A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 699 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  palmtree67

  If this thread truly is about finding a truce

  Okaaaayyyyy.....

  I'm trying to keep my thread on track without one side being blasted or taking all the blame.

  No comments on Sizey's fine post?
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  I don't see your side taking any blame. I see people trying to help with ideas.
• 

  NewChapter

  and i've also noticed, since joining, there's been some very mean spirited posts against muslims. there are very few here to defend against that. one of the few muslims on here just so happens to be an old friend from the hall i grew up in. surreal that we reconnected on here after so many years. i suspect, though i haven't asked, that he doesn't post much on here because of those sorts of posts. muslims aren't terrorists. we can point to any faith and see many examples of equally heinous acts. it would be nice if there wasn't so much silence in that regard. especially from fellow theists. after all, while there are many different flavors of theism, the endgame is all the same. there is a creator/god, who by virtue of life and creation, has earned the right to be worshipped/respected in some way shape or form.

  RBIH! Great point, and one that I think you and I have tried to bring out a number of times. It's fine to paint Muslims as terrorists---it won't meet much resistance. But to point to witch burnings and Inquisitions and people will call foul. You can't hold that against Chrisitanity, because we are a board full of Christians that never burned a witch. But when it comes to terrorism, subjection of women, honor killings---well it's the RELIGION that is flawed, whereas when it comes to Christian atrocitites, it is the PEOPLE that are flawed. I find both religions deeply flawed.

  We can rip apart JW's, Mormons and Scientoogists at will. We can make magic underwear, alien, and Armedgeddon jokes all we want. But make a joke about Zombie, Vampire Jesus, and that's just WRONG.

  And that's the point. When we criticize belief, or don't respect belief, we are angry atheists. There is a culture that says these ideas are not to be degraded. Scorning the ideas is the same as scorning the believer. I don't agree, and neither do the majority of non-atheists since many religions are fair game to them. NOT ALL---I already know that some will jump on here and say THEY never do this---but enough that it is part of the culture.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Peace be with you. And they answered: Peace be also with you. We need an olive branch emoticon.
• 

  palmtree67

  I don't see your side taking any blame.

  Firstly, I am neither believer nor atheist. I speak freely (off this board) with both "sides" and I understand both POV's.

  And I see atheists here taking plenty of blame.

  FHN, if you're just here to inject comments like the above and your "If this thread is truly about a truce", then please refrain from commenting.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Palm, check back through my comments and you will see they are peaceful and non sided. If this thread is about finding a truce, Tal's and Psac's posts were helpful in that direction. Here we are trying to help, but being jumped on for peaceful posts. I believe you sincerely want for there to be peace. I haven't placed you on a side, I am hoping this thread will do what you intended it to do.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Firstly, I am neither believer nor atheist. I speak freely (off this board) with both "sides" and I understand both POV's.

  This is good. Thank you for the clarification.
• 

  PSacramento

  We all have strong opinions and yes, we all read soemthing and think "that was pretty freaking stupid" but we don't have to actually express it that way, it's not very productive.

  We can ask for clarification and many times what sounds stupid was just worded in an imprecise and perhaps naive manner.

  We can express that what was written doesn't seem to make sense or simply disagree and state why.

  When our argument is valid we don't need to put the other person or evne their argument down. Our argument. view shoudl stand on its own merits or fall, whatever the case may be.
• 

  palmtree67

  I haven't placed you on a side,

  VS

  I don't see your side taking any blame

  Am I missing something?

  I'm trying to avoid sweeping statements like the latter. They don't contribute to peace.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  I haven't understood where you were coming from until you made the above clarification.