Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread
May 6, 2018 at 11:16 am
(May 6, 2018 at 11:07 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:
(May 5, 2018 at 10:22 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I am genuinely curious to know, which of my Catholic beliefs do you think is "more fundamentalist" than those of a group of nuns?
Helloooo? You gonna answer this Wololo?? Yay or nay?
My buddy C_L calls them like she sees them. I think we have to be careful not to defend each other as reflexively as some think the theists do. People are individuals .. well .. except for this guy.
RE: Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread
May 6, 2018 at 11:50 am
(May 6, 2018 at 10:09 am)Whateverist Wrote:
(May 6, 2018 at 9:53 am)Joods Wrote: I understood what you said. I think Hammy didn't understand and expressed himself as he was offended or bothered by the fact that autism was brought into the conversation. He admits to not reading past the part of your post that he bolded.
What I was relaying from his impression, was sort of a "see how it feels" position. People use the R word all the time here, knowing I have a daughter with MR. Doesn't seem to bother them to use that word, so I've had to just get over it and accept the fact that some people don't care who they hurt. My point with this to Hammy was, knowing that he uses the R word quite frequently, that it doesn't feel very nice when someone says things about a disability that's personal to you. Whether or not the intention was there to hurt, that's all.
But is it rude for people not on the spectrum to use their understanding of what that means gained from interactions with people who were as well as from what we've managed to learn about it to try to understand someone's actions? Neo's actions just struck me as empathically tone deaf. Not every person on the spectrum is that way, but many have to work harder to gain that capacity or else find work-arounds for it.
I find Neo's conduct reprehensible and I was fishing around for excusing conditions because I have liked interacting with him before. So I was just brainstorming ways in whichNeo's behavior could have to do with how he experiences the world.
Obviously it would have been better not to go there at all. But I don't think that is really analogous to calling someone the spectrum equivalent of a "something-tard". Maybe I'm just not getting it.
I think you were genuine in trying to come up with a reason for why neo is the way he is. I just think that Ham took it as you were saying something against people on the spectrum. I don't think Ham understood the point of your post.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work. If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now. Yes, I DO want fries with that.
RE: Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread
May 6, 2018 at 1:01 pm (This post was last modified: May 6, 2018 at 1:02 pm by Whateverist.)
Wow.
AM Wrote:Further, if it is a neutral activity, aren't there much better things you could be doing with your time? You could join a Christian forum and do the same things you do here. You could visit people in your church and make RL friends. You could read the Bible and pray. You could go for a walk. You note yourself that this place is a time killer and escape for you. Something productive would be better than that
Maybe she could at least get in the kitchen and make her man a sammich I guess you're saying. Or perhaps cross stitch some scripture to mount on the wall.
C_L, I fear you may be upsetting some men. I'll pray for you.
the same fat fuck Wrote:@ A Theist. Insults don't bother me. The point is that it's wasted time. None of the Biblical figures you mention made a habit of hanging out with people after they had heard the message and strongly rejected it. Yes, Paul was imprisoned and beaten, and then he usually moved on to the next town, and he usually went to the synagogue there to begin preaching.
Oh boo hoo, nobody listens. Yeah, those apostles would have been out of there at the first insult. And Jesus himself would have stoned the blasphemers for sure.
Why do so many (but NOT ALL) xtians think they know what everyone else should be doing, whether they follow their own advice or not? Assman and Neo are such hypocrites. The door is that way.
RE: Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread
May 6, 2018 at 1:03 pm (This post was last modified: May 6, 2018 at 2:11 pm by LadyForCamus.)
Just an observation on the theist comments thus far:
Several of our friends have mentioned sowing the seeds and spreading the word as a reason for being here. Is there a disconnect between between what our resident theists understand of atheism, and what their end goal is? In other words, I don’t often see resident theists offering up reasons or arguments for why we should believe Christianity (or Islam) is true. We see arguments ‘in support of’ from folks like Steve and RR, but they aren’t proffered as reasons for atheists to believe. If our theists think there are logical reasons for believing I wound expect more of an effort from them to persuade us. On the other hand, if their position is that atheism absolutely requires faith for belief and cannot be reasoned to, then I wonder what path they can see (if any), to seed sowing, knowing that most of us are rational skeptics. I would be interested in hearing thoughts from individuals on this. Maybe I’ll turn these questions into a follow-up thread once the theist debate has wrapped up.
Edit: Thanks to Vulc for correcting me on my misspelling! 😛
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
RE: Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread
May 6, 2018 at 2:05 pm (This post was last modified: May 6, 2018 at 2:25 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(May 5, 2018 at 11:12 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Well I don't think Neo is at all typical of folks on the spectrum. So I hope you didn't take it that way. But I guess you know the spectrum is called that for a reason.
Long response to my digression that is a response to what you said. I put the digression from the topic of this thread under a hide tag so those who aren't interested in my irrelevant response to what you just said and are only interested directly in the topic of the thread at hand can easily skip this post without having to scroll past aforementioned long digression that I am posting under this hide-tag for you:
I know you meant no harm by it. I know that you don't think I am an example of it. I criticize your understanding of it though. there is no 'typical' case of being on the spectrum. That's why being on the spectrum is about atypicality And that's why here in the UK Aspergers Syndrome was removed from the DSM in 2013: It masqueraded as a supposedly typical case of one particular so called 'type' of the atypical. When really it was an arbitrary collection of symptoms and more of a correlation than a sub-type, that was very unhelpful because people could be just as high functioning as Asperger's and just as autistic as Asperger's but still not fit the stereotypical symptoms of Asperger's despite being close to it. It's why my official diagnosis is Autistic Spectrum Disorder despite the fact I am very close to the symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome, so much so that my assessor said "It would not be incorrect to tell people that you have Asperger's if you would prefer to tell people that". I'm close enough to AS for it to be more correct than incorrect to say I had AS but far enough a way from it for myself to be my own unique case of autism Because that's the crucial point: There is no typical case. That's what is meant by the saying of "If you have met one person with autism you have met one person with autism."
N.B. The reason why I was told I could say I have Asperger's if I prefer is not just because my symptoms are far closer to Asperger's than any of the other so-called subsets of autism: But also because she (my assessor) wanted me to know that I am a) Definitely close enough in symptons to have gotten a diagnosis of it prior to 2013 therefore more than welcome to participate in, say, social or support groups for Asperger's Syndrome involving people who were diagnosed with Asperger's prior to the change in 2013 and If I tell people I have autism rather than Asperger's, despite that ultimately being slightly more accurate as all cases are unique and Asperger's is stereotyped and ultimately unhelpful... Many people think that 'autism' refers to the lower functioning kind so that may have the effect of misleading people to believing I'm lower rather than higher functioning and they may wonder why I say I have autism when I'm clearly higher functioning.
Fundamentally.... even if Neo is on the spectrum he is Clearly less on the spectrum than me Autism only affects empathy to the extent of treating people like objects when someone is severely low functioning to the point of having no 'theory of mind' (in the sense of being unable to even believe that other minds exist. I myself am completely 100% unable to empathize but I completely believe that other minds exist so I certainly don't want others to suffer and certainly don't treat others like objects).... and Neo definitely has a theory of mind, in that sense. He definitely is capable of believing and does believe that other minds exist besides his own. He is no solipsist.
So, because Neo is clearly less autistic than me even if he is somewhat autistc, and because autism can only affect someone in the relevant way you describe if it's highly severe (and it is certainly unintentional in that case... it's not that severe autism makes someone choose not to care it simply makes them incapable of it.... unlike Neo who is perfectly capable but just doesn't care that he doesn't care... although perhaps he's incapable of caring about the fact that he just doesn't care that he doesn't care but that's slightly different: It's like the difference between having no control over wanting to be a sadist and having no control over the fact that one isn't a sadist... even when the sadist ultimately has no control due to an overwhelming uncontrollable and pathological urge the sadist is still a sadist who wants such a thing. It's like... the fact that intentions matter even when they're uncontrollable)...... if he is on the spectrum and his autism is definitely not severe enough to lead to what you suggest then it is actually slightly less definite for myself, however definite. Or in other words: Even if it says nothing about me it says even less about Neo because if he is autistic (which I doubt, I mean, I doubt he is enough to warrant a diagnosis. We're all 'on the spectrum' to an extent but there's a difference between that and being diagnostically on the spectrum like I am.... If he is autistic he's less autistic than I am and hence less likely to be lacking in compassion because of autism than I am. Despite the fact that I am clearly not severe enough for that... and there is clear evidence that I am compassionate in spite of it.
Or in other words: Neo is clearly lacking in compassion but it is clearly NOT because of autism, not even a little bit, even if he is a little bit autistic. And I clearly am NOT lacking in compassion.... despite the fact that if I was there would be slightly more chance of it being because of my autism simply because I'm diagnostically autistic and Neo isn't (If he's autistic he's not severe enough for it to impact his whole life enough to get a diagnosis).
If he is on any sort spectrum that causes him to be an unfeeling cunt it's more likely to be some kind of psychopathic spectrum, if there is such a thing. He's not a psychopath but he's less non-psychopathic than the average person.
So, basically, in conclusion... Neo is probably quite far from neurologically typical but autism isn't the only way to be neurologically atypical and in all but the most severe cases autism has nothing to do with treating people like objects... and even in those cases it can't be due to malice or at least intentional and self-righteous sanctimonious interpersonal hostility... unlike with Neo which it very much is that.
...and... I was hut because of a combination of a bad day and part of me worrying that you may be right about treating people like objects sometimes being due to severe autism and the fact that I was worried that maybe my own is severe enough that I do do that (internally I mean, I am aware that no decent person who knows me thinks I treat people that way... but that doesn't mean that in my head I actually treat people as people)... so part of me was worried that you were right. But not about Neo... but instead about me. At least a little bit. I am sure you are wrong about Neo. Meaning: I agree with your conclusion that Neo is an unfeeling person who treats people like objects... but I do not agree that it is anything to do with autism on his part even in the slightest... and although that I am NOT (at least, not externally) an unfeeling person who treats people like objects... : If I am that way internally at all.... it would most likely be due to my autism (internally, if I am that way. How would I know? That's the problem... most people would know what it means to connect with others but I can't see anyone's point of view besides my own).....
So... I was worried that you were right about the autism part of what you said. But not with regards to Neo. But with regards to me. I know that is not what you meant. But it made me think of that. And I know you didn't mean it. And to be clear the only part that hurt was the fact you made (and make me) wonder that perhaps you are right in some way. I wasn't actually hurt by the part in which you were wrong: The fact you were ignorant about the fact - or seemed to be - that there isn't such thing as a typical case of autism. Any ignorance (or fail to express yourself and appearing to be ignorance) on your part... doesn't bother me. I am bothered by the fact you may be right about something about myself even though you weren't even talking about me.
Now, this does not mean I would rather you had not have said it. I am not discouraging you. I appreciate and am very much glad that you said what you said. I can and do always compatmentalize this: When someone says something that hurts me I can express my offence and sadness about how it made me feel whilst at the same time saying I am glad they said it because I don't believe any information should be taboo (or even misinformation, as it's preferable to absence of any sort of information. You can learn what is correct from finding out what is incorrect but you can't learn anything if you don't learn anything)...
It's the same reason why in the past when me and Joods have fallen out over AF and she said stuff that made my feelings get clearly hurt and made me express such things... it did not mean that I didn't want her to say what she said. I did.
I want people to say what they think whether it's right or wrong and whether I agree with it or not. And I can be hurt by painful knowledge that I very much want to know. Why would I be such a masochist? I'm not. The point is that I believe in the long run that knowledge leads to less suffering... even if that is not the case in the short run. And even when it won't we can't know that it won't and knowledge is generally a good thing which is why I do think it should be an end in itself. (Unlike Neo and his confirmation bias.....)
I am very much of the position that ANY motive FOR knowledge that is HELD ABOVE seeking knowledge for its own sake... leads to confirmation bias at least a little bit on some level. At the very least.
Now, there's definitely nothing wrong with having other motives for knowledge besides seeking it for its own sake. That can definitely be, and definitely is, a good thing in some cases. But it is definitely wrong to ever put any purpose for seeking knowledge above the seeking of knowledge for its own sake.
Now, perhaps you could say the exception would be seeking knowledge for pleasure. But I would say that was 'not even wrong'. Because that is what I mean by seeking knowledge for its own sake. For something to be good in and of itself means that it is good because the experience of it is a pleasure. The knowing of knowledge is enjoyed... the love of knowledge... including the love of wisdom (what philosophy originally meant)..... this is what it means to make knowledge an end in itself: To make it the highest form of pleasure.
So, thank you Whateves and hopefully my post helped you as much as it did my former self yesterday (I'm a Presentist).... I am not hurt and I have gained both undestanding and pleasure from what you said to my former self. My former self suffered emotional pain but that is outweighed by my current self's pleasure and growth from what you said. That other person, that me, (that inhabited the same body and had the same brain, although that brain has since changed)... is not me... and they suffered very mildly but now I am very happy and that's a net gain morally speaking.
Anyway, apologies to all for this digression.
N.B. if Neo's being an unfeeling cunt is due to any neurologically atypical spectrum it is more likely due to a psychopathic spectrum than the autistic spectrum even factoring in the possibility that a psychopathic spectrum does not particularly exist.
Anyways, keep being awesome my kind and thoughtful friend, Whateverist. I may have seemed offended and that's because I was offended (my former self was offended) but it wasn't at your intended meaning it was at your semantic meaning and therefore at your words rather than at you.
P.S. Gigantic post (within hide-tag) is okay when we're not playing Mafia!
(May 5, 2018 at 11:20 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Hammy, are you saying being anywhere on the spectrum and being cuntish are mutually exclusive?
Don't shoot the postman! Just asking?
Of course I'm not saying that. I'm saying that you shouldn't confuse correlation with causation: Both autistic and non-autistic people can be unfeeling cunts but it has nothing to do with autism or absence thereof. It has to do with being human (or being on the psychopathic spectrum, perhaps).
Humans in general can be unfeeling cunts. But this can never have any more to do with being on the spectrum than it can have to do with not being on the spectrum. Humans can't (intentionally) be unfeeling cunts (I don't consider unintentional cuntishness to be cuntishness and I don't consider unfeelingness to be the same thing as cuntish unfeelingness) because of autism or because of not autism. It has nothing to do with autism or the absence of autism.
RE: Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread
May 6, 2018 at 2:33 pm (This post was last modified: May 6, 2018 at 3:18 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(May 6, 2018 at 2:34 am)robvalue Wrote: If anyone is a role model for how not to behave on forums, and how not to think about atheists, it has to be Chad/Neo. I hope the other Christians put him straight on some of the nonsense he's putting out there.
Kind of made me sad that CL kudosed the shit he said because she's actually the most reasonable of all the theists there that I have seen so far (haven't seen Roadrunner or Steve yet but even if they say more reasonable things than here I like her more)... but I guess maybe it's because she's the nicest of the bunch that she kudoses him? Because she's more tolerant of cuntishness than the rest.
Being tolerant of cuntishness is not a good quality of course, but being tolerant in general is. And I think it's a symptom of her tolerance in general and not a sympton of her tolerance of cuntishness.
P.S. "Cuntishness" is my favorite word now. It's so incredibly fucking fun to fucking say. It's even more fun than saying [the sentence/incomplete sentence] "It's so incredibly fucking fun to fucking say" and even that was (also) so incredibly fucking fun to fucking say. It's just even more so [very] incredibly fucking fun to fucking say... to say "cuntishness"... I mean.
At least... I hope CL does not agree with him. I know you're not a fan of the opinions she has and threads she starts and her approach in general, Rob. I'm not either but I definitely think she's a lovely person at heart and definitely curious on top of any other possible motives (I think unknown to her. But I can imagine that all of us have agendas at least unconsciously... so yeah).....
(the difference is I don't think Neo's agenda is unconscious, as well as it involving more cuntishness, I think Neo's agenda is not only conscious but very much self-conscious, he is aware that he is aware of his approach. And it's precisely because he's so aware of his own agenda and ulterior motives that makes him so very disigenuous when he pretends otherwise.
Despite the fact he also makes his agenda very clear, as well.... at least in this case. When he basically says that he'll ignore any knowledge if it doesn't support Christianity. Which is confirmation bias at its [least fine] finest. He's starting with a [delusion] conclusion and then looking for the premises.
By the by.... if anyone can give me some anti-verbosity tutoring please help. I think I'm getting worse. I think it's because i'm reading more philosophy again but I am definitely NOT going to stop doing that. So what I need to try and do is know what to omit. Before posting a super verbose post I should omit all the parts that aren't important in order to leave myself with more conciseness. So, if anyone can give me any hints and tips on reducing verbosity: please make it hints and tips on what sort of things to omit. I've had ideas that by the time I've finished my ramble the most important parts of the post tend to be at the end (with exceptions being stuff like this "by the way" or a P.S.... as they tend to either be very meta or just a separate point altogether)..... because it's by the end that I've managed to verbalize what I most wanted to say. But at the same time sometimes my most important points are at the beginning because I tend to overexplain my points afterwards. But sometimes people do want elaboration when I try to be concise and brief and pithy. That's what I struggle with most: balance. Anyways, it's no worries if people offer good advice and I am unable to follow it. Many have tried and I've failed to implement it but I guess I never asked before about precisely what sort of things to omit (saying "Just omit the less important stuff you say" begs the question, for me, because I lack the common sense to tell which parts are important and that's part of the whole problem in the first place. I need to know some way of categorizing it. I have no sense of how I seem to others besides what they tell me and my own misjudgements about what they might think based on what they or others have expressed to me previously).
RE: Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread
May 6, 2018 at 3:24 pm
(May 6, 2018 at 9:47 am)Whateverist Wrote: I think what I said is being misconstrued. I was suggesting that their might be ordinary, constitutional variation in the way Neo is wired which is making it difficult for him to apply empathy. That hardly implies that everyone on the spectrum is an asshole.
That's always on my mind as well. But I also don't think that it should excuse him from the animosity he gets. I've seen people on other forums who started off as complete jerks and then turn their life around and become genuinely nice people. That won't happen if people excuse the behaviour and let it pass unchallenged. And if it is the way he is wired, then he needs to learn to adapt.
RE: Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread
May 6, 2018 at 3:26 pm
(May 6, 2018 at 3:24 pm)Mathilda Wrote:
(May 6, 2018 at 9:47 am)Whateverist Wrote: I think what I said is being misconstrued. I was suggesting that their might be ordinary, constitutional variation in the way Neo is wired which is making it difficult for him to apply empathy. That hardly implies that everyone on the spectrum is an asshole.
That's always on my mind as well. But I also don't think that it should excuse him from the animosity he gets. I've seen people on other forums who started off as complete jerks and then turn their life around and become genuinely nice people. That won't happen if people excuse the behaviour and let it pass unchallenged. And if it is the way he is wired, then he needs to learn to adapt.
I do not think punishment is a good way to motivate people.
But your individuality and your present need will be swept away by change,
and what you now ardently desire will one day become the object of abhorrence.
