I think every single person participating in this discussion right now (myself certainly included), with the exception of CL, has slung a vile insult or two at someone from accross the pond, so maybe we should all take a breath and put our fingers down, lest we poke our own eyes out. We can all do better.

@RR: Here is my response to you. Hammy put this up a few pages ago and it's definitely relevant to the argument.

(May 7, 2018 at 12:48 pm)Hammy Wrote: It's not an assumption... it's an extremely clear reality.

(May 7, 2018 at 1:42 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I would beg to differ.  There are plenty of people who come to believe in and have faith in God; later in life.  And many of them are quite intelligent, and do cite rational reasons for their belief that Christianity is true.  I would also point out that learning something when you are young, does not preclude a greater understanding and foundation for that belief later.  So I would say that you are just flat out wrong.  And I don't think that you have much to support the statements you make.

See above for my rebuttal.

(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.

Right. But, like I said, I can take offense at CL's beliefs without taking offense at her as a person. I think she's a lovely person with a couple of nasty religious beliefs. Neo, on the other hand, doesn't seem anything close to lovely.*


*Nor do I but I tend to only be non-lovely towards people like Neo... whereas he seems to be a snide dipshit towards all atheists and even, as we see on the thread, the other theists. It's like he thinks he's above the other Christians. That's the impression I get from him on that thread. And I doubt I'm the only one gets that impression.

There's a reason I don't talk to CL the way I do to Neo. I'm just as hostile towards the beliefs that they both share... but I don't call her an asshole because she doesn't act like one. I'm not hostile towards her.

(May 7, 2018 at 12:59 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 6, 2018 at 8:47 am)chimp3 Wrote: If Chad has any personal integrity he would make that his final post and depart AF.

I changed my username because another member was calling on others to physically harm me. Everyone knows this. I guess it is too much to ask that people stop referring to me by name and respect the concerns I have for the safety of me and my family.

I did NOT know this, and I’m sorry to hear that anyone would do such a thing.

(May 7, 2018 at 1:43 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I think every single person participating in this discussion right now (myself certainly included), with the exception of CL, has slung a vile insult or two at someone from accross the pond, so maybe we should all take a breath and put our fingers down, lest we poke our own eyes out.  We can all do better.

I agree. (though I'll admit to having said some nasty things about Khem myself) 

But the point is it seems this entire thread has turned into a gang up attack on Neo's character, when he's done nothing different than what many other people here have been guilty of.

(May 7, 2018 at 1:41 pm)Joods Wrote: Oh but you weren't speaking from personal experience. You literally generalized all theists in your comment.

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

(May 7, 2018 at 1:37 pm)Joods Wrote:

(May 7, 2018 at 1:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: As I've said. The section I proposed isn't just for theists.

Clearly your post that I just quoted speaks mounds that you feel that it should be just for theists. We all know how that section is going to end up and as many have already predicted, it will be in favor of theists who just can't handle having the same words thrown back at them that they throw at atheists, yet want a place on an atheist forum where they are free to be as judgmental as they want to be. 

Congratulations for finding a loophole in allowing the religious to antagonize the non-religious on their own turf.

I don't see how. I've repeatedly said, and corrected people, that the section's rules will apply to everyone, and will be open to anyone who wants civil discussion. Atheists and theists alike. 

The post you are quoting from me is me pointing out a double standard.

(May 7, 2018 at 1:50 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 7, 2018 at 1:43 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I think every single person participating in this discussion right now (myself certainly included), with the exception of CL, has slung a vile insult or two at someone from accross the pond, so maybe we should all take a breath and put our fingers down, lest we poke our own eyes out.  We can all do better.

I agree. (though I'll admit to having said some nasty things about Khem myself)

That’s okay; I think he likes it. 😝

(May 7, 2018 at 1:29 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(May 7, 2018 at 1:12 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Even if justified is it required?  Is it best for you?  Is it what you’d have everyone do in your place?

I'm not sure. But I think many people share my conception of him and I tend to just say stuff I think is true. For me it's not about ulterior motives, pragmatism or saying what's required it's just about being authentic and accurate for its own sake.

As for the last question... is it what I'd have everyone do in my place? Seems like a non-sequitur if you ask me as morally I'm very anti-Kantian and that question springs from a Kantian principle.

I'm quite sure neither Kant nor his adherents have the trademark on that principle.  Nor am I suggesting that it should be the final determinant in your action.  But if you justify an action by citing feeling justified it seems natural to ask whether it was also necessary or well chosen, at least where a difference in morals is being discussed.

(May 7, 2018 at 1:50 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(May 7, 2018 at 1:41 pm)Joods Wrote: Oh but you weren't speaking from personal experience. You literally generalized all theists in your comment.

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

No it doesn't. You were pretty clear in the syntax of your post. 

Stop being obtuse.