Free Speech/Nathan

by Guest with Questions 40 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Guest with Questions

  For the record this is what transpired between Nathan and me. I have no ill will against Nathan. I don’t even know him or anyone on this board really. I just had a problem with his comparison of Trevor’s hoax with God on this thread. I probably shouldn’t have said that I wished he hadn’t posted what he did on this thread. Maybe I should have said that I wish people wouldn’t use this thread as a platform for their Atheistic beliefs. But I think no matter how I had phrased it I would have been pounced on. I feel that I am being accused of personally attacking Nathan because I said that I initially thought that Nathan was an insensitive clod. I apologize for saying that about him. But what about him saying that as believers we believe in an entity that doesn’t exist, that we are superstitious? That is okay. Am I being oversensitive? I probably am. Should I really care. My faith should stand with or without criticism. After this I’m gone for the day but I will try to respond to those who replied.

  Nathan: There was a huge (and very humane) emotional commitment to the artificial entities who were presented. People stopped believing when they were forced to confront the cold hard fact that there was NO objective evidence supporting the existence of these entities - no one who could say they actually ever heard any voice other than Trevor's, no one who had ever met anyone other than Trevor, no photographs other than Trevor, no public records other than Trevor.

  To me, a die-hard atheist, its kind of like God, isn't it?

  GwQ: Nathan: I wish you wouldn't use this thread as a platform for your Atheistic beliefs. You have a choice to not believe but at the same time allow others the choice of believing without resorting to denigrating the persons beliefs.

  As far as exposing Trevor's hoax you could have been a bit more tactful, more empathetic. Instead you just bulldozed your way in while everyone was reading, unaware of this hoax. Better yet I feel that you should have allowed the Forum Assistants to handle it, but that's my opinion.

  Nathan: So I guess I'm allowed to think what I wish as long as i keep my mouth shut?

  I have the same right to free speech that you do,GwQ.

  I will exercise my right to offer rationality as a substitute for superstition at every opportunity.

  You are still free to believe superstition. Linda would approve.

  GwQ:Hi Scully: Thanks for responding. I didn't read your Online Imposter post. I think if Nathan had just stated that this was a hoax without the picture it would have done the job. When I first saw the picture I thought Nathan was just an insensitive clod. I still think he handled it wrong. When Ozzie started this thread I didn't clue in because I took for granted that "Trevor" was sincere. It's only after the fact that I realize that you were indirectly trying to warn us. For me it's time to put it all behind me.

  GwQ: Nathan: I didn’’t tell you to keep quiet. I said I wished you didn’’t use the thread as a platform for your views. I didn't think the analogy was correct because Trevor's was a hoax and I don't believe that God is a hoax. My thread became longer than I expected so I'm cutting it and starting a new one. It is about free speech.

  Scully: Oh, and could we please take the off-topic "offended Christians vs. atheists who have an unpleasant opinion, in the opinion of offended Christians" comments to Guest with Question's thread

  With me starting a new thread instead of continuing with this one did I come across as arrogant? Do Atheists not get offended by the unpleasant opinions of Christians? I just felt because we were starting to go off topic with free speech that it was appropriate to start a new thread.
• 

  BlackSwan of Memphis

  In regards to NN's comment on the other thread, from what I can recall it was not inflammatory or insensitive. It was an opinion expressed.

  I think perhaps that sometimes our own, myself included, reactions are coming from raw nerves that are touched.

  In this case, I didn't perceive his comments re God to be anything other than an opinion. Further, it is intersting that he actually made points that my husband and I had discussed earlier in that day. I was wondering if someone was going to comment about it.

  I was less than thrilled with HOW we were told about Linda's non existance. Many of us were believing that Linda was indeed very real and her death was very sad.

  Seems that there was a leap from subtle hints to in your face.

  I personally didn't really read the thread re Online imposters. And so, had no idea that the mods were trying to "clue us in". I would have no reason to look at the title of that thread and connect the dots to Linda.

  Around here, it may take a week or two before a memorial service takes place. So, I didn't find anything odd about the non information about her funeral. So, NN's suggestion that something was amiss was completely news to me.

  In all, I am not seeing where NN was in the wrong. I might have chosen to do things differently in his initial post, but he did it, I suppose, in the way he felt was best. And well, ok, I actually think the picture is pretty funny now.

  anyhow just my two cents....
• 

  Gopher

  Do Atheists not get offended by the unpleasant opinions of Christians?

  As an atheist, I would say no I'm not offended by opinions. For example, if someone said that he believed unicorns exist on some remote Pacific island, and you must believe the unicorns are coming to save us, I wouldn't be offended. Amused, perhaps.

  However, if someone uses their fundamentalist beliefs to preach how I ought to live, to teach unscientific viewpoints in schools, to skew political debate and the legislative process, and to discriminate (as has happened against women, blacks, and now homosexuals), then I am offended.
• 

  lovelylil

  GWQ,

  Thanks for posting that. I had no idea what happened. Personally, I think NN was only stating his opinion, not directly calling you or anyone else a name.

  I am glad you posted this because I think some people, for some reason are confusting you with me. Although Guest with Questions and Lovelylil are two completely different names so I don't see how this is possible unless the person is reading with their eyes closed. (just kidding)

  Go back and read Leolaias post on this thread. I think she gave the best response as to why the "Is there a God/ Not a God" debate is a subjective one in the eyes of the believer/unbelievers and that it all comes down to how we individually view the "evidence". Much of which for believers is based upon faith. Peace, Lilly
• 

  Gopher

  I've seen Nathan's posts for years. He posts with insight, wit and sarcasm.

  The only way to quickly stop the nonsense was by doing it in a BIG way. The way he chose (sarcasm, phony picture of David & Paris) made sure that his important point didn't get missed. He led the board to the truth, something the moderators would have eventually done anyway.

  As to his controversial comparison of "belief in Linda" with "belief in God", he didn't need to do that but he has the right to. And you know what, if you're a believer you need pay no attention to it. You need a thicker skin than to be deeply offended by one controversial comment in which a poster differs with your beliefs. He had the right to say it and I was hoping believers would say "whatever ... let's get back to the topic". Instead, that one comment started a whole new drama.
• 

  Sad emo

  Guest with Questions, Nathan was only giving HIS perspective on the matter. Take another look. You understood it like this:

  To me, a die-hard atheist, its kind of like God, isn't it?

  Try reading from this context instead:

  To me, a die-hard atheist,its kind of like God, isn't it?

  Reads completely differently doesn't it? That's why I put on the other thread and will restate it here, I, as a believer saw no ulterior motive/malicious intent/whatever in Nathan's reply.

  peace
• 

  Scully

  lovelylil and GuestwithQuestions

  I apologize for confusing authorship between your posts.

  Consider this a full and unreserved retraction of my above post.
• 

  lovelylil

  Thank you Scully for admitting your mistake. I really appreciate it, Lilly
• 

  nvrgnbk

  Do Atheists not get offended by the unpleasant opinions of Christians?

  Most atheists I know rarely get offended by too much of anything.

  I've never read an atheist on JWD tell a Christian to go elsewhere with their thoughts or beliefs, no matter how absurd they may personally find them.

  In fact, atheists enjoy open discussions with Christians about their beliefs.

  I have been told, however, to go elsewhere with my atheist views by a Christian poster on JWD.

  I was not offended.

  I think the exchange ended in virtual beers being shared.

  The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the
  suppression of ideas.
  -- Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan
• 

  franzy

  The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the
  suppression of ideas.
  -- Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan
  
  what? they both blurted it out at the same time??