A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 699 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sizemik

  Each member brings something unique to the table. They should be well regarded, not smeared at every chance. . . . sab

  True sab . . . no argument there.

  This is where the need to discern the difference (as I think NC pointed out) between attacking an idea and attacking the person. If you keep that in mind you will see the difference, even in this thread. Some ideas and beliefs will be seen as dangerous and unsavoury by some . . . and will be questioned vigorously . . . ie; the idea will be attacked . . . that's discussion . . . and a good thing.

  A member can be treated with respect . . . but that doesn't necessarily include the idea.
• 

  sabastious

  Tell me sab, If a suicide bomber killed your child for their god...would you still feel the need to love your enemy? And should I show that belief respect?

  Yes, for the rest of my life I would be forced to resolve the conflict that would arise in my brain. I suspect that, at first, I would feel rage and seek vengeance, but would eventually be forced to think about the person who blew up themselves. IMO, There's less pity to be had for someone who kills in cold blood and doesn't take their own life in the process. Nonetheless, I would likely learn everything there was to know about the bomber's purpose to see them as human rather than an inhuman monster. I would not be able to find closure in hate, but in love. That's a chilling prospect that plenty have lived through. These are times when God is needed the most because life just doesn't make sense. The people who organized the attack however are culpable for some very serious crimes. If they are running, they would be hunted down, and rightly so.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  Persecution complex Sab?

  Now that doesn't sound like you are ignoring.

  -Sab
• 

  cofty

  I think Size has managed to link it to the topic so lets see where it goes.

  Why do you think believers on JWN are "smeared at every chance"? Don't you think that is a gross exaggeration?
• 

  sabastious

  This is where the need to discern the difference (as I think NC pointed out) between attacking an idea and attacking the person. If you keep that in mind you will see the difference even in this thread. Some ideas and beliefs will be seen as dangerous and unsavoury by some . . . and will be questioned vigorously . . . ie; the idea will be attacked . . . that's discussion . . . and a good thing.

  Do you post here often? Personal attacks are thrown around all the time. The smart people use big words like "megalomania" because the descriptions are detailed enough for them to go on a diatribe argument that know one wants to hear when challenged. Using a robot analogy is much different than asserting someone is a mentally ill attention seeker. Seriously, Size, have you even been here before? I mean, there is this mantra of "attack the idea, not the person" and then it's just NOT adhered to, but then refered to as if it were. Why? Because RATIONALE is used to justify the description. An ad hominem is only one if it's used to falsly prop up an inferior argument. Therefore the fallacy requires interpretation which means you could have a disconnect in understanding between groups of ideologies. Where one group thinks that it is an ad hominem and one states the case as to why it's not. This could be an impasse or a stalemate, but then people have to take sides as to which one sounded more correct.

  When you have rational personalities you are going to have people who ar logically justifying BAD behavior. It will appear perfectly logical to the doer, but in reality it's just being justified by an extremely adept rational mind. This takes place ALL the time on this forum. There are a few choice culprits and they really know who they are, no need to name names.

  -Sab
• 

  sabastious

  Why do you think believers on JWN are "smeared at every chance"? Don't you think that is a gross exaggeration?

  Not at all. They are put through a series of interrogations. It's like a good cop bad cop thing in the beginning and then it degrades into full bad cap all the time.

  -Sab
• 

  still thinking

  Sab (and some others) do seem to be running with the assumption that this discussion is purely about respecting 'believers'. No attempt has been made to outline the other side of the discussion.

  I see people on this thread discussing how they, themselves can contribute by behaving differently, responding differently or not responding if that is a more appropriate way with posts that are blatant derailers. These are ways we are trying to take personal responsibility for out actions and contributions to discussion and debate.

  Talking about how believers are smeared is not taking any personal responsibility. It is blame. Just like saying 'we are persecuted because god was' or we are being bullied. These are statements that do not reflect what this thread is supposed to be about and more often than not do not reflect what is really happening in many discussions/debates...it is often just grandstanding and is manipulative. This thread is about how we communicate.

  Often non-atheist langauge is loaded with accusation and condemnation. But it isn't perceived that way by the non-atheist. These are things as an atheist I am now trying to ignore. Because when we focus on them the accusations begin to fly about believer persecution.
• 

  NewChapter

  Well I think the suicide bomber is the product of a monstrous teaching. They have suppressed their own compassion and humanity, and allowed their disgusting belief about a brutal, murderous god to absorb them and turn them into the very monster they believe in. I think that without this horrible belief, and with some critical thinking skills, they could have avoided becoming a monster, but they chose unquestioning faith over reason.

  I don't particularly care about that person's humanity, but see it as a symptom of something much more troublesome and relevant. The bomber is the symptom, the cause is total submission to a horrible teaching.

  I think I'm pretty free to express that about a suicide bomber, and may meet with some left-field resistance, but not a lot. However is I were to make this statement about other beliefs, I think that would be considered an attack.
• 

  sizemik

  Not at all. They are put through a series of interrogations. . . . sab

  That's not smearing sab . . . an idea is proved sound, through question and interrogation.

  There is also an obligation on the part of the person expressing an opinion . . . not to look for personal slight when it doesn't actually exist.

  If the idea is sound and the person presenting it is confident in their reasoning . . . scrutiny will be welcomed.

  Both parties have the responsibility to do this.
• 

  sabastious

  Sab (and some others) do seem to be running with the assumption that this discussion is purely about respecting 'believers'. No attempt has been made to outline the other side of the discussion.

  ST, non believers don't want to be grouped together and rightly so. They simply don't believe which doesn't mean anything about them. Believers on the other hand often feel a special kinship with non believers. It's because believers "group up" so to speak that the non believers feel threatened. But what is not understood is that it's a fact of life that believers group up. It's a fact of life that people of like mind group up, but non believers don't want to be labeled. It's a "have your cake and eat it too" fallacy by saying that atheists are not a group, but then complain when believers are getting too much "air time."

  Talking about how believers are smeared is not taking any personal responsibility. It is blame.

  I don't see this forum riddled with anti-Science propaganda do you? The problem is that the unbelievers are not taking responsibility. They don't see the difference between the believers of JWN and the believer stereotype when the difference is clearly apparent. You don't see a believer going, "You think Science is right? You are a fool." We all know there are PLENTY of those types and they would be ran off by the believers here because they are not welcome. People who discredit science as something without value or is Satanic is like the Watchtower.

  -Sab