Easily Offended

[PoetPhilosopher]

The fool says in his heart "there is no god".
You just want to sin.
You have no morals.

You are illogical.
You don't know science.
You are delusional.

When a religious debate gets heated the above are insults thrown around. You may shrug at them or flag the post for violation of Rule #3. I have a suspicion that the religious are more easily offended than atheists but I am biased. 1. I am an Agnostic (and therefore an atheist) and 2. near impossible to offend and, applying the Golden Rule, don't think I'm offending. I know that not everyone sees it that way. What is your take on offending language? Where's the limit? Where should be the lawful limit, where the limit on RF?

Tagging @Seeker of White Light for information.

You take that back.

 

[Ella S.]

"You are illogical" is, itself, nonsensical. People are not logical or illogical. Specific arguments (and other methods of inference) are.

When someone makes a claim, you do not know the argument implicit to that claim, so it does not make sense to call a claim illogical, either.

Even if you are pointing out that a particular argument is illogical, merely asserting that it is illogical is, itself, a fallacy. If an argument is genuinely illogical, then you can deconstruct the error in the reasoning without name-dropping a fallacy or simply calling it illogical.

If all you can do is name-drop a fallacy or call something illogical, then you're the one making illogical arguments, not whoever you are responding to.

 

[stvdv]

Too many are equivocating criticism with bullying and difference of opinion with ignorance or hatefulness. I've seen some things that seem to get close to attacking or harassment. Lots of childishness as well. Most here don't actually violate RF rules. Some skate right on the edge

IF people reply "that is a stupid remark of you" THEN I know it's useless for me to continue the conversation, as there is lack of respect or ignorance (IF they are new on RF, and don't know about RF etiquette THEN it's an exception)

IF on the other hand they say "imo, that's a stupid remark of you" THEN I continue the conversation, as there is respect and common sense, as in being aware that "phrasing it as a claim" like in my first example makes no sense at all

And I can imagine you get a lot of disrespectful replies if your Master is the Devil, because many religions use the word Devil as "all the bad in the world", and many see it as a real being, making their response even more emotional charged

I am fine with whatever Religion or Master people choose. And as long as they use respectful language, I take them and their Religion and views serious and respond to them respectfully

 

[Stevicus]

The fool says in his heart "there is no god".
You just want to sin.
You have no morals.

You are illogical.
You don't know science.
You are delusional.

When a religious debate gets heated the above are insults thrown around. You may shrug at them or flag the post for violation of Rule #3. I have a suspicion that the religious are more easily offended than atheists but I am biased. 1. I am an Agnostic (and therefore an atheist) and 2. near impossible to offend and, applying the Golden Rule, don't think I'm offending. I know that not everyone sees it that way. What is your take on offending language? Where's the limit? Where should be the lawful limit, where the limit on RF?

Tagging @Seeker of White Light for information.

Well, I think when the topic degenerates to making comments about "you" or "me," then it's probably crossed the line. If people can confine their comments towards addressing the topic only, then it should be okay.

Some people tend to project and make extrapolations as to why they think someone else might believe as they do. That seems to be the main breaking point in most conversations.

If someone says "I believe in X because of Y," someone might chime in and say "No, you believe in Z because you are an ignorant poopyhead."

I don't really have a huge issue with it either way, but I do have an issue with people who chime in to a discussion, but aren't really willing to have a discussion.

Here's a hypothetical of the kind I'm talking about. Let's say someone posts something that's obviously wrong:

A: 2+2=6
B: That statement is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.
A: What are you talking about? 2+2=6.
B: No, 2+2 does NOT equal 6. Go back to math class.
A: Well, that's uncalled for. I am certain I am right. 2+2=6
B: What is your problem? Any ignorant fool should know that 2+2 does not equal 6. It doesn't equal 42 either.
A: Okay, then, if 2+2 does not equal 6, then what DOES 2+2 equal?
B: I'm not going to waste my time. I can't be bothered to give the correct answer or impart any correct information. I'm just here to challenge your ignorance, make you feel bad, and waste any lurkers' time.

Of course, in real discussions, the topic may be different (it wouldn't be something so obvious as 2+2), but I see the same familiar pattern, over and over and over again. The person who posts something in a thread but then "can't be bothered" or thinks it's a "waste of time," when it would have been much simpler and taken far less time to simply post the correct answer.

If people would be more transparent and post with an explanatory view, with the sole goal of imparting information, then many discussions would be much more productive. Instead, there are those who simply want to express their disapproval without really explaining why, because they "can't be bothered." Moreover, it seems they just want to look clever and smart (maybe some virtue signaling along with it), but it soon becomes obvious that they are not interested in having a true discussion, nor are they interested in disseminating any information or even explaining why they believe as they do.

 

[firedragon]

The fool says in his heart "there is no god".
You just want to sin.
You have no morals.

You are illogical.
You don't know science.
You are delusional.

When a religious debate gets heated the above are insults thrown around. You may shrug at them or flag the post for violation of Rule #3. I have a suspicion that the religious are more easily offended than atheists but I am biased. 1. I am an Agnostic (and therefore an atheist) and 2. near impossible to offend and, applying the Golden Rule, don't think I'm offending. I know that not everyone sees it that way. What is your take on offending language? Where's the limit? Where should be the lawful limit, where the limit on RF?

Tagging @Seeker of White Light for information.

In this forum, from the perspective I have seen, its the latter three insults that are more often seen said by those who call themselves Atheists. But that does not mean the first two are absent.

It's a strange world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, I think when the topic degenerates to making comments about "you" or "me," then it's probably crossed the line. If people can confine their comments towards addressing the topic only, then it should be okay.

Some people tend to project and make extrapolations as to why they think someone else might believe as they do. That seems to be the main breaking point in most conversations.

If someone says "I believe in X because of Y," someone might chime in and say "No, you believe in Z because you are an ignorant poopyhead."

I don't really have a huge issue with it either way, but I do have an issue with people who chime in to a discussion, but aren't really willing to have a discussion.

Here's a hypothetical of the kind I'm talking about. Let's say someone posts something that's obviously wrong:

A: 2+2=6
B: That statement is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.
A: What are you talking about? 2+2=6.
B: No, 2+2 does NOT equal 6. Go back to math class.
A: Well, that's uncalled for. I am certain I am right. 2+2=6
B: What is your problem? Any ignorant fool should know that 2+2 does not equal 6. It doesn't equal 42 either.
A: Okay, then, if 2+2 does not equal 6, then what DOES 2+2 equal?
B: I'm not going to waste my time. I can't be bothered to give the correct answer or impart any correct information. I'm just here to challenge your ignorance, make you feel bad, and waste any lurkers' time.

Of course, in real discussions, the topic may be different (it wouldn't be something so obvious as 2+2), but I see the same familiar pattern, over and over and over again. The person who posts something in a thread but then "can't be bothered" or thinks it's a "waste of time," when it would have been much simpler and taken far less time to simply post the correct answer.

If people would be more transparent and post with an explanatory view, with the sole goal of imparting information, then many discussions would be much more productive. Instead, there are those who simply want to express their disapproval without really explaining why, because they "can't be bothered." Moreover, it seems they just want to look clever and smart (maybe some virtue signaling along with it), but it soon becomes obvious that they are not interested in having a true discussion, nor are they interested in disseminating any information or even explaining why they believe as they do.

To expand as for:
2+2=4
2+2=11
2+2=5
2+2=?
You can learn more than just, which is the correct one.
So we when go deep, it is not a given that one correct is correct for all cases.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In this forum, from the perspective I have seen, its the latter three insults that are more often seen said by those who call themselves Atheists. But that does not mean the first two are absent.

It's a strange world.

Yeah, that is because most atheists are some form of rationalist and their "sin" is to be not in reality as you are not in reality if you are one of those.

 

[Stevicus]

To expand as for:
2+2=4
2+2=11
2+2=5
2+2=?
You can learn more than just, which is the correct one.
So we when go deep, it is not a given that one correct is correct for all cases.

Well, even that would be explanatory, even if there's more than one correct answer. That would still be better than telling someone "you're wrong" without explaining why.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, even that would be explanatory, even if there's more than one correct answer. That would still be better than telling someone "you're wrong" without explaining why.

The joke about "you are wrong" is as far as I can tell, then it is not a fact. It is a social norm in short.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, that is because most atheists are some form of rationalist and their "sin" is to be not in reality as you are not in reality if you are one of those.

Well, I have no survey to show, but in my experience, most atheists are not rationalists. They don't even claim to be rationalists, and those who do claim so which is quite often really don't know what rationalism is. It just seems like a nice word to be associated with.

Cheers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, I have no survey to show, but in my experience, most atheists are not rationalists. They don't even claim to be rationalists, and those who do claim so which is quite often really don't know what rationalism is. It just seems like a nice word to be associated with.

Cheers.

Well, yes, they are in a folk belief sense. And not all of them but their "power" words are reason, logic and evidence. But their main stick are that they are rational.
With reason and logic they can show that their belief in evidence is the best thing to do. That is the end came, if you push them to clarify.

 

[wellwisher]

Most of the religious insults by atheists are directed against Christians. This has to do with the Christian philosophy of love your enemy and turn the other cheek. This tends to invite bullies since bullies are attracted to those who will not or cannot fight back.

It is more difficult to get away with the same behavior against the Jewish religion, since they believe in an eye for eye and they will get even though political pressure; claim antisemitism. This does not work for Christians, since they have to be long suffering.

The foundation for Modern Christianity came from a union of Rome and Christianity. These two opposite ways would became an amalgam. This paradoxical union lasted from about 400AD to about 1400AD; thousand years.

After the 1000 years; age of exploration, the union started to break apart, like a mother cell about to split. The Roman and the Christian elements starting to go their separate ways. Bullies would not mess with the 1000 year Holy Roman Empire, but once the split began, and Christians became less Romanists, and the Romans became less Christian, the bullies came out to play. The Atheists came from the Roman side of the split; love/hate.

Some contemporary Christian sects have tried to become more like pre-400AD originalists and have shed the Pagan addenda that Rome had added. While some Romanists have shed all their Christian capacity for love; Hitler, Stalin, etc. There is often conflict in this big family of distance relatives due to love/hate.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Most of the religious insults by atheists are directed against Christians. ...

Or most of the religious insults by some atheists are directed against some Christians.

 

[firedragon]

Well, yes, they are in a folk belief sense. And not all of them but their "power" words are reason, logic and evidence. But their main stick are that they are rational.
With reason and logic they can show that their belief in evidence is the best thing to do. That is the end came, if you push them to clarify.

I don't want to generalise anything mikkel. That is why I refer to this particular forum when I refer to people. No disrespect intended.

 

[InChrist]

The fool says in his heart "there is no god".
You just want to sin.
You have no morals.

You are illogical.
You don't know science.
You are delusional.

When a religious debate gets heated the above are insults thrown around. You may shrug at them or flag the post for violation of Rule #3. I have a suspicion that the religious are more easily offended than atheists but I am biased. 1. I am an Agnostic (and therefore an atheist) and 2. near impossible to offend and, applying the Golden Rule, don't think I'm offending. I know that not everyone sees it that way. What is your take on offending language? Where's the limit? Where should be the lawful limit, where the limit on RF?

Tagging @Seeker of White Light for information.

I’m sure I fall short at times, but I try not to use offensive language or demean others. I am not easily offended. From a biblical perspective, I don’t think believers in Jesus Christ should be surprised when non-believers do express animosity or hurl personal attacks because...

...If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.
If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
John 15:18-19


Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you. 1 John 3:13

 

[CG Didymus]

Rules are necessary to keep things in order otherwise perfectly good conversations derail and intelligent members might become discouraged and leave the forum because they feel they are not being respected.
Personally I don't get offended easily, mostly because I don't take things personally. I find it tiresome and useless to get upset about every little thing. There are better uses for my time.

You, as a JW, should know quite well what it's like to have people, a lot of people, disagree with you, and probably say insulting things. But, I'd imagine, sometimes it's coming from other Christians.

I would suspect that most every believer in some religion that posts in the debates section is trying to promote their beliefs. They believe their particular religious beliefs are true and want to "share" it with others. But this "sharing" is only a small step from being completely and totally nothing more than proselytizing. But still, the believer doesn't see it that way. They know they have the truth... so they think. So, what happens? Believers with all sorts of religious beliefs get into it. Atheists get into it. It's no place for the thin-skinned and those that aren't knowledgeable and secure in their own beliefs.

I think it's more of a problem of not being listened to and believed rather than not being respected. To me, those that like to "share" their beliefs with others expect people to see the truth in what they are saying. And when challenged and questioned and told how their beliefs are irrational, because of the use of logical fallacies, they do take it personally. Since they think they are being rational. But then often times the believer turns around and call the non-believer blind and unable to "see" the truth because of their unbelief.

It's a crazy game. But, because there are so many different religions and variations within each religion, I think these arguments/debates are necessary and a good thing. And those religious people that don't like to debate, then fine... as long as they don't try and push their beliefs on others. Or, support religious people that do push their beliefs on others. Oh, and one more thought on respect. It's got to be tough to truly respect people that believe things different than you.

And, for the proselytizer, do they really respect the other persons beliefs if they are trying to convert them? I don't think so. At best, they are trying to show respect to the person... but, since they believe the other persons beliefs are false, I don't see how they can really be respecting their religious beliefs.

 

[viole]

The fool says in his heart "there is no god".

And the wise man says that to the whole world.

but I agree. I could not possibly offended, either. Even “ignoring” anyone, is unconceivable for me.

cio

- viole

 

[Heyo]

And, for the proselytizer, do they really respect the other persons beliefs if they are trying to convert them? I don't think so. At best, they are trying to show respect to the person... but, since they believe the other persons beliefs are false, I don't see how they can really be respecting their religious beliefs.

I can respect a person even so I can't respect their religion. I can also respect a person who's choice of ice cream flavour I can't respect. And even though I don't respect a religious view, I respect and defend the right to hold it. I only have a hard time to respect certain character traits like unbridled hypocrisy or bigotry.

 

[Ella S.]

Of course, in real discussions, the topic may be different (it wouldn't be something so obvious as 2+2), but I see the same familiar pattern, over and over and over again. The person who posts something in a thread but then "can't be bothered" or thinks it's a "waste of time," when it would have been much simpler and taken far less time to simply post the correct answer.

If people would be more transparent and post with an explanatory view, with the sole goal of imparting information, then many discussions would be much more productive. Instead, there are those who simply want to express their disapproval without really explaining why, because they "can't be bothered." Moreover, it seems they just want to look clever and smart (maybe some virtue signaling along with it), but it soon becomes obvious that they are not interested in having a true discussion, nor are they interested in disseminating any information or even explaining why they believe as they do.

I haven't seen many users say that a particular line of dialogue is a waste of time, although I have said it from time to time when it becomes clear that the discussion I'm in has become circular or my interlocutor flat-out rejects logic.

That said, sometimes a person is so thoroughly uneducated (or, worse, misinformed) that it would take years of education for them to understand why they are wrong about something. There is not a realistic way to discuss this in a forum. Not everything is as simple to explain as 2+2.

 

[Sheldon]

Look at your keyboard and ask yourself which key he may have missed and got an adjacent one.

Noe U adk yoi, wherw's tge fin on thar?