by palmtree67 699 Replies latest jw friends
NC:
I think we would do best to isolate who the trouble - stirrers are, and then address them---atheist or non-atheist---to prevent them from playing 'sides'.
Oh, my!
I just had a light-bulb moment there......Could *that* be the root of the problem??
Need to digest that for a bit.....
Not sure how that's gonna work.
Yeah, really.
ooooh....are we on a witch hunt? count me out...
I'm not suggesting we call out names here---let's not invite a third group to fight about it. I'm saying that if we understand that certain people will pitch two perceived groups against each other, if that is on our mind, then rather than rallying, we understand what is happening and simply not take the bait. There is no need to engage and bring others in when this type of post pops up. We can acknowledge it in the sense that we find it more about whipping up volatile feelings rather than really adding to the debate, or we can ignore it, but we don't need for this to drive the discussion.
We all seem to want to continue to talk about this. Yet, the discussion brings to the front strong emotions. It creates a powder keg. Some posters (and not just the same ones---sometimes people just have bad days, and perhaps engage in this) are happy to supply the flash.
Does that make sense?
Once again, it would be good if it would be made clear who the "awfull few" really are; the dirty dusin, the bad apples, the meanies -- the people who are atheists because they hate god and reduce christians to tears so they have to go to their own forum and talk about how they are getting opressed (not my words).
I think it has not so much to do with what people believe or not. This has gotten to be more about hurt feelings and grudges.
I absolutely agree, FlyingHighNow.
I think we would do best to isolate who the trouble stirers are, and then address them---atheist or non-atheist---to prevent the from playing 'sides'.
An interesting and revealing suggestion, New Chapter.
There are some problems with it, though. Who is the "we" in your sentence, I wonder? "isolate who the trouble stirrers are".
1. Do you think the participants in this forum would come up with the same list of "trouble stirrers"?
2. "isolate" people? "Isolate"? Thus creating two groups, the goodies and the baddies, the superior "good" group against the "naughty" group?
Is that how you do things in your part of the world?
Personally, I do not believe in creating groups, one group's behaviour to be compared with another. I deeply dislike an attitude that creates "them" and "us". We see far too much of it on the world stage, and it usually works out with the powerful privileged majority vilifying a minority underclass, whether between countries, or ethnic groups, or even in a microcosmic way on a forum.
That would be a very unfortunate principle to start adopting, in my book.
Do you really see trouble stirrers? I see two groups of people, one saying loudly, "we have the right to believe or not as we choose and we are right and you are wrong". The other group of people are saying patiently "Yes, we agree with you, you have the right to believe anything or nothing if you want and we support you in that right", to which the first group says, in effect, "Oh you horrible people, how can you saw such nasty things, look, look at their "vituperative" comments!"
FlyingHighNow,
We all just have different, unique journeys that have brought us to different places. This isn't about science vs religion, as if science rules out religion or religion rules out science.
I absolutely agree with you, yet again. This is the whole point. No-one that I know has the slightest objection to atheists being atheist. That's fine by me, always has been; I number many atheists among my friends. And again I point out that the colonisation of America was founded upon thhe rights of groups to worship and believe as their conscience dictates.
That was my point yesterday, though you'd never believe it if you go back a few pages and see what was said after I went to bed.
So, who has tried, and failed, to create an argument where there isn't one? Everyone has the right to believe what they believe. It's clear that no-one is disputing that. So, why 18 pages of atheists insisting on their right to believe and no-one denying it to them?
Very strange.
I'm sure y'all just need a hug, lol.
((((transhuman))))
Chariklo (JWN):
Personally, I do not believe in creating groups, one group's behaviour to be compared with another. I deeply dislike an attitude that creates "them" and "us".
Chariklo (no-evidence zone):
Having just come from taking part in a wearisome thread elsewhere I've withdrawn, as once again negative an destructive voices join in in what is a senseless and one sided discussion, one sided because atheists there seem to want only to pick and break down. They seem incapable of actually listening to or reading what anyone else is saying.
The last few days I have felt myself opporessed by all the negativity that seeps in over there, no matter how one tries to avoid the threads that seem likely to contain that sort of atmosphere. Long, long ago I learned that anger is negative and destructive, and ultimately dark, and that the best way to deal with such an environment is to avoid it.
HOW AWFULL IT IS TO HAVE AN US-VS-THEM DISTINCTION WHEN ITS NOT YOU MAKING IT!
