Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread

[chimp3]

I have been reading (skimming) most of the posts in the debate. The conversation is now focusing on a "higher" reason to be here other than just socializing on line. What a burden to have to drag around in your life. The noblest reason I have posted for being here is to attempt to normalize that atheist voice in today's society. Maybe in the future there will not be such a stigma attached to being atheist, at least in the U.S.. Other than that, I just enjoy talking to you folks and have a good time doing so. I am so happy not to have the burden of religion in my life.

[Edwardo Piet]

That is a vast amount more than the rest of the followers of bronze age goatherders.

Here's an example of something that theists would get offended by that isn't actually an insult to them as people.

And furthermore may indeed actually be true... as the writers of the Bible probably very much were bronze age goatherders.

---

People like CL for reasons that have nothing to do with religion imo.
I like her a lot as a person despite her silly beliefs.

Agreed. And calling her silly beliefs silly doesn't mean I don't like her. I like her very much.

Furthermore: I even think she has some beliefs that are highly immoral. That doesn't mean I think SHE is highly immoral. She has good intentions and she's a nice person... and to me that... matters. A lot.

This is why it depresses me when theists take an attack on their beliefs as an attack on them. AF is not supposed to pander them... even if they do want to run for the hills. If so, good riddance. As much as it's important that we have an opposing site to debate with it's even more important that ideas can be criticized and this place doesn't become a safe space. There would at least be other things to debate without hysteria over "OH NO YOU SAID MY BELIEFS WERE STUPID AND IRRATIONAL". Well, they are. See my signature: I respect CL too much as a person to respect her ridiculous beliefs.

---

I am just dropping in to make a brief observation. If I were to give it socks, I would likely break every rule there is.

Suffice it to say that in contrast to almost every superstitionist here, C_L at the very least THINKS about these matters. That is a vast amount more than the rest of the followers of bronze age goatherders.

No, they all think about these matters. CL is popular for reasons that have nothing to do with intellectual matters. Watch out for the Halo effect.

Agreed.

Although her response to Neo on the Christian debate thread was rather impressive by theist standards. It's like she can say some things moderately smart when she really tries to.

---

Geez Hammy.  I'd like to have a serious discussion and you just can't stop whining about how you feel oppressed.  What would it take for this to be safe enough space for Hammy so that other people can have a discussion once in a while?

Oh look another one jumps on the Hammy wagon!

I don't whine about it. I react to it. Here's an example of me reacting to it. You just pulled that out of nowhere because I've defending myself when shit is being said about me. You're precisely an example of the problem. There is no "whining" about me being repressed. There's me reacting to stupid shit being said about me.

I don't need a safe space. That's the whole point. People are getting offended by me because THEY need a safe space and they're ganging up on me for being offensive. That's my entire point.

[Catholic_Lady]

And my point was that plenty of atheists also think we need fixing. Just as one example, few months ago, Mathilda made a whole thread full of unflattering generalizations about how theists are immature and not properly raised.

The point of my post in defense of Neo was to say that plenty of people here are guilty of doing exactly what he did. So I think there's a bit of a double standard when Neo gets dragged through the mud for doing the same thing that plenty of people here have done.

I explained already that I had originally held back from writing that thread but after having been offended by theists I decided not to hold back. I can say now that it was predominantly because of some of Neo's threads.

But I shall emphasise the point that I am trying to make because you seem to keep ignoring it.

It is that the theists seem to not understand how they are offending others and therefore see themselves as the only ones who are being hurt when the backlash comes.

That's not to say that what atheists are saying wouldn't be offensive as well. You make valid points about how some of the things said such as religion as a mental illness is offensive. That doesn't mean to say that they aren't necessarily valid arguments though. But I would like to point out one other small thing. This is a fucking atheist forum. This is where atheists come to talk about being an atheist, most often because they have to live lives surrounded by theists offensively trying to save them again after the struggle of breaking free from religion. And some people have been quite abused by religion. Many atheists have to pretend to be a theist and can't even live their own lives. Being a theist you don't have that problem. So don't come here expecting the kind of privilege that you have in your society to be given to you here as well in what for many is an atheist refuge.

Otherwise it's like being a white straight man offended at being told that it's inappropriate to try sleeping with as many women as possible in a woman's refuge.

Wow, big letters. The fact that you say demeaning, nasty generalizations about theists (like that entire thread you made) and then drag Neo through the mud when he generalizes shows that you are completely oblivious and lack self awareness yourself.

[Amarok]

Wow, big letters. The fact that you say demeaning, nasty generalizations about theists (like that entire thread you made) and then drag Neo through the mud when he generalizes shows that you are completely oblivious and lack self awareness yourself.

Way to miss the point

[Catholic_Lady]

All I read were the huge red underlined letters. Thats what happens when you scream at me I suppose. Hard to hear the rest. If she wants to have a normal conversarion I will be more than happy to engage with her.

[John V]

Personally, I don't get hurt by backlash, forelash, or other lash. If I couldn't compartmentalize such discussions to avoid being hurt, I wouldn't participate in them.

I expect that my opponents do the same. If they can't, and so are continually hurt, they probably shouldn't view those types of discussions.

---

I have been reading (skimming) most of the posts in the debate. The conversation is now focusing on a "higher" reason to be here other than just socializing on line. What a burden to have to drag around in your life. The noblest reason I have posted for being here is to attempt to normalize that atheist voice in today's society. Maybe in the future there will not be such a stigma attached to being atheist, at least in the U.S.. Other than that, I just enjoy talking to you folks and have a good time doing so. I am so happy not to have the burden of religion in my life.

A job is a burden. A spouse is a burden. Children are a burden. A house is a burden. A golf league is even a burden.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

[Amarok]

So your easily distracted by bright colors

[RoadRunner79]

The irony from a discussion calling all theists irrational is pretty humorous here IMHO!  And to clarify I was referring to some making a specific arguments as not being the best and brightest of the bunch.

As I've already pointed out many times before: SAYING THAT ALL THEISM IS IRRATIONAL IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SAYING ALL THEISTS ARE IRRATIONAL.

If I write it in caps will you actually read it this time?

You didn't say atheism was stupid, you aimed your insult at atheists, not atheism, there's a difference. Try to notice.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that by your logic, I can say that all atheism  is irrational, but I cannot say that specific arguments made by particular atheists is irrational.  This seems quite backwards to me!  For one, "theism" or "atheism" is a description about one's belief in regards to God.  You cannot say that the "ISM" is irrational, but the person is not.   It is the person who has the belief, and may be rational or irrational; in the forming of that belief, not the ideology.  So I think that you are trying to make a distinction without a difference here.   As to where my insult was aimed, it was pointed at specific arguments.   As I said in the beginning, I don't give much weight to vague and un-falsifiable claims.  If you say, I'm being irrational, show me where; let's look at the claim and see if it is true.  If you say I need education, tell me what I need to learn.  Just telling me, that I'm stupid or irrational, or even my position is nothing more than name calling.  And that is where I have the problem, when there is nothing more to it than that.  Nothing constructive, nothing falsifiable, nothing which can be examined.

[Amarok]

A job is a burden. A spouse is a burden. Children are a burden. A house is a burden. A golf league is even a burden.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

Lol comparing religion to a golf league 

[Angrboda]

As I've already pointed out many times before: SAYING THAT ALL THEISM IS IRRATIONAL IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SAYING ALL THEISTS ARE IRRATIONAL.

If I write it in caps will you actually read it this time?

You didn't say atheism was stupid, you aimed your insult at atheists, not atheism, there's a difference. Try to notice.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that by your logic, I can say that all atheism  is irrational, but I cannot say that specific arguments made by particular atheists is irrational.  This seems quite backwards to me!  For one, "theism" or "atheism" is a description about one's belief in regards to God.  You cannot say that the "ISM" is irrational, but the person is not.   It is the person who has the belief, and may be rational or irrational; in the forming of that belief, not the ideology.  So I think that you are trying to make a distinction without a difference here.   As to where my insult was aimed, it was pointed at specific arguments.   As I said in the beginning, I don't give much weight to vague and un-falsifiable claims.  If you say, I'm being irrational, show me where; let's look at the claim and see if it is true.  If you say I need education, tell me what I need to learn.  Just telling me, that I'm stupid or irrational, or even my position is nothing more than name calling.  And that is where I have the problem, when there is nothing more to it than that.  Nothing constructive, nothing falsifiable, nothing which can be examined.

That paragraph was seriously fucked up.