Well I’m sure it will sound stupid to you as it’s fairly obvious how you feel about Christians, but I ask. Not out loud, but in my mind – you could call it praying. And I don’t worry over it, but I get an answer. Not in words, but in just knowing how to proceed. I don’t find myself having to do so very often at all as normally what is right, is just right. But sometimes before I commit to doing something I know will be difficult, more on mental level than a pyhsical one, I ask for guidance. I have yet to be disappointed. I’m sure Mr. Phelps thinks he is speaking to God, but isn’t it obvious he isn’t? What with all the hate and disparaging of homosexuals and whatnot. I guess my point is if I was directed to do something that is clearly evil I would be sure it wasn’t God that was guiding me.
To all who responded regarding my “laughable nonsense” comment. I’m feeling like I’m talking in circles, here. You all can debate the point using any language you think is appropriate, and with any tone you think is appropriate. No skin off my behind. All I’m saying is that there are ways of making the arugment productive, and ways of making it shut down. I can’t and don’t want to analyze every possible argument you could make, and explain why someone might find it insulting, or why they might not. If you want to insult people, please, have at it. But dont be surprised when, you know, they get insulted.
See, I never asked anyone to “act as though they don’t find some things unbelievable,” as Maureen put it. That’s fine, and not the same thing as acting as though you think it’s all laughable nonsense. If you can’t see the difference, then there’s no point of going around in circles about it.
That’s an interesting statement, as it seems to suggest that you weigh this guidance against your own internal morality.
No, I totally understand. In fact, there was a recent thread that discussed that very thing. Unfortunately, it got hijacked early and the overwhelming opinion in that thread was that if your feelings get hurt by my logic, oh well, too bad so sad. You’ll find I disagreed strenuously with that stance. I have no problem with trying to make my point without stepping on toes and being persuasive without being an ass. I just feel that at some point, if someone is bound and determined to find insult, find it they will.
Well I don’t normally require help with simple matters of morality. More in the way of things that I know will affect others over an extended period of time. The gist of your statement is correct, however in that is some check is being made that I myself am responsible for.
I hope you didn’t take my comment yesterday in a totally negative way. I hope that you can tell I have respect for you not only as a human but for your intellect as well. I’m just like everyone else though, I find humour to be a mood litghtener although I do try not to be hateful when doing so. You ever hear somebody say “I kill me”? I feel that way a lot both when I screw something up or just when I think of something that makes me chuckle a little.
Absolutely baby. 
If Anonymous is their time of tribulation, that shows we are living in nerfality.
(which links to: )
I’m not “bothered emotionally” by any of this–except to the extent that all suppression of discussion makes the board less interesting and provides fewer opportunities to expand (my) knowledge. I answered in the context of theological threads because that is the topic under discussion, but it is also true of political discourse, economic debates, and other areas of thought.
I think it would be interesting to see a couple of well-informed posters of good intentions hammer out their beliefs regarding Dispensational Premillennialism with various views of Pre- and post-Tribulation being presented by people who actually cared about them and studied them. My own beliefs dismiss the whole topic as not relevant, but I have an interest in how and why other people believe and how they express those beliefs and how those beliefs affect their actions. I would be just as interested in seeing a good, serious debate between groups of paleo- and neo-conservatives, or New Deal Liberals and Liberals whose beliefs are more attuned to this decade or between Liberals and Socialists. I am unlikely to embrace any of those positions, either, but I would find the discussions informative for the same reasons I would find the religious debates informative.
(We actually had a few threads discussing the legitimacy of Socialism or the benefits of unrestricted Capitalism a few years ago. Those threads (and, often the posters who participatd in them) are now a thing of the past. Too many posters feel that they must aggressively challenge any idea that is not congruent with their own beliefs–to the point of reducing all discussions to simple ridicule.)
Having the “freedom” of “open discussion” means that no one is prohibited from challenging any idea they find flawed. However, it has the unintended consequence that no discussion of ideas that requires the granting of a premise (even just for the sake of discussion) or the consideration of nuance can long survive. When several posters are expending lots of electrons to deny the premise of a position, it is simply an aspect of human nature that folks who want to explore the ramifications of the premise will hold back, not wishing to be categorized as “believing” the “wrong things.”
Note that I have made no claim that “atheists” have done anything to religious discussions. Crocodiles And Boulevards made an observation regarding the current state of religious discussion, (one with which I would generally concur) and I noted that the current state is the culmination of events, not somthing that has always been true. The same observations could be made regarding political or economic discourse or the principles of the Law–or nearly any discussion of ideas. (Legal discussions actually held out longer than most other arenas, although I would say that they, too, are begiining to slip into binary shouting matches in the last couple of years.)
I also have no real solution to the problem. (There have actually been a couple of threads where I declared certain challenges off limits simply so that the discussion could continue on its own merits. However, I do not have the time or energy to enforce the same sort of limits on every thread that is submitted–and judging by the howling I heard in those cases, I would wind up spending an inordinate amount of time between efforts to police the threads and taking the time to read the “concerns” of all the posters who insisted on their “right” to ridicule whatever belief they found offensive.)
I am a bit rueful that the variety of discourse has dimished, but I am not “bothered emotionally” that religious threads have suffered the same fate as other discussions.
You do realize that you just knocked down a strawman somebody on your own side set up which I specifically denounced, right? I mean, your answer is informative and all, but once again I have to object to Malthus’ implication, which calls me a liar. I specifically said that I accept that the theists are not emotionally bothered. If he’s going to call me a liar and you’re going to repeat his lie I’d really like an explanation as to why you feel free to imply I’m lying.
No, no offense taken. Your humor comes across as being somewhat deadpan (whether it is in real life I couldn’t say) but I have never seen it be cruel. You seem like a real earnest guy to me. We’re good.
You know what, forget it. That was too abrasive. I just wanted to get it on the record that I never meant to suggest it was an emotional response, just to say that I couldn’t come up with another explanation myself. Which is why I was asking. Obviously, anyone who reads the thread will see I ended up agreeing with the argument I initially couldn’t imagine, so it’s a stupid point for me to be all pissy over now.
I think you’re investing too much in this. I simply used the separate comments of Malthus, Czarcasm, and yourself to set the stage for my more general observations about the SDMB. I am not interested in challenging anyone or calling anyone a liar or condemning anyone (or perpetuating any claims of wild-eyed atheists bashing persecuted believers) or any of the other claims made in this thread.
I’d actually prefer that folks just consider my observations and, maybe, try to make this place a bit less hostile and more interesting–not that I have high hopes.
ETA: I had the preceding written and I submitted it after a lockup without seeing your most recent post.
I rather like this one instead:
**
/'\
|.;
,_ ;;| _,
\ '-.|'|.-' /
__'.`_\;/_`.'__
`._ - =.'. = -_.`
.-'``/|\``'-.
``'` | `'``**
Surely we agree that what really we need is one hot smokin’ Og!
Damn Red, you got mad skillz!
I like that a thread about ending religious debate in GD has promoted religious debate in the Pit.
Is it supposed to look like a butterfly landing on a penis?
I always hated the ink blot game. It made me so self-conscious. :o
Look, can’t we just have say, the religious people will stop telling the atheists that they’re unfufilled and that their morals have no basis, and the astheists will stop making remarks about magical sky fairies and such?
Or does that make too much sense?
Insulting? By echoing what a witness (who as it said was not welcome) says?
But I left long before that faq was revised, and viewed some threads attempting to be serious. The IPU website, from the beginning, never attempted to be serious.
However, while there is an attempt to bug witnesses, you can see the germ of the serious argument there - which is that the same arguments for the traditional god can be used for the IPU, with pretty much equal validity. (Except for age and that we don’t pretend to believe in it.) Which is the whole point, really.
Well, the word used in Hebrew for God is certainly not the one used for god. I recited plenty of Hebrew prayers in my day. We’re talking English, here, where there is not a big difference.
The prayer books I used only had two letters. You pronounced letters that weren’t written.