A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists? (page 22)

soft+gentle

lol at palm - I have now finished trying to bring besty's post back to get round what seems to me to have been a misunderstanding on his part.

also, am I (and shelby) the only ones who see a lot of irony in Qcmbr's post, the one that his friends are praising so much. For friends to do this is okay from my pov but please when it happens in the other camp why are those friends described as followers?

Palm: I hope it is okay to raise this issue

tec

I would like to understand that as well.

But for me, I will have to wait until tomorrow to hear about it. Gotta go to bed. Eye is twitching, I'm so tired, lol.

Peace,

tammy

palmtree67

I understood Q's post as something that would apply to both sides. He also admitted that certain types of posts cause him to post more "reactively".

He even stated:

" ...feel free to add more tactics you find distasteful"

The fact that both S+G and Tec feel it only applies to the "other side" is interesting, though.

AGuest

Dear S+G (the greatest of love and peace to you!)... forgive my asking, dear one... and you don't have to respond if you don't wish to... but aren't you an atheist? Or at least closer to that than to being a believer? Agnostic, perhaps? Just curious.

Again, peace to you!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

SA

soft+gentle

yes, shelby, I am an atheist.

palm - I really don't understand how you can draw this conclusion below. Please explain

The fact that both S+G and Tec feel it only applies to the "other side" is interesting, though.

still thinking

Why has this thread turned into yet another "AGuest-a-Fest"....Aguest

Well, from what I can see....loz brought a quote towards you off another thread to try and make her point. Take it up with her.

palmtree67

Please explain

You took a general comment of Q's and turned it into meaning only one side, making a black/white, us/them statement.

Also, Q didn't describe them as "followers". Someone else did and probably on another thread, I don't know where you heard it, but you both are wrongly attributing the statement to Q, on this thread.

His actual post:

2 - Blatant bias. We all recognise at some level bias. Some however, use blatant bias as a tool. Extremely obvious support of an insupportable position merely because of who made the initial incorrect statement. Silence is bad enough ( I'm guilty of simply ignoring bad behaviour if I see no personal gain in aggravating the poster so I simply read the next post) but overt intercession to support bad behaviour/ideas is blatant bias and is ugly. Poster x claims poster y is <unacceptable concept> Poster z supports poster x even so far as to begin arguing for < unacceptable concept> simply due to bias.

Notice his first statement: We ALL recognize at some level bias. Also no mention of "followers".

I'm not sure what your and Tammy's issue is with this comment.

still thinking

If the uninvited crasher starts hurling insults at the host[ess]... or his/her guests... but then begins to "choke" on a particular "dish"... such one shouldn't automatically expect to receive a Heimlich. At least, not until after being allowed to turn [a little] "blue" for a bit...Aguest

What does this mean? Are you saying that you use this forum like your own personal dinner party and some people aren't invited and should keep quiet? And that when people QUOTE you, we are hurling insults...and if we don't like what you say, we can choke on it until it pleases you?

Weird!

soft+gentle

just to be clear palm I simply commented that Qcmbr was being ironic. Admitting this to my self helps me engage with his post more. I am not attacking qcmbr but trying to have a discussion with him and his post.

btw you seem to be aiming for something opposite to qcmbr and I am still trying to digest this. (edit: please see my next post)

A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

Share this