Quote:It's also a claim; one that needs supported.   

Nice try 

Quote:I think that we can disagree on something, and I don't call the other person deluded. So I believe that this term is saying more than that you disagree on the subject.  So the questions then follow; what do you mean by this, and how did you come to that conclusion?    What evidence or reasons would you posit for your claim of truth here?

You don't give a damn about evidence  road it's curdle you use to spew BS

---

(August 31, 2018 at 8:14 am)Khemikal Wrote: Here we go again.  Like you give a fuck about evidence or reason, lol.

The broken record continues it's tune .

(August 31, 2018 at 2:50 am)Kit Wrote: Theists can call us sinners, as though that's not verbal abuse.  We call them delusional, and they're allowed to play the persecution card?  Get your priorities straight.

Christians call themselves sinners in case you haven't noticed. We consider it a universal part of the human condition.

(August 31, 2018 at 5:08 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(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.

Jorm, I was speaking to Kit’s posts, not yours.  I haven’t even read that far back yet.

If someone thinks they are having a personal relationship with some being, but they aren’t (quite possibly because the being is imaginary), I don’t know what you’d call that but a delusion. It’s generally programmed into people, though. It’s very understandable and doesn’t necessarily indicate any mental deficiency. It’s such a wide ranging delusion that it’s socially accepted, even among adults.

PS: not so much in England, though. You’d now be considered a bit crazy by many people, which is why it is dying out.

(August 30, 2018 at 10:46 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

Despite not knowing how that statistic was derived,I suspect that had the question been asked differently the number would change. Is the bible literally the Word of God? IMO yes. Is everything in the Word of God to be taken literally? IMO no. Do you see the difference?

@Jorm, I think you have gravely misunderstood me here, and for that I apologize. But, I won’t go on about it anymore in public. I’ve messaged you in Slack when you get a chance, please and thanks.

Quote:Despite not knowing how that statistic was derived,I suspect that had the question been asked differently the number would change. Is the bible literally the Word of God? IMO yes. Is everything in the Word of God to be taken literally? IMO no. Do you see the difference?

Does not matter to his point

---

Quote:Christians call themselves sinners in case you haven't noticed. We consider it a universal part of the human condition.

And we admitted everyone has delusions and it's a state of humanity

(August 31, 2018 at 8:28 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(August 31, 2018 at 2:50 am)Kit Wrote: Theists can call us sinners, as though that's not verbal abuse.  We call them delusional, and they're allowed to play the persecution card?  Get your priorities straight.

Christians call themselves sinners in case you haven't noticed. We consider it a universal part of the human condition.

Then contain it to yourselves.  The rest of us aren't stumbling through life, daydreaming about rape and pillage, held back only by belief in some some silly god.

(August 31, 2018 at 3:14 am)Aroura Wrote: There are a lot of deconverted theists on this site.  Logic can and does work. 

Logic is a tool. It works both ways. People have different life experiences, ways of observing, and values (among other things). Those yield different premises. As a result, the application of logic can, and has, resulted in various conclusions. Very few people dispute the apparent inexorable logic of either Aquinas or Spinoza, yet both came to very different conclusions.

(August 31, 2018 at 7:13 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(August 31, 2018 at 5:33 am)Aroura Wrote: 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.

It doesn't require quoting someone to make it plain who you're talking about. Since only me and Kit are arguing the point, it's pretty obvious who is meant.

(And for what it's worth, I don't really care that CL or anybody else mentions me. My understanding of the calling out rule is that it only applies to devoting a thread that way.)

I find it difficult to apologise for simply asking people to be kinder in their discourse.

The issue is I mostly agree with all the points that are being made. I just think it's hurtful to throw them in people's faces. Particulate of said person has asked that you stop because it's actually hurtung them.

I think that for the most part you make very well thought out and salient points. You are probably one of my favorite people to read on this forum. But someone left a thread in tears after name calling.

Then again I also understand that a number of people believe CL is disingenuous and manipulative. Regardless of what you think of her, she has feeling that can be hurt. I think a little more respect in this direction would do the world a lot of good.

I'm also not really one to talk, once flipped out at my share of theists on this forum, including at CL. I've actually put almost all of them on ignore so I don't become an angry monster everytime I read some of the stupid shit they say.

Idk, it just looked like she really had her feelings hurt this time. And all of my points about getting through to people without insulting then still stand regargardless of who did what to who.

Anyway my goal wasn'tto hurt or anger you or kit, but simply to try and bring the tone down. Looks like I completely failed in both counts.