Delicate Offers a Truce

[Delicate]

On reflection, I've found this thread illuminating.

I've seen some people respond with grace and restraint, to whom I want to extend the same grace and restraint back (and more).

And yet, I've seen some respond with rage and insults. Not just passive cynicism, but a demeaning sort of cynicism that actively tries to pollute good faith dialogue.

Then there are those in between. Those who WANT to respond in good faith but have unrealistic expectations of me doing 40 years of penance, or giving up on what I take to be true as derived from reason and evidence, etc.

[Heat]

On reflection, I've found this thread illuminating.

I've seen some people respond with grace and restraint, to whom I want to extend the same grace and restraint back (and more).

And yet, I've seen some respond with rage and insults. Not just passive cynicism, but a demeaning sort of cynicism that actively tries to pollute good faith dialogue.

Then there are those in between. Those who WANT to respond in good faith but have unrealistic expectations of me doing 40 years of penance, or giving up on what I take to be true as derived from reason and evidence, etc.

NO WAY YOU WERE CRITICIZED? YOU POOR THING, INSULTED TOO? IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE ON THE INTERNET OR ANYTHING!

[Simon Moon]

On reflection, I've found this thread illuminating.

I've seen some people respond with grace and restraint, to whom I want to extend the same grace and restraint back (and more).

The people you have not mentioned, are those that originally responded with grace and restraint, but were soon disappointed with your intellectual dishonesty. 

And yet, I've seen some respond with rage and insults. Not just passive cynicism, but a demeaning sort of cynicism that actively tries to pollute good faith dialogue.

Some of these may have started with grace and restraint. 

Others may be a bit "world weary" of the long history of theists that come here, that begin by asking a few "innocent" questions, but soon become condescending, intellectually dishonest, butt holes.

Then there are those in between. Those who WANT to respond in good faith but have unrealistic expectations of me doing 40 years of penance, or giving up on what I take to be true as derived from reason and evidence, etc.

And yet, you continue to fail to provide us with the reason and evidence you claim you have for your beliefs.

[Crossless2.0]

Then there are those in between. Those who WANT to respond in good faith but have unrealistic expectations of me doing 40 years of penance, or giving up on what I take to be true as derived from reason and evidence, etc.

How many times and in how many ways in how many threads have you been asked to provide this evidence?

But you don't understand why you're taken less than seriously? 

[Brian37]

On reflection, I've found this thread illuminating.

I've seen some people respond with grace and restraint, to whom I want to extend the same grace and restraint back (and more).

And yet, I've seen some respond with rage and insults. Not just passive cynicism, but a demeaning sort of cynicism that actively tries to pollute good faith dialogue.

Then there are those in between. Those who WANT to respond in good faith but have unrealistic expectations of me doing 40 years of penance, or giving up on what I take to be true as derived from reason and evidence, etc.

How do you manage to function outside the internet outside your house? What do you do when someone offends you in public? I bet you either respond or leave. You can also do that here. What you cannot do is control the behavior of others. The only people who can do that on this website are the admins and moderators, not you.

There is an ignore button if I am not correct. If you don't like the way this website is run, go start your own.

[Brian37]

And stop playing false martyr, you didn't do 40 years of penance, you spent 40 years needlessly convincing yourself that you needed an invisible hero. Most of us are former believers and or never raised in any religion. We do fine without any god belief.

[Mudhammam]

They were caused by the dissolution of the Roman Empire.  The Church stepped into the power vacuum, but it did not create it. The Visigoths did.

Can you not see how you're proving my point right now?

If your point is that knowledge stopped increasing at the pace in which it had been for the 500 years or so prior to the rise of the Holy Roman Empire, then your point is simply the stuff of popular but historically illiterate internet babble.

[downbeatplumb]

I think it can be hard to admit you're wrong in this environment.

Do you believe Christianity caused the dark ages and I don't want to admit I'm wrong?

Well the dark ages were brought on by the fall of the Roman Empire which was brought down in part by the change structure from a military and conquest based power system to one more church centric. The theory goes like this, until the time of Christianity the way to power in the roman empire was to become a powerful general. This changed as Christianity became the route to power and the brightest and best eneterd the church rather than the military. It wasn't the whole story but who knows what a better class of general could have achieved against the invading barbarian hordes

[Simon Moon]

On reflection, I've found this thread illuminating.

I've seen some people respond with grace and restraint, to whom I want to extend the same grace and restraint back (and more).

And yet, I've seen some respond with rage and insults. Not just passive cynicism, but a demeaning sort of cynicism that actively tries to pollute good faith dialogue.

Then there are those in between. Those who WANT to respond in good faith but have unrealistic expectations of me doing 40 years of penance, or giving up on what I take to be true as derived from reason and evidence, etc.

I will add, that the overwhelming reason that the vast majority of atheists give for their disbelief is lack of demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists.

And you claim to have that demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument for the existence of a god. And not just any god, but a specific one that, according to many Christian sects, will punish us for eternity for the thought crime of not believing he exists. 


Aren't you bound by Peter 3:15 to try to convince us of the truth of your beliefs?

[Edwardo Piet]

---

On reflection, I've found this thread illuminating.

I've seen some people respond with grace and restraint, to whom I want to extend the same grace and restraint back (and more).

And yet, I've seen some respond with rage and insults. Not just passive cynicism, but a demeaning sort of cynicism that actively tries to pollute good faith dialogue.

Then there are those in between. Those who WANT to respond in good faith but have unrealistic expectations of me doing 40 years of penance, or giving up on what I take to be true as derived from reason and evidence, etc.

NO WAY YOU WERE CRITICIZED? YOU POOR THING, INSULTED TOO? IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE ON THE INTERNET OR ANYTHING!

---

Heat is entertaining as fuck.

Also he's very analytical and has an active curious mind... I'd love to see him challenge EP to a duel. Lol.