A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists? (page 62)

sabastious

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

Only I know my own belief system, that much has been plainly obvious.

-Sab

palmtree67

Mrs. J

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.

Yes. I don't have to go back and re-read all 33 pages to find "proof" that people have officially "said" that they are making efforts to not bait. Some of the ones who have made the resolve, haven't posted here, so......whatever. **shrugs**

I've seen the proof of it already, all week long. And in this thread.

mrsjones5

Well, it takes some a tad longer to get the hint. That's not an insult or a bait, it's an observation.

still thinking

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."...sab

Now the question is....Is that really true?

Is the dislike of the person attached to the belief? And is there really a dislike for the person at all...or is it really the belief and method of dispensation that may be disliked? And when it really comes down to it....would anyone care about the person if they didn't dislike the ideas and beliefs the person is sharing? So, what is really being disliked? The person...or the belief? And what is really being discussed? The person? Or the belief?

tec

I have seen good things in this thread. But I have also seen the opposite being done by "saying" that they will make an effort not to bait of make a personal attack, but also making a personal attack. However, that personal attack did not seem to be 'cheerleaded', so... progress :)

But I meant only to make a suggestion that a straightforward statement might help out some of us who 'take a tad longer to get the hint' ;) Not trying to stir up trouble. Just trying to be honest.

Peace,

tammy

sizemik

Asking probing questions and exposing flaws in a belief is not a crime . . . especially when those beliefs are being dispensed for public consumption. . . . me

Such cold use of legal language. . . . sab

I'm not a cold person and have zero legal training. But that is your perception and that's fine.

Tell me . . . do you think the JW doctrine should be probed and the flaws exposed for those newly exposed to it? JW doctrine is fashioned and dispensed for public consumption . . . and much of this site is for just that purpose . . . exposing it's flaws.

You can't have it both ways sab.

People leaving the WT cult deserve to hear and evaluate all sides of an issue . . . for their effective healing. Otherwise it's just round and round. Folks will make their own mind up . . . but an unfettered, untested religious proposal deserves the scrutiny that they failed to apply first time round.

I hope you can see that.

palmtree67

TEC: But I meant only to make a suggestion that a straightforward statement might help out some of us who 'take a tad longer to get the hint' ;)

OK. Let's all make a straightforward statement of this.

(I trust that you're not doing this so you can quote it later and throw it in someones face when they slip up, right?)

I am making efforts to not be baiting and taunting.

Next.......

sabastious

Is the dislike of the person attached to the belief? And is there really a dislike for the person at all...or is it really the belief and method of dispensation that may be disliked? And when it really comes down to it....would anyone care about the person if they didn't dislike the ideas and beliefs the person is sharing? So, what is really being disliked? The person...or the belief? And what is really being discussed? The person? Or the belief?

The same argument could be made about ethnicity. You don't hate the person, only their genetic predispositions. Many rationalists operate on the false assumption that believers can be anything other than believers. They will often use themselves as evidence that people DO deconvert from believing, but then again they cannot prove that they can be anything else besides a non believer. This is a matter of stereotyping and prejudice. The personal attacks are justified because a stereotype is confirmed. People who insist they are logical are impossible to correct.

-Sab

tec

(I trust that you're not doing this so you can quote it later and throw it in someones face when they slip up, right?)

Everyone slips up. I understand this. I did not mean that it should me stated as some sort of vow. I am totally against vows because we are all human, and it is too easy for us to break our vows.

I just didn't see that it was being discussed along with the rest of the ideas. I 'get' it now, that it has been discussed, and i appreciate those who have taken part in discussing it with me.

I am making efforts to not be baiting and taunting.

I will do my best not to bait or taunt as well.

Peace,

tammy

sabastious

Tell me . . . do you think the JW doctrine should be probed and the flaws exposed for those newly exposed to it? JW doctrine is fashioned and dispensed for public consumption . . . and much of this site is for just that purpose . . . exposing it's flaws. You can't have it both ways sab.

I'm not trying to have it both ways, Size. I am saying that there is a fundamental difference between an outfit like the Watchtower and ideas presented by an individual on a public forum. You are simply conflating two separate ideas. One of a multibillion dollar corporation with a long history of mind control and the other an internet poster with an opinion.

-Sab

A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

Share this