against things that are by no means universal. I’m sorry to pick on one person, but I’m just not up to making a master’s thesis out of this post. I’m replying just to show that I’m not a moron. I too often feel completely disincentivized to discuss anything along these lines, because I get so much flak about it, with little to no actual calm, reasoned questioning, that it’s just “pearls before swine”. (Please, no flames about being called swine. I assume we’re a little literate here.)
Neither do I. I have reached these conclusions not by an act of utter submission of will to what I am told is the decree of a deity, but an evaluation of the consequences of living by and without the practices dictated.
Neither do I. I wouldn’t AT ALL just accept what a church said, just because it said it. Man, you’ll end up in Guyana drinking special Kool-Aid or something.
Me neither. I have problems accepting the Bible as pure, Western-style history in some parts. Some people don’t. Personally, I find that most of the people who don’t seriously question these parts haven’t really thought about it much, and it bugs me.
You’re out of touch with much of at least American church-going. Mine in particular prides itself a bit on the lack of ritual. There has to be some sort of structure, or no one knows what’s going on, but quite a big point is made that ritualistic action itself is empty.
An enormously broad statement that shows that probably no actual research has gone into evaluating this book (I’m assuming this is the Christian Bible, here). The New Testament has, to my knowledge (I know, who am I?) been proven to be pointedly historically wrong in points that can be still verified. Many times when it was thought that it was wrong, towns or inscriptions have been dug up to show that the author was right.
See above comment on generalizing from a few people.
You would be very surprised, I think, at the level to which I am painfully personally aware this is not true, and I’m talking about ME here.
I knew as soon as that ruling came out that the fundies were going to go ballistic, but personally, I’ve known for years that it not only was a matter of time, but that the basic thought underlying the American law system didn’t support it. Personally, I agree that the government shouldn’t be making official statements about whether or not God exists.
Well, that’s a value judgment, right? You think their harmless, they don’t. I’m being serious here: Isn’t this why we have elections to create a legislative system that reflects the views of the majority of the community? Of course, I don’t know what activities you mean here.
Well, I’m not sure to what this is referring, but if it’s as bad as you make it sound, then I apologize. My off-the-cuff guess is that you’re referring to something like being gay. Actually, my church has an entire ministry working with gays and people conflicted about this issue. The staff has quite a bit of experience in this area, as they have been there themselves. I’ve heard the pastor in charge of this group say in the official Sunday service that no one will ever listen to our views until we stop making jerks of ourselves and start really loving people.
I hope this at least shows that painting with wide brushes often colors those who are not truly in the paintable set.
Obviously, I meant that to my knowledge it has NOT been proven wrong in points…
Sorry
Actually, the reason that I’m arguing for the use of ridicule in religious arguments is because it can be a powerful tool. One that I feel will be needed in making certain points about religious belief. I think I’ve stated that pretty clearly. Good post, though.
Cardinal, the bible’s veracity as a historical document has very little real bearing on its value as a guide to life. Just because John Dee described some parts of Elizabethan London well, doesn’t mean I’d want to follow his philosophy.
I agree that there are some good Christians out there; there are probably nice Sufis and Mormons and Zoroastrians and Cthulhu worshippers as well. I appreciate the fact that, despite the pervasive tone of intolerance and smug superiority permeating the Christian church in the US these days, some people within the organization are standing against it. It’s very brave of you, and very enlightened.
I still think the world would be tremendously improved if all you true believers would wake up this morning and say “Hey, you know, I’m probably wrong about all this religion stuff anyhow. I’m going to ditch all the weird codes of behavior, all the mental gymnastics it takes to justify this belief in a modern context, and instead I’m just going to try and be as good a person as I can, not hurting anyone and trying to help as many people as possible. And now… breakfast.”
I’d love to see a world like that. And to that end, I’ll use whatever debating tactics I think are useful in making my points.
What’s odd about this argument is that, up until my first post here, I’ve never used the terms “magical sky pixie” or “invisible pink unicorn”. They’re unnecessary to my style of argument. What I object to is the gall of insisting that the Christian god, alone out of all subjects on this board, deserves to be treated with universal respect. That’s not a point I’m willing to concede. I will mock when I feel mockery is deserved.
Good freakin’ grief. You’re still not getting it.
I’ll relate a completely unrelated tale, one that I hope will illustrate my point:
At one of my previous jobs, I worked with a lady with whom I had little in common (different background, different age) but she was a nice lady. I liked chatting with her. One day, we were talking about—oh, I forget the context, but we were talking about a young woman who irresponsibly (in my view) got pregnant. I said that the woman got “knocked up”. I used the term several times. Eventually, my friend said, “Could you stop using ‘knocked up’? It’s just not a good term for what she is! She’s pregnant!”
Now, I was taken aback. I thought it was perfectly appropriate to use that term—the young woman was (in my opinion) a silly irresponsible woman, and to me, she’d been “knocked up”. I didn’t mean it to be terribly hateful, I just wanted to express a little sarcasm. But my friend didn’t like me using the term. So, you know what I did? I STOPPED USING THE TERM. I did it because I didn’t want to ruffle this woman’s feathers. The fact that she asked me to stop was enough reason to stop. I didn’t really understand why she was offended by the term; in fact, I rather thought she was overreacting. But I still I STOPPED USING THE TERM. I made a point of not using it. Why? Because I wasn’t raised by wolves, that’s why.
That’s what you do when you are trying to be polite. It doesn’t mean that I felt any different about the silly woman who got…errr…pregnant. It didn’t mean that I was going belly-up and pretending to feel something I didn’t feel. It just meant that I used a more neutral term, one that didn’t offend a person who I respected.
Why is this so hard for some of you to understand?
And don’t tell me why in this instance it’s “different”. It’s not. It wouldn’t matter if we were talking about Mac vs. PC, sports teams, dental floss, or restaurants. The same rules apply. The only reason I can think of to explain why you insist on using a term (one that we have repeatedly told you is ruffling our feathers) is that you really don’t respect us as human beings. Is that it? If so, just say it. At least we’ll all know where we stand.
yosemitebabe, another example I can think of along similar lines of that of swearing in front of people’s parents or grandparents. Many people of my parents’ generation find the “f” word and the “c” word incredibly offensive. To continue using it in front of them after being informed they find it offensive would not only be rude and discourteous, it would imply that the person persisting in that behaviour is doing so with the specific intention of being offensive.
I have a “no illegal drugs” rule in my house. I don’t give a flying fuck how antiquated or stupid people think my rule is, if people violate it they are saying by their actions that the their perception of my rule as “stupid” gives them some inherent right to ignore it.
Mr. Visible
And I happen to think the world would be tremendously improved if all you non-believers would wake up and say, "You know, there may be something to this ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’ business so I’ll try to be as good a person as I can, not hurt anyone, and try to help as many people as possible. And now…breakfast.
Guess what. Neither scenario is going to happen in either of our lifetimes, and I’m from a long-lived family. I’m not asking that the Christian god or any other gods, goddesses, or invisible pink anythings be treated with special respect. What I’m asking for is that all people holding such beliefs be treated with respect. One of my primary complaints with my own religion’s treatment of homosexuals is that I refuse to condemn a person on one aspect of his or her life.
You want me to admit I could be wrong? I admit it. It’s not the first time I’ve done so on this board, and I doubt this will be the last. Right now, my belief provides me with things which cannot be easily replaced. When I was a child and in desparate need of love and acceptance from something, from anything, my religion filled that need. It was invisible, intangible, unprovable, even illogical? True, but it was the best I could do.
Jodi’s issues I will leave to her. All I ask of you is that you not insult those whose views differ from you. Actually, that’s all I ask of anyone.
And now, as you so aptly put it, breakfast! I’m hungry!
CJ
Um, you are aware that “Jesus wept” is a Bible verse?
:rolleyes:
As for showing disrespect for you, I don’t respect you anyways, because your actions have shown you to be a snotty, whiny little troll.
Again, it is not the term, “Magical Sky Pixie” that offends, it is the WAY IT IS USED!
No, actually, yosemitebabe, I fully understand your point. I get it. I just don’t agree.
I do avoid terms in personal conversations which I think may offend the person I’m speaking with, whether I believe they’re offensive or not.
But this isn’t just a conversation with a co-worker or an acquaintance at a local deli. It’s a public forum, a public debate. And if this thread goes unopposed, the side that argues against points being made on religious grounds will have lost a potentially useful debating tactic.
Worse still, arguments made on a religious basis will now enjoy privileges not shared by arguments made on any other grounds.
There are people on the board who believe that your perspective doesn’t deserve to be treated with any more reverence than other unproven beliefs. If we were to leave our views unrepresented in this thread, the Christians on this board would be able to point to this thread anytime someone said something irreverent about their beliefs in Great Debates or Comments on Staff Reports and say, “Hey, we all agreed that that’s rude. Cut it out.”
In a board that tries to maintain a level playing field for all comers, that’s an unfair advantage. People can make fun of all other beliefs, but Christians are immune to ridicule? Preposterous.
The exchange of ideas that happens in Great Debates is a marvel to observe, and a privelege to participate in. One of the things which makes it such an unparalelled forum for argument is that there are no sacred cows. Anything can be debated, from any perspective. Conceding special privileges to one group over others immediately unbalances what is now a non-partisan forum, and that would, in my opinion, be a tremendous loss.
We’re not talking about polite social conversation, here. We’re talking about a rough-and-tumble, all-out brain-on-brain debating match. There are rules established for the match which let each side present their case on equal footings. One thing that’s universal in any form of contest, whether of wits or skill or luck, is that the side that gets to make the rules wins.
A third, nonpartisan party is needed for arbitration, and the staff here at the boards do that beautifully. I don’t think they need your help to determine what’s offensive.
So, now, yosemitebabe do you get it?
cjhoworth, I don’t begrudge you your religion. If it makes you happy, if it fulfills you, if it’s not hurting anybody, have a good time with it. I’m glad you’ve found something that does so much for you, and I hope that everyone can find that sort of happiness in life.
And, I may very well be wrong as well. I might die tomorrow, and be face to face with a vengeful Old-Testament-style deity, who really wants to have some words with me. I admit that it’s possible. But I think it’s unfair to grant your religion courtesies that, in this forum, no-one else enjoys.