[Serious] Over the top

[Little lunch]

Lots of atheists say things that are 'over the top', I agree.
I bet that dead guy, who hurt your feelings so bad that you had to piss on his remembrance thread, said 'over the top' things.

[Belacqua]

Lots of atheists say things that are 'over the top', I agree.
I bet that dead guy, who hurt your feelings so bad that you had to piss on his remembrance thread, said 'over the top' things.

You've misremembered some things. If you look back over that thread, you'll see it wasn't his remembrance thread. It was a thread Robvalue started to say something cryptic about the fact that he's been red pilled, or black pilled, or whatever. I brought up the dead guy on that thread, on the 5th or 6th page, to make a true point: there is a double standard about posting here. 

And the dead guy didn't hurt my feelings; he surprised me by his willingness to say crazy stuff and then refuse to admit it when he was shown he was wrong. Other people's bizarre behavior doesn't hurt me. 

Do you feel there isn't a double standard here? 

If it was over the top for me to say true things about the dead guy, does this mean you think it's bad to say things that are over the top?

[Fake Messiah]

Christianity is already over the top so nothing any atheist says about christianity can ever go even more over the top than it already is.

[Mister Agenda]

"People are generally uninterested in holding other atheists to any kind of standard of truth or reasonableness."
--Belaqua

And by 'people' you mean atheists. Who are so very unlike theists in this regard. I'm not being entirely sarcastic, I know theists tend to fall into arguing amongst themselves when atheists aren't around, while atheists do comparatively little arguing about atheism, even when it's just us. There's sometimes a little friction between negative and positive atheists, but most of us don't think it's worth getting worked up over. It's not like we think our souls are on the line.

The USA RL demographics are the reverse of this forum. You choose to be here, but those of us who are USAians are in about a 10% minority with no natural connection to each other than a shared opinion; but it's an opinion that is very unpopular with a significant portion of the other 90% that makes us an object of stereotyping and sometimes even discrimination (and thankfully very rarely, even violence). Most of us (atheists in the USA) are not from atheist families. Personally, I was 42 before I knowingly met my third atheist. We're scattered and the internet is about the only thing that has allowed us to build a community, even when we have atheist friends in RL, we usually found them through the internet. If the majority didn't treat us as a collective 'despised or pitiable other', we probably wouldn't even be interested in associating based on that one opinion, because if we were treated equitably, we wouldn't need to show any solidarity. It's not the opinion that binds us, it's the desire to be able to have a discussion with people who won't act like we've got three eyes because we don't believe in powerful supernatural spirits. And of course, the USA is far from the worst country on this matter, but it stands out among developed countries in this regard.

I'm sorry if your experience in here is too similar to our experience out there when we dare to be open about our views on gods and religions. I wish we were better or superior to the other humans, but we're pretty much the same in most respects. But not in all. There are plenty of religious forums when atheists are in the minority, but I think atheist forums will pretty much die out if we're ever in the majority, because we won't be able to get anything her that we can't get from our friends and relatives, and we don't have real 'doctrinal differences'.

I don't expect gullibility and superstition will ever fall out of favor, so if I'm ever in the majority as an atheist, there will still be skeptics forums, I'm sure.

---

If it was over the top for me to say true things about the dead guy, does this mean you think it's bad to say things that are over the top?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's bad form to piss on the dead in front of their friends. Ordinary socialization should cover that.

[brewer]

Of course I know that according to the rules I'm allowed to point it out when atheists say ridiculous things. There is no threat of being banned. 

It's the response from other posters that has been of interest to me. People are generally uninterested in holding other atheists to any kind of standard of truth or reasonableness. 

Have I used a broad brush? I said that some of the atheists here say things that are over the top. This is less broad-brushy than what Wyzas said, about billions of people living and dead, and which he has no interest in backing up with facts or logic. Such statements are very broad brush, fairly common, and almost never argued against.

What are you sniveling about now you chronic victim?

[Athene]

For religious view to be able to inform who a person is, that person must be very little and has scant hope of ever being much more.

Does anybody here really believe this? 

If the statement were tweaked to say "to be able to inform ALL that a person is", they yes, I would be inclined to agree.
In my view, empty vessels are indeed lacking in wisdom and/or morality. If one relies solely on religion to inform their every move and judgment, I would say that it's fair to assume there probably wasn't much to them to start with. 

Though the same could same said in regards to virtually any other ideology, tbh.


In taking the quote as written, I don't find it to be any more over-the-top than folks wholeheartedly accepting and asserting that oh, say....ALL people (including all Christians and even young children) are "bad", i.e., in a constant state of SIN by merely breathing and existing. 
Quite frankly though, neither statement is capable of making me clutch my pearls. 

Honestly, I find your response to the quote more over-the-top than the quote itself. 

I could be wrong, but I'm detecting a whiff of selective outrage.

[Belacqua]

"People are generally uninterested in holding other atheists to any kind of standard of truth or reasonableness."
--Belaqua

And by 'people' you mean atheists. 

Yes, I meant to say "atheists on atheist forums" or something like that. Sorry if I was unclear. 

Who are so very unlike theists in this regard. 

Right, I also feel that it would be good if smart Christians did more to hold stupid Christians accountable for their stupid beliefs. Some do, of course, but many don't.

I just don't want to say that because other people fail to do something, it's OK for us to fail to do it also. If working toward the truth is a good thing, we should all do it. 

The USA RL demographics are the reverse of this forum.

I appreciate that atheists are still the minority in many places, and that this can cause real discrimination and trouble. I wouldn't want to work in a place where everyone else was proselytizing all the time. So I'm sorry if I give the impression that I have no sympathy for things that happen off this forum. 

My point on this thread is very limited: we should try to be accurate and fair. We have a duty to do that, even if we are in the minority, even if we get scolded for it.

---

If the statement were tweaked to say "to be able to inform ALL that a person is", they yes, I would be inclined to agree.
In my view, empty vessels are indeed lacking in wisdom and/or morality. If one relies solely on religion to inform their every move and judgment, I would say that it's fair to assume there probably wasn't much to them to start with. 

Well, let's take the case of Martin Buber. Jewish mystic, existentialist philosopher, and theologian. 1878 – 1965. Author, most famously, of I and Thou. 

I and Thou is a beautiful meditation on how we relate to the world. It ponders the possibility of -- I don't even know the word -- whatever the opposite of bigotry is. It has been admired by Christians and atheists as well. 

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that every sentence Buber ever wrote was informed by his Jewish identity. This is the way he sees the world, the way he contemplates morality and all human goals. It is deeply felt and sincere. So to say that this way of being in the world limits him to be an empty vessel, to always being "little" and never having any possibility of being more than he was at the beginning, is demonstrably untrue. 

Now, it's certainly true that he knew about more than the Jewish way of things. His mysticism bears strong resemblances to Jacob Boehme, William Blake, Kierkegaard, and other less famous people. These were not Jews. As an existentialist he knew of, and may well be inspired by or reacting to non-Jewish philosophers. No thinking person lives entirely in a bubble. 
Yet his Jewishness informs what he is. 

So yes, we could add qualifiers to the sentence to make it more accurate. 

I could be wrong, but I'm detecting a whiff of selective outrage.

Well, this thread is about selective outrage: the outrage we show, the "pouncing on" we do, the high standards we hold, for people unlike ourselves. Little of which seems to apply to people of our own tribe.

[Athene]

I could be wrong, but I'm detecting a whiff of selective outrage.

Well, this thread is about selective outrage: the outrage we show, the "pouncing on" we do, the high standards we hold, for people unlike ourselves. Little of which seems to apply to people of our own tribe.

Er....You're broadbrushing. Again. By "we", you do mean all atheists, don't you?

FYI, I don't feel any tribal sense of connection with atheists. Atheists are not my "people".
I'm sure there are some atheists who have "us against them" mindset, but that's certainly no good reason to attribute it to all of us...Lol
I've been on record in this very forum "pouncing"on atheists numerous times.


Anyone who posts stupid shit can get it, as far I'm concerned. 

Myself and others may not always as polite and genteel as you feel people should be, but quite honestly...that sounds like a personal problem. No one here's obligated to conduct themselves in accordance to your delicate sensibilities; Only in accordance to the rules of this forum.

If you're so convinced that people should "do better", why not try simply walking the walk instead of admonishing folks for shit you turn around and do only a few posts later? I mean, I probably still won't feel a pressing need to "get like Belaqua" if you decide to, but someone might. So it's worth a shot.

[Belacqua]

Well, this thread is about selective outrage: the outrage we show, the "pouncing on" we do, the high standards we hold, for people unlike ourselves. Little of which seems to apply to people of our own tribe.

Er....You're broadbrushing. Again. By "we", you do mean all atheists, don't you?

I don't know all atheists. I'm pointing to the behavior on this forum.

[Athene]

Er....You're broadbrushing. Again. By "we", you do mean all atheists, don't you?

I don't know all atheists. I'm pointing to the behavior on this forum.

Okay, fine. This forum.

I'M an atheist on this forum. So are many others who don't fall neatly into the little Angry Atheist caricature you've depicted that you so condescendingly refer to as "We".

If you were harping on folks for any reason other than the folly of broadbrushing and making blanket assessments, then I'd let that generalization slide. 

But you're not.