But if you want to make a big enough deal about it, I'm certain staff can make a rule where the word "delusional" can no longer be used on this forum.

---

(August 31, 2018 at 3:11 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Alrighty, wack-job! 😏

That's how I know you love me. 

(August 31, 2018 at 3:03 am)Kit Wrote:

(August 31, 2018 at 3:02 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Hey, you get back what you put into a discussion with another human being.  It’s not about emotion.  I’m merely pointing out the demonstrable fact that if you are looking to change someone’s mind about their religious beliefs, calling them mentally ill is not going to get you over your goal line, lol.

Because logic has worked so well on the religiously minded who display delusional tendencies through their beliefs.

Guess what?  I became an atheist around the age of 33.  I did have questions before, and I would say my journey started around age 13 or 14, but I didn't get over that final hurdle by being insulted.  It was by years of gentle and patient discussion with another atheist (among other things).  One who rarely went for the throat, and siply tried to get me to think.

There are a lot of deconverted theists on this site.  Logic can and does work.  People are leaving religion in droves (and not because some random Joe insulted them on the internet).

---

(August 31, 2018 at 3:09 am)Kit Wrote:

(August 31, 2018 at 3:04 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Well, if all you’ve got left in your bag is verbal attacks, maybe you need to take some time to re-pack your tool kit.

And you're misusage of what constitutes "verbal attack" is not in any way logically convincing.

---

(August 31, 2018 at 3:08 am)Aroura Wrote: It does not negate the fact that calling someone something hurtful (true or not) is counterproductive to discussion. 

There can be truths that you can learn to phrase differently or in a more productive way.  

For instance, if a person is being a retarded asshole, simply calling them that (even though it is true) is unlikely to cause the change in behavior I'm looking for, and will probably actually cause them to double down.  

Don't attack.  Discuss.

We'll just have to agree to disagree at this point.

Calling a delusional person delusional is not an attack.  It is referring to the truth.

A truth can still be an attack (or an insult). You are using a false dichotomy.  Attacks, insults, etc. and truths are not mutually exclusive.

Would go up to a person with an IQ of 70 and call them a moron?  Or would you consider that an insult (even though it is also technically true)?

(August 31, 2018 at 3:11 am)Kit Wrote: But if you want to make a big enough deal about it, I'm certain staff can make a rule where the word "delusional" can no longer be used on this forum.

---

(August 31, 2018 at 3:11 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Alrighty, wack-job! 😏

That's how I know you love me. 

Always, dear. ❤️

(August 31, 2018 at 3:14 am)Aroura Wrote: Guess what?  I became an atheist around the age of 33.  I did have questions before, and I would say my journey started around age 13 or 14, but I didn't get over that final hurdle by being insulted.  It was by years of gentle and patient discussion with another atheist (among other things).  One who rarely went for the throat, and siply tried to get me to think.

There are a lot of deconverted theists on this site.  Logic can and does work.  People are leaving religion in droves (and not because some random Joe insulted them on the internet).

Now who's grasping at straws.

When I was a theist, the more I was attacked, the more I clung to my belief. That's true fundamentalism. However, I never reached reality because of debate. It simply doesn't work that way.

What I did was my own research outside of biblical works, church, etc.

I'm not going to stop calling theist delusional. You should be glad I'm only calling them that.

(August 31, 2018 at 3:19 am)Kit Wrote:

(August 31, 2018 at 3:14 am)Aroura Wrote: Guess what?  I became an atheist around the age of 33.  I did have questions before, and I would say my journey started around age 13 or 14, but I didn't get over that final hurdle by being insulted.  It was by years of gentle and patient discussion with another atheist (among other things).  One who rarely went for the throat, and siply tried to get me to think.

There are a lot of deconverted theists on this site.  Logic can and does work.  People are leaving religion in droves (and not because some random Joe insulted them on the internet).

Now who's grasping at straws.

When I was a theist, the more I was attacked, the more I clung to my belief.  That's true fundamentalism.  However, I never reached reality because of debate.  It simply doesn't work that way.

What I did was my own research outside of biblical works, church, etc.

I'm not going to stop calling theist delusional.  You should be glad I'm only calling them that.

My bolded....And yet you persist.

I'm sure everyone leaving religion did so 100% self sufficiently, or maybe it was after researching on their own and reading Bertrand Russel's paper "On Why you are Delusional", or perhaps it was Nietzsche's "God is Dead and you were a childish moron to believe in him in the first place".  Yes yes, influential works , those.  Not that any of that has ever affected anyone else, naturally.  They all got there completely on their own. 


(p.s. your experience is not definitive.  For many people, exposure to other ideas alone plants the seeds to even do the research)

(August 31, 2018 at 3:45 am)Aroura Wrote: My bolded....And yet you persist.

I persist because I am insane.

I with Aroura here, though. I'm not saying that people shouldn't loudly sound off their gripes about religion here. Quite the opposite. This is an appropriate place for it. But keep in mind that CL is pretty open minded to come and discuss things like her beliefs with a majority who disagrees with her in the first place. We should be similarly open minded about her views--especially since she is respectful and courteous to us.

Being open-minded isn't having a certain point of view, but rather being able to discuss all points of view rationally, even ones we wholeheartedly reject. We can make exceptions for people who come here spouting funhouse batshit, but CL hardly fits that description.

(August 31, 2018 at 4:02 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: I with Aroura here, though. I'm not saying that people shouldn't loudly sound off their gripes about religion here. Quite the opposite. This is an appropriate place for it. But keep in mind that CL is pretty open minded to come and discuss things like her beliefs with a majority who disagrees with her in the first place. We should be similarly open minded about her views--especially since she is respectful and courteous to us.

Being open-minded isn't having a certain point of view, but rather being able to discuss all points of view rationally, even ones we wholeheartedly reject. We can make exceptions for people who come here spouting funhouse batshit, but CL hardly fits that description.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your concept.

I just understand that CL has emotionally manipulated me to not respond how I see fit, and that's a problem.  Maybe you and everyone else don't feel that way, but I have spent too much of my life being manipulated by others to put up with it anymore.  My personal well-being comes before the manipulation of others.

(August 31, 2018 at 2:49 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: What’s the point of talking to someone if all you’re going to do is verbally attack?  I mean, if that’s what you want to do, fine. But, don’t pretend you’re interested in actually connecting with another person while at the same time calling them names.  That’s not productive dialogue. Just be forthright about it and admit that it makes you feel good inside to tell someone they’re wrong.

Respectfully speaking, I don't think that's what I was doing. I was talking about the behaviors and went out of my way to point out that I was analogizing it to delusion, not saying that it was a delusion in the medical sense. Are we not allowed to talk about the specifics of behavior because people might get all butthurt and emotional about the word? At one time, mental illness was stigmatized. Should we have avoided talking about mental illness and tried to euphemize discussion of it? I don't notice that either CL or Neo has actually responded with anything of substance about the question, aside from quoting a medical dictionary, which isn't really helpful. At bottom this is a question about human behavior, and if some people feel stigmatized over the use of the word, I suggest they get over it. It is a legitimate question and avoiding it out of risk of hurting someone's feelings is bullshit. You're doing far more to oppose open dialogue with your slanderous accusation that I'm doing it because it makes me feel good inside. That seems more an effort to insult and shut down dialogue than anything I said. (And apparently CL thinks that because I have a mental illness I'm less qualified to speak on the subject. Why I don't know as she's pissed at me and won't respond. So I'm left to guess. And the reasons I'm guessing are far more insulting than anything I've said to her in this discussion.)

Wow. I didn't get it before. Apparently this is all about the stigma of mental illness. Apparently LFC thinks because I have a mental illness then I'm a "wack-job." And according to CL, I'm somehow disqualified to speak. So all this crap about personal attacks is just embracing the fact that you all feel that people with a mental illness are somehow less than people without a mental illness. It all becomes clear now. It's you who are making the word a bad thing because you associate it with mental illness, and of course being associated with mental illness is a bad thing. Talk about double speak. I'd be offended but I don't share your negative views about the mentally ill.

---

(August 31, 2018 at 4:02 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: I with Aroura here, though. I'm not saying that people shouldn't loudly sound off their gripes about religion here. Quite the opposite. This is an appropriate place for it. But keep in mind that CL is pretty open minded to come and discuss things like her beliefs with a majority who disagrees with her in the first place. We should be similarly open minded about her views--especially since she is respectful and courteous to us.

Oh fuck that. She's as mean as any of us here. She just uses kindness as a cover. She passive-aggressively uses derision to demean people she doesn't respect. She's offensive in her own way, you've just bought into her schtick.

---

(August 31, 2018 at 4:02 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Being open-minded isn't having a certain point of view, but rather being able to discuss all points of view rationally, even ones we wholeheartedly reject. We can make exceptions for people who come here spouting funhouse batshit, but CL hardly fits that description.

That's fucking funny you say that when the people not being open minded about it are CL and Neo. Yet me and Kit are getting all the shit for talking about it. I think you're confused about what's actually what here, vulcan.

Although CL called you out Jor, I wasn't responding to you. Your comments were much deeper and more nuanced than simple name calling.

I can't speak for Vulcan or LFC or course, but I do note that nobody quoted you when having this discussion.