Wow. And the next one? Smartest piece of writing I've ever seen CL write:

Catholic Lady Wrote: Neo, you said this: "By asking about the role of Christians on AF, I’m not concerned about our personal motives, such as finding community, verbally joisting, or playing games. I question, in general, if there are any justifications for Christians, as Christians, to participate on AF and if so what such reasons could be."

I think there are 2 and I talk about each of them bellow.

Reason #1: I would say a Christian role on AF would be to set forth a good example of Christianity and to dispel some of the misconceptions both about Christianity as a religion and about Christians as people. To what end? In hopes of opening some hearts and planting a seed, either for a member here or a lurker. Though as I said on my first post, I don't think this is realistic and isn't the reason why I'm here personally, but I can see it being a "Christian thing" to strive for.

Reason #2: Another Christian role here would be to be challenged in our faith, and in being challenged, to explore it more, seek more answers, and in the end... grow in faith and become better and stronger Christians for it. I believe Alpha talked about this as well, and like he said, there are certainly other ways of going about doing this that don't involve participating on AF. But participating here is, nonetheless, A way.

So my conclusion is that yes, Christians do have roles here. But if the only reason you're here is to fulfill a Christian role and you otherwise don't enjoy your time here, are those 2 reasons worth it? Are you wasting your time? .....Probably not, and probably. Because #1 is a long shot, and #2 you could gain some other way.

Respect. Makes me feel like a lot of the time she's holding back! Believe in yourself CL, I understand you don't see yourself as particularly intelligent--and I'm certainly not suggesting you're super duper smart or anything--but you can really show that you are indeed intelligent when you try. Great post I want more posts like that one from you

To me, your post made Neo look like a dumb twat who's just educated himself on some intellectual and philosophical works, and yet failed to actually understand any of what he's read-up on properly. Exactly what I mean when I speak of his pseudo-intellectualism. Regardless of how erudite he is... you seem far more logical than he is--at least when it comes to lack of biases... I'm not saying you're better at formal logic... perhaps I should say you are more rational than he is to avoid confusion--... and he flat out admitted he's only interested in seeking knowledge that reconfirms his own viewpoint. That's the very essence of confirmation bias on his part. He got completely owned by you so far on every single level so don't underestimate yourself and keep it up

(May 7, 2018 at 8:39 am)alpha male Wrote:

(May 7, 2018 at 6:08 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but if any of our current Christian theists leave the site, I will miss them.

Unfortunately, vorlon is going out of his way to offend Christians, but since he's a staff member, I can't put him on ignore. Doubt I'll be around much longer.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

CatholicLady Wrote: Neo, I remember you telling me once about a particular poster here you really respected and enjoyed debating with, and I remember shortly thereafter seeing that same person just spewing some horrible, vile things to you. She seemed like she really hated you. I remember feeling bad because she was someone you genuinely liked. So I know exactly what you are talking about, because I've seen it.

I do wonder if some of our resident theists are oblivious as to certain ways in which they can offend people. No idea who CL is referring to here but I have been personally and deeply offended by some of Neo's threads.  Maybe the poster Neo is referring to has also been offended. I can say for myself that I know that certain things I have said and threads that I have started have offended people in the past. It would be interesting to see if they have considered certain attitudes they have as being offensive.

I actually have great respect for what A Theist is saying here. Looking at this from the Christian POV I can appreciate the insightfulness within what A Theist said here:

A Theist Wrote: Jesus Himself was falsely accused, tried and beaten, and then crucified. Stephen was stoned to death for his preaching of Jesus. The Apostle Paul, according to accounts, was beheaded. Peter, according to accounts, was crucified upside down, not to mention how he and Paul and other disciples were imprisoned and persecuted throughout the Book Of Acts. Jesus said to rejoice and be exceeding glad for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you. So why are we complaining about the name calling here on the forum? How is that anything to compare with the real persecutions that Christians before us had to endure? If Christians today can't take a little name calling how will they stand when the real trials come? In another place God said to be strong and to be of good courage, have I not commanded you?

If we start from the presupposition that the Bible is true then it makes perfect sense to see name calling as nothing but a mere scratch considering in the time of the Bible Christians would have been thrown to the lions or crucified and yet Jesus still, supposedly, urged Christians to rejoice and have faith in the face of it. If Jesus wants you to turn the other cheek about far more serious harms directed towards you and you can't even turn the other cheek in regards to name-calling on an internet forum without wanting to quit it... then surely Jesus would be rather disappointed in your lack of courage to say the least. Although he would, presumably, forgive you.

So yeah, what A Theist and CL say actually make sense from a Christian perspective--forgiveness being what I always thought was a large party of Christianity--whereas Neo just comes across as a condescending asshole who is only interested in re-bolstering what he already believes including his own prejudice towards his own cartoonized misconception of atheism. And if Neo thinks he can use the 'I used to be an atheist' excuse to avoid the fact that he's clearly ignorant as hell about atheism he can think-a-fuckin'-gen.

Perhaps the tests are real, o' brother *


*just kidding. Non-required

---

(May 7, 2018 at 11:53 am)Mathilda Wrote:

CatholicLady Wrote: Neo, I remember you telling me once about a particular poster here you really respected and enjoyed debating with, and I remember shortly thereafter seeing that same person just spewing some horrible, vile things to you. She seemed like she really hated you. I remember feeling bad because she was someone you genuinely liked. So I know exactly what you are talking about, because I've seen it.

I do wonder if some of our resident theists are oblivious as to certain ways in which they can offend people. No idea who CL is referring to here but I have been personally and deeply offended by some of Neo's threads.  Maybe the poster Neo is referring to has also been offended. I can say for myself that I know that certain things I have said and threads that I have started have offended people in the past. It would be interesting to see if they have considered certain attitudes they have as being offensive.

[my bold]I have no idea either. I'm curious now.

Quote:Christ did end up being crucified you know.

That's the story they invented later.

I'd put the odds at it being true as told at about 1 in 10,000.

(May 7, 2018 at 6:08 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but if any of our current Christian theists leave the site, I will miss them.

Drich? Neo?

I wouldn't extend it to anyone. But after seeing this discussion I'd probably miss Drich more than Neo... fucking hell lol. At least Drich is honest in a direct and candid way about the vileness he believes in. Neo does nothing but obfuscate and go on the smarm offensive (it's like the charm offensive only less charming).

I'd miss the majority of Christians if they left... but not all.

---

(May 7, 2018 at 12:21 am)ignoramus Wrote: "New game: rank our resident theists from least to most hypocritical." from Mark needs to continue here.
Mark is being especially cheeky today! lol

I vote all theists here to be on an equal footing.
If CL is offended by this, then she needs to be more vocal as to why!

Neo is definitely the most hypocritical. Followed perhaps by Little Rik but he shouldn't know any better, unlike Neo. I can't speak for all theists on the forum but all the Christians in this discussion we're commenting on seem sincere to me apart from Neo who is clearly only here to re-bolster his own presuppositions and misconceptions and force his own agenda and prejuice onto others... and when confronted he obfuscates, dodges and does stuff like, for example, saying I'm patronizing and judgemental. Projection much? I was making a point and I was correct. Whereas he is just spouting bigoted bullcrap. There's a difference!

I wouldn't mind Christians spouting bigotry towards atheists if they had objective proof that the creator of the universe existed and that all atheists are objectively inferior according to the being that made the universe! Being patronizing and judgmental is only a relevant quip to react with if the person you're accusing of that is actually in the wrong about what they're saying!

If I'm fucking right in what I fucking say then when Neo calls me patronizing or judgemental I can say "So what?". Bigotry wouldn't be bigotry if it had objective proof on its side. The whole point of bigotry is it's an evil and irrational and prejudiced bullshit. His misconceptions about atheism aren't just insulting and bigoted they're also misconceptions. Would it be bigoted to say that the Nazis were all arseholes for supporting Hitler? NO. Would it be bigoted if all atheists really were ignorant of The Truth and the Light and all that bullcrap? NO. It's bigoted because it's not just nasty but it's a load of fucking bullshit

But the way this is passionate ranting about Neo, Iggy, I'm not angry at you... or even at Neo. I'm here all deadpan and robotic, as I say this stuff, in the most stereotypically Aspie* of ways

*"Aspie": I assume you know this one? If not Google is your friend I'd provide the definition here but I think if I assumed you didn't know the term already then that would be patronizing of me

On thinking about it further, it might be inevitable that theists offend others who don't share their dogma. Just one example off the top of my head. If you are indoctrinated into believing that homosexuality is sinful, then you are not going to be receptive to anything that gay people say to you to enlighten you. Same when it comes to dogma about abortion, women's rights, gender dysphoria, non-nuclear families, open relationships etc. It means that all the rational decisions that you had to make when living your life, which may not have been your choice, get brushed aside without consideration merely because it feels wrong to the indoctrinated theist. It effectively nullifies you as a person and that can be deeply insulting.

In the specific context of intellectual debate, I do not feel compelled to couch and qualify every generalization to protect people’s feelings. It is not unfair opining that men are taller than women despite the fact that “some” women are taller that “most” men. Citing outliers on the Bell curve or notable exceptions to a rule doesn’t invalidate a generalization. Nor does maligning the character or metal stability of the opinion holder have any bearing on the applicability of his generalization. The proper response to an unfair generalization is to show that by-and-large it doesn’t hold true. Statistical observations are not signs of prejudice. The defining feature of actual bigotry is stubbornly maintaining that what generally applies to a group necessarily applies to a particular individual.

With respect to my generalizations quoted earlier in this thread, I was confident the people to whom I was speaking directly would not require much elaboration to get my point. By filling in the unnecessary assumptions of my generalization and eliminating metaphorical language, any reasonable person can see my intent, as follows:

[In my opinion, most] AF members [by-and-large] are closed-minded to the Gospel [even though they may be otherwise open-minded people]. [In my opinion] the lot [i.e. seen as a group, they] embrace mischaracterizations of doctrine that shield them from the actual message of Christianity.

I do not much care for being called a psychopath, a callous bastard, snide, or having various mental illnesses attributed to me BUT neither do I take any of those offensive speculations personally. Those shoes do not fit so I’m not going to wear them, "sticks & stones", etc. (Unlike being a somewhat snobby pompous ass which I know I can be on occasion, especially with respect to IPAs). The only reason for writing this post is to remind these slanderers that generalizations should not be always be interpreted as personal attacks and that a conversation focused on ideas need not carefully attend to the feelings of people outside the conversation.

(May 7, 2018 at 12:10 pm)Mathilda Wrote: On thinking about it further, it might be inevitable that theists offend others who don't share their dogma. Just one example off the top of my head. If you are indoctrinated into believing that homosexuality is sinful, then you are not going to be receptive to anything that gay people say to you to enlighten you. Same when it comes to dogma about abortion, women's rights, gender dysphoria, non-nuclear families, open relationships etc. It means that all the rational decisions that you had to make when living your life, which may not have been your choice, get brushed aside without consideration merely because it feels wrong to the indoctrinated theist.  It effectively nullifies you as a person and that can be deeply insulting.

You're nullifying theists as people by assuming they were indoctrinated into those positions, rather than reaching them by rational thought.

But that's the thing though. People here say terribly offensive things and make generalizations and assumptions about theists all the time lol. Just look through the threads and even some of the thread titles alone. The generalizations and offensive things Neo said about atheists on the debate thread don't really compare to the amount aimed at theists throughout the rest of the forums.

I'm not saying this to complain about it. It's an atheist forum, so of course. I get it lol. My point is simply to point out the double standard I'm seeing. People think Neo is a horrible person for the things he's said about atheists, while everyone else is fine and dandy for what they say about theists. Don't you guys see that?

And yes, Neo is a smartass a lot of times and come off cold and says some insulting things to people that piss them off. But nothing I've seen him say to people is as bad as what I've seen people say to him. And a lot of the reason he is like that is as a response to people having done it to him first, not as the instigator of it all. I am being a completely objective observer here when I say this. I'm not saying he's right to insult people right back or that his generalizations are fair. What I'm saying is that I'm seeing a double standard here, in some people thinking he's awful or sociopathic for saying these things, when many of you guys do the same thing... and do it worse even lol.

Mathilda made a comment to me on a thread that got deleted, that I supposedly "know very well" that as long as us theists are nice, you'll be nice to us. I'm sorry, but this hasn't necessarily been the case lol. It took a while for me to earn respect around here, despite me being very careful to be respectful right off the bat. Someone with less patience and less faith in humanity than myself would probably have given up on trying to stay nice pretty soon after joining.

Again, I'm not complaining about this. I just don't think some people are seeing the double standards when they're pegging Neo as this awful person who insults people and makes mean generalizations about atheists.