by palmtree67 699 Replies latest jw friends
I've found it really heartwarming that everyone is trying to get along and play nice! I've definitely seen a lovely side to many atheists who are sincerely wanting to find a way forward for us all. At the end of the day we have so much in common here and united we stand agains the cult WTBS. Great thread. While I enjoy many believers' posts and threads I try to be fair and objective if fights break out. I agree there is good and bad in every group.
Loz x
Sometimes the ad homenem attacks from the other side dulls my sense of fair play.
Excellent point, Cofty.
Obviously, we all have posters we like personally more than others. (Although, we don't really "know" each other, do we? )
But my point is:
Do we cheerlead certain posters merely because we like them or their views are more like our own, without really giving thought to whether what they are saying is TRUE or FAIR?
Are we quick to post disagreement with or "call out" a poster that we don't like or agree with GENERALLY, and are we more excusing of posters we like or agree with GENERALLY? Do we do this without really thinking whether what they are posting is TRUE or FAIR?
Obviously, this is a human failing.
But I think it's something we all need to reflect on.
For instance, if a poster claimed something that I knew or could easily prove was UNTRUE, do I do myself or my cause any justice by cheerleading them on?
If we all gave this more thought, wouldn't it create more peace here?
Yes Palm I think many of us do, and we perhaps start off on the defensive which accentuates that vibe. I will make a concerted effort in future to police myself to be alert to this.
What I do struggle with if I'm honest is that there seems to be an anger in some atheists which I don't really get at all. As if they're angry with believers for still believing now that they have personally rejected theism? I don't understand that.
Loz x
As a believer, I find it difficult if not impossible for nonbelievers to be capable of respecting a truce or having civil discussions because they dont have any values. The believe their very existance happened by chance so they dont even respect themselves.
First of all -- where's the war that is calling for a truce? I'm an atheist, I don't care what/whether you believe, and I don't go starting arguments. I couldn't care less what you believe, it's your life and your choice.
I don't start arguments, but I also seldom turn down an argument. So, I'm calling BS on your statement, Theocratic Sedition. You don't know anything about me, so to say that I as an atheist am not capable of having a civil discussion and that I don't even respect myself is pure bigotry and and a wonderful example of how some believers "profile" atheists without actually knowing much about them.
Also, atheism isn't like a club, we don't join anything. It's just a conclusion lots of people have come to, for many different reasons. No point in grouping us like cattle, and saying we're all alike.
there seems to be an anger in some atheists which I don't really get at all. As if they're angry with believers for still believing now that they have personally rejected theism? - loz
I can honestly say I almost never feel any anger at all. There are a few exceptions. Just yesterday somebody claimed that the Holocaust was all part of god's purpose. That sort of idiocy does make me angry.
I think what may come across as anger is just frustration. Imagine you are playing a game of chess with somebody who kept cheating. They ignore the rules on how pieces can move and remove your pieces from the board at will. Debating believers can feel like that. when they refer to visions and voices in their heads as evidence for strident assertions its just a conversation stopper. Or they abuse science appallingly while pretending to love science.
Those sort of things cause frustration and will often be met with sarcasm or harsh replies.
I've studied the Holocaust in depth Cofty, I was in Berlin this year at the Holocaust museums there and visited Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Heartbreaking stuff, seriously. It affected me very much. I wrote a thesis about how the JWs testimony is tainted by their need to conform to the org's collective memory. Apparently it hadn't been examined previously in that way, academically. I find it terribly sad that those who relinquished their religious stance don't have a voice. So yes, I agree, no loving god could have wanted/purposed any of that.
I understand your frustration too but imagine if you will that you experienced something exceptional, something spiritual? You know you're compus mentus, so you know it's legit, you can't deny it, it would make you a liar. A person tells you that you're nuts or whatever and that it didn't happen because they can't relate to such an experience? What a dichotomy.
Loz x
Why shouldn't there be a truce? Neither group has all the answers, but share many of the same problems. None can claim a monopoly on truth. Team up I say. Believers say you should do good to all because Christ say to. Atheists say you should practice good because it is the right thing to do. If believers are right and there is an after life then Atheists will get a pleasant suprise when they die. If Atheists are correct and we are all dead for good once we kick the bucket, well.. we won't know anyway cause we will be dead! That sure ends arguments! So what is all the fuss about? It really come down to whether or not you are a self-righteous, selfish a-hole or a respectful person who love his fellow man. I like this site because I feel the latter type is the rule rather than the exception.
Tec:
I think that dividing people up into 'sides' is a mistake. People are people. That is what I personally think Gervais was getting at with his tweet.
And if you read the OP, you can easily see I agree with that. My point is that I am asking ALL here to honestly look at what THEY EACH are doing to divide the board.
Thus my questions, which are largely rhetorical:
Do we cheerlead certain posters merely because we like them or their views are more like our own, without really giving thought to whether what they are saying is TRUE or FAIR?
Are we quick to post disagreement with or "call out" a poster that we don't like or agree with GENERALLY, and are we more excusing of posters we like or agree with GENERALLY? Do we do this without really thinking whether what they are posting is TRUE or FAIR?
When we do these things, we are choosing a "side" , no matter how much we may publicly deny it. Our actions will belie our words.
I think each POV here can do more to "police" their own.
It's just a matter of which POV is willing to make the first move.
Just to add, I'm rubbish at chess (and even at OXO) because I am hopeless at strategy, so that's a lose lose scenario for me!
Loz x
