A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 699 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tec

  You misunderstand.

  I did not 'see' that someone stating that they will ignore baiting or insulting posts... also meant (without stating) that someone will not make baiting or insulting posts. I did not see this, because despite stating this... there have still been baiting or insulting posts from some of those who stated this, in this thread.

  You can understand, perhaps, how some would then become discouraged.

  If we can't acknowledge it in ourselves that we do this, then no one who has been on the receiving end has any reason to think that it will stop.

  The 'rebuke' could be in my mind, absolutely, and not real at all. But the statement that these same people will do their best not to bait or insult... I did not think that was so obviously there. So I made mention of it. You don't agree. That is fine.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  sabastious

  Ah really? So you think that the JW religion deserves equal reasonable doubt? I see very little tolerance from some for their belief on this forum.

  They have been weighed, measured and have been found wanting. They deserved the benefit of the doubt in the beginning, yes. Too much evidence is stacked against them.

  -Sab
• 

  sizemik

  For instance a poster might claim: "You have been shown that Lock Ness Monster is a myth!" Then the other person might say, "I believe in the Lock Ness Monster depsite what this poster has showed me." This is where the first poster really should drop the issue. . . sab

  When you say you believe something in spite of what has been shown you . . . then that can be seen two ways.

  1) The quality or quantity of evidential argument of your critic is lacking . . . and therefore more is required.

  2) That there are elements that the critic has not grasped or understood . . . and so further questioning is needed.

  So I disagree . . . if a claimant wishes to end the discussion and retain the status quo . . . then it is the claimant that should drop the issue. Asking probing questions and exposing flaws in a belief is not a crime . . . especially when those beliefs are being dispensed for public consumption.
• 

  still thinking

  not any believer in JWN no matter how eccentric they are. Not liking someone is not an excuse to personally attack them....sab

  Again, you appear to believe that it is only 'believers' that can be, or are, personally attacked.

  Do you think some believers need to adjust they way they communicate with others. Including personal attacks?
• 

  still thinking

  Ah really? So you think that the JW religion deserves equal reasonable doubt? I see very little tolerance from some for their belief on this forum.

  They have been weighed, measured and have been found wanting. They deserved the benefit of the doubt in the beginning, yes. Too much evidence is stacked against them.

  -Sab

  Oh really? And have you considered that some people may feel the same way about other belief systems? Or are they not as valid?
• 

  palmtree67

  Tec:

  But the statement that these same people will do their best not to bait or insult... I did not think that was so obviously there. So I made mention of it. You don't agree. That is fine.

  I've seen movement to be more agreeable on BOTH "sides".

  This thread wasn't about everyone being on "perfect" behaviour. If you're looking for perfect behaviour from everyone, then yes, you will continue to be disappointed.

  It was acknowledged many times, that we will ALL slip up.

  The thread is about how each person can:

  1. Make efforts to not be baiting and insulting.

  2. Not be quick to "read into" a statement as being baiting and taunting.

  3. Ignoring it when we can.

  It was never about perfection. It's not that I don't agree with you. I just don't think we can demand perfection from each other.
• 

  tec

  Do you think some believers need to adjust they way they communicate with others. Including personal attacks?

  Anyone who wants peace, needs to cut out the personal attacks, or at least acknowledg and apologize once one is made; since everyone loses their temper here and there. Theist, athiest, and agnostic (though honestly, the agnositcs are some of the most peaceable people around, lol... at least in matters concerning faith/non-faith)

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  tec

  I never thought it was about perfection. I obviously missed much acknowledgment or discussion surrounding this part:

  Make efforts to not be baiting and insulting.

  I will read through again.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  mrsjones5

  I think it's a more powerful stance to be able to ignore the baiting and insulting tactic. Or at least not take it as being serious. And if it continues refuse to engage.
• 

  sabastious

  So I disagree . . . if a claimant wishes to end the discussion and retain the status quo . . . then it is the claimant that should drop the issue. Asking probing questions and exposing flaws in a belief is not a crime . . . especially when those beliefs are being dispensed for public consumption.

  Such cold use of legal language. This is a discussion group for the purposes of healing. I get the feeling like we have different ideas about how the community should operate. I think this is a monastery of sorts where ailing members of the Watchtower society come to heal. People should be free to express their ideas without fear of rejection or ridicule. That's what many egotistical rationalists do on this forum is reject people's ideas as in telling them to go home if they wish to continue to express them after being interrogated (fun place, eh?). This is a form of shunning and it's a trait picked up from the Watchtower. I have noticed that many rationalists on this forum engage in shunning. After I changed my tone from rationalist to mystic some people publically declared they had stopped reading me. Almost like they have a political party to cater to. Such a rigorous pursuit of a certain standard of discussion can border on insanity.

  Again, you appear to believe that it is only 'believers' that can be, or are, personally attacked.

  No, I know that it can come from both ends, but the fact remains that many are obviously motivated by a dislike for another person and thinnly viel it as a "search for scientific truth."

  Do you think some believers need to adjust they way they communicate with others. Including personal attacks?

  Of course we can all improve, however the rationalists have a bigger problem. That's why the dispute exists, not because the sides are equal, but because they are unequal. As it stands the rationalists clearly offer more ad hominem than the believers, A LOT MORE. This I can personally attest to. The believers DO NOT follow rationalists around and gnaw at people's ankles. They DO NOT call scientists liars for preaching current scientific theory. They don't even hold rationalists up to the a spiritualist standard even though the rationalists hold the spiritualists to their standard. Really, I don't see much resolution and therefore a truce will not come to fruition. The ball is in the unbelievers court, plain and simple.

  -Sab