Cutting the head off Medusa

[Adjusted Sanity]

Oh AS, I think you may be stretching a bit. You are most likely the "reason" that you didn't drop religion, lets not fob off our own proclivities towards the foolish or fanciful on others disdain for the same...

So I should listen when I'm called a moronic child who clings to fairy tales? Yes I should have, but I'm human, with human weaknesses. Which means like every other believer, I pretty much took the insults as a reason to shut off. And justify that I was right.

[Brian37]

What? Did you forget to take your meds? I took mine.

I may need meds, but not for our dispute here. You'd make a case if you were arguing for a drug that stopped me from telling really horrible jokes.

All I am saying is for you and any theist not to assume what is in my head. I want my detractors to get tough with me, not fear me. A a lot like in sports when two teams duke it out and then shake hands afterwords. If I am annoyed by someone that much I can stop responding to their posts or put them on ignore.

You cannot do that if everything is all or nothing or either/or. Life is never one solution, much less only two.

If we are all individuals then our diversity as atheists and our tactics show theists that we are no different than they are.

I promise every theist reading this it is STRICTLY about what they claim. If I truly hated everyone merely on the fact they say something I find absurd, I would have to live on an island with no contact with other humans. The fact that you and I are arguing, both being atheists, also does not mean I hate you. And I do not assume you hate me merely because ON THIS TOPIC you are pulling your hair out because you don't agree with me.

If there there are two words I hate in the human language are "never" and "absolute". Context can be the only guide and most of the time that is a comfort issue.

[The Grand Nudger]

So I should listen when I'm called a moronic child who clings to fairy tales?

LOL, well, what you should or shouldn't do is a pretty iffy subject, but I'm going to go out on a limb and state that you shouldn't believe in fairy tales, regardless of whether you are critcised (or praised) for doing so.

Yes I should have, but I'm human, with human weaknesses. Which means like every other believer, I pretty much took the insults as a reason to shut off. And justify that I was right.

Which is exactly what I just said, isn't it? The operative word being "I".
(ital. is mine)

[Adjusted Sanity]

So I should listen when I'm called a moronic child who clings to fairy tales?

LOL, well, what you should or shouldn't do is a pretty iffy subject, but I'm going to go out on a limb and state that you shouldn't believe in fairy tales, regardless of whether you are critcised (or praised) for doing so.

Yes I should have, but I'm human, with human weaknesses. Which means like every other believer, I pretty much took the insults as a reason to shut off. And justify that I was right.

Which is exactly what I just said, isn't it? The operative word being "I".
(ital. is mine)

Which is why insults don't work. It's good for venting against the Christians that are obviously too pigheaded to change. But if you want to teach somebody you don't insult them unless you're a drill sergeant.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hey hey now, if they didn't work at all we wouldn't tease our children, would we? hehehehe. Let me say, that for my part, by the time a grown adult reaches my ears with stories of fairies and magic I'm going to go ahead and assume that all attempts at intelligent conversation have failed fucking dismally. It would be more than a little presumptuous to assume that I would be the first person that this airhead would ever encounter -in their entire lives- that gave them cause to doubt their idiotic superstitions. Now, every now and again I get suckered into a conversation out of genuine interest, but if you want to see how that turns out, just browse the forums. It kind of sucks, because I actually enjoy religion, the actuality of religion, it's history, the stories, etc. But I never get a chance to have much of a conversation about that because the majority of the folks I end up conversating with are more interested in asserting myth than discussing their religion. Now, I can't blame them for how the conversation goes, I'm unyielding, but it is a bit disappointing.

[Brian37]

Do not assume for atheists or theists or any individual or the entire planet what they have to do, or what they are comfortable with. I hate the idea that people all have glass jaws and will crumble at the first sign of dispute. Protecting ones ego at all costs in every context is most likely the biggest problem in our species history that causes the most conflict. Iran and Communist China are both examples of power existing solely to protect the egos of those in power.

YOU CRIPPLE PEOPLE with that mentality.

If it were never ok to "insult" anyone, then even without ad homins or cursing, Muslim men would be justified in STABBING A DOCUMENTARY DIRECTOR TO DEATH for claiming that being a critic of their treatment of women, by your logic is "INSULTING'.

Because to those Muslims it WAS from their point of view AN INSULT! And what about the women living under them who have no voice? By allowing a subjective word to be twisted like that we would be turning mere criticism into an "insult"

It is humanly impossible to put one person or group of people into the final arbitrator of what "offensive" or even "insult" means. You start setting up taboos and making demands like that it is the quickest way to create more division and more conflict.


You are giving taboos license by doing that. Playing thought police and speaking in terms of absolutes in a diverse species is what divides us.

I am not a fan of absolutes at all. It will always for me DEPEND on the CONTEXT of a given situation.

[Adjusted Sanity]

By all means insult Muslims who stab people. They're assholes. I wouldn't recommend doing it to their faces unless you have something sharp. Just don't go attacking every misinformed human being for being misinformed. I'm pretty sure we agree anyway, we're just arguing different points of the same argument.

[Brian37]

By all means insult Muslims who stab people. They're assholes. I wouldn't recommend doing it to their faces unless you have something sharp. Just don't go attacking every misinformed human being for being misinformed. I'm pretty sure we agree anyway, we're just arguing different points of the same argument.

Oh I agree, but that is no different than doing something stupid like driving a NEW BMW into a redneck meth trailer park and being miffed when it gets stolen or you get car jacked.

But always playing nice is not the way to make change. Again, even in the Muslim dominated country of Morocco, there was outrage BY MANY especially MUSLIM WOMEN, over the suicide of a girl who was sentenced to marry her rapist. If we did not criticize or "insult" anything because it might "offend" THAT growing change among the population, even if not where we would want it, is still taking place because of people who did not "behave" and submit to the egos of social norms.

You cannot always fear conflict nor assume when it happens the person you have that conflict has a glass jaw. While it is true far too many do, change never happens by playing thought police as a solution.

Susan B Anthony, "Well behaved women seldom make history"

Hypatia was murdered in ancient Alexandria by monks who were insulted by her statement something to the affect of ".....myths should be taught as myths and fables should be taught as fables"

If Christian men during Susan's "insulting" idea that women were equal to men, it would be the same justification for murder that the monks used to justify Hypatia.

Again, civility can be achieved, but if that civility is to value individuals, protecting people from being offended does not protect the individual, it sets that majority up to create taboos.

---

I think it is fair to say "pick your battles" BUT it is not wise to slap one word solutions in terms of absolutes on a complex species.

[Angrboda]

But because you have no good reason to hold your position. I defy you to show me where I personally attacked you. I most certainly attacked your position, sure, but that is ONE position on one subject. I am certainly sure you hold positions on a wide variety of subjects.

You're a fucking liar and you're doing it again. Below is what you posted. Prove me wrong. Link to the post in that thread where I asserted the position you were attacking. You can't, because there is no such post. Anyone with half a brain can see you were attacking me, not any position. I've made perhaps three post regarding my beliefs over two forums over a year, and you haven't read any of them. Heck, I'd settle for a one sentence description of the position you claim you were attacking. To me, the only such position would be, "I am not a hypocrite," but since I never asserted that, you couldn't be attacking that, could you? (You actually manufactured a quote out of thin air in order to "create" my position.)

Cute kitten. But I always find it funny when someone with a pet predilection when they point at the beliefs of others and post rightful blasphemy like that, but cant seem to bring themselves to point that good mirror at their own label.

"I am not like the others", yes you are. Anything started that long ago and especially not in a lab, which amounts to nothing more than a social club, cannot replace our modern tools of how we gain knowledge. The can only be our personal predilections.

Evolution existed long before Christianity, Hinduism, Hebrew, Taoism ect ect ect. It was around before our current social clubs and will still be around if they morphed into something else or got scrapped all together. The ability to make babies is not dependent on holding any label.

You "defy" me to show you? Challenge accepted!

---

On top of that, your attack was the specific ad hominem known as a , which is a fallacy. So even if you had been attacking a real position, you would still have been wrong.

A liar, a fraud, and wrong too. Your batting 1,000, or at least you are if you remove the 1.

Tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.

[Brian37]

You can call me a liar, or you can say "hey, maybe you misunderstood me or maybe you mistakenly quoted me when you meant to quote someone else. Never claimed to be perfect.

But my statement still stands about ALL religions, that none, not yours, not the dead ones from the past that are now considered myth, not the currently held ones today, and not any that may be invented in the future, are needed for evolution to occur.

Evolution's goal is not about religious, political, nationality, race or even degree of education. The only thing that makes evolution work is getting to the point of reproduction.

You like Taoism and Hinduism, but they are not required to make babies or live life, so ultimately they are merely social clubs you like.