Religious Insensitivity

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm a strong, independent little Femboy who isn't afraid to eat his crow dinner in front of others. Anyway, I think some of the religious people on this forum, not all, are a little upset by the deep expressions against Christianity lately. I'm a skeptic that this frustration was always channeled in the best, most clearest way by them. However now that I've thought it over, I personally, whether or not anyone else does, have to choose my sense of morality over my ideology. For that reason, I support their view and fathom it may create peace for both sides to be less flippant. And maybe, possibly, the Christians even have it right that the nonChristians started it, but I really can't say for sure, nor do I want to say for sure, because it wouldn't be fair to both sides to say.

I don't really think the staff can help these particular matters too much other than dousing the occasional fire as at some point, we need the freedom to look at ourselves and what we seem to be doing. It's much more personal and touchy-feely to do so, and I think leads to more long-term progress.

I don't fathom I'll make many friends from this topic, but oh well. Atheists may see the topic as me not supporting them when actually, I think it may create a less hostile environment for both groups, so guess I'm demonstrating that tough love everyone hates in my pursuit of my greatest understanding of things.

I'm inviting @usfan to this topic but ask him to try to keep it civilized if possible too.

My 2c.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I get it, and I understand that civil dialog tends to be more acceptable all around, however I do feel there is a time and place for ridicule, as bad as some may think that sounds.

I submit, in support of this idea, this snippet of a conversation between Sam Harris and some Jewish religious types, that perfectly demonstrates exactly the mind-set I am supporting, and interpretation of reactions to outlandish ideas that I am talking about:

Relevant bit starts around 2:35, but the lead-in is good for context.

Summation: NOBODY who doesn't believe him feels sympathy for the guy who still believes Elvis is alive.

 

[usfan]

Good topic.. i will engage in it, but time today is limited.. have fun!

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

however I do feel there is a time and place for ridicule, as bad as some may think that sounds.

I agree. But it's still an issue we must always remember to approach like adults.

(In saying this though, I'm not implying we're immature)

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I agree. But it's still an issue we must always remember to approach like adults.

(In saying this though, I'm not implying we're immature)

Unfortunately for me, in getting into and through adulthood, I am only getting more and more fed up with people's wild thoughts and assertions without evidence or sufficient reason. The fuse gets shorter and shorter. If I could help myself, maybe I would, and I do temper myself at times. Most of the time, I find no need, and as Sam Harris so deftly pointed out, sometimes people need to know where the limits of their imagination lie.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Unfortunately for me, in getting into and through adulthood, I am only getting more and more fed up with people's wild thoughts and assertions without evidence or sufficient reason. The fuse gets shorter and shorter. If I could help myself, maybe I would, and I do temper myself at times. Most of the time, I find no need, and as Sam Harris so deftly pointed out, sometimes people need to know where the limits of their imagination lie.

Even so, we can't judge people based on their ability to debate in a 21st century context. Such an idea is a bit too Darwin even for me.

 

[Audie]

I'm a strong, independent little Femboy who isn't afraid to eat his crow dinner in front of others. Anyway, I think some of the religious people on this forum, not all, are a little upset by the deep expressions against Christianity lately. I'm a skeptic that this frustration was always channeled in the best, most clearest way by them. However now that I've thought it over, I personally, whether or not anyone else does, have to choose my sense of morality over my ideology. For that reason, I support their view and fathom it may create peace for both sides to be less flippant. And maybe, possibly, the Christians even have it right that the nonChristians started it, but I really can't say for sure, nor do I want to say for sure, because it wouldn't be fair to both sides to say.

I don't really think the staff can help these particular matters too much other than dousing the occasional fire as at some point, we need the freedom to look at ourselves and what we seem to be doing. It's much more personal and touchy-feely to do so, and I think leads to more long-term progress.

I don't fathom I'll make many friends from this topic, but oh well. Atheists may see the topic as me not supporting them when actually, I think it may create a less hostile environment for both groups, so guess I'm demonstrating that tough love everyone hates in my pursuit of my greatest understanding of things.

I'm inviting @usfan to this topic but ask him to try to keep it civilized if possible too.

My 2c.

Has anyone said anything against the whole of
Christianity?

Lets hear from anyone who has it in for the whole
faith and everyone in it.

There are and have been a lot of really rotten
destructive people who claim the mantle of Christianity
or Islam.

And a whole lot more good decent ones.

Who would deny that?

One other thing-

have to choose my sense of morality over my ideology

Of course you do. One way or another everyone chooses
their own sense of morality.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Has anyone said anything against the whole of
Christianity?

Lets hear from anyone who has it in for the whole
faith and everyone in it.

There are and have been a lot of really rotten
destructive people who claim the mantle of Christianity
or Islam.

And a whole lot more good decent ones.

Who would deny that?

One other thing-

have to choose my sense of morality over my ideology

Of course you do. One way or another everyone chooses
their own sense of morality.

"Who am I? I have no strength save what God gives me. I have no authority over my countrymen save the pure moral. If He holds me to be a pure instrument for the spread of non-violence in place of the awful violence now ruling the earth, He will give me the strength and show me the way. My greatest weapon is mute prayer. The cause of peace is therefore, in God's good hands." - Gandhi

 

[Audie]

"Who am I? I have no strength save what God gives me. I have no authority over my countrymen save the pure moral. If He holds me to be a pure instrument for the spread of non-violence in place of the awful violence now ruling the earth, He will give me the strength and show me the way. My greatest weapon is mute prayer. The cause of peace is therefore, in God's good hands." - Gandhi

Why do you bother cut n paste that as a "response"
to me? You could not be more irrelevant with a salad
recipe.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Why do you bother cut n paste that as a "response"
to me? You could not be more irrelevant with a salad
recipe.

To not only show my thoughts, but to tell you that I'd rather make love, not make war in the pursuit of who has the best logic.

 

[Audie]

To not only show my thoughts, but to tell you that I'd rather make love, not make war in the pursuit of who has the best logic.

IOW, had zero do do with what I said.
Whatever.

 

[dybmh]

@Audie ,

Why are you so hostile?

 

[dybmh]

however I do feel there is a time and place for ridicule, as bad as some may think that sounds.

I thought we had a productive conversation in the Biblical Slavery thread. Even though I spoke about religious ideas, I tried not make it seem like you needed to be included in those religious ideas to understand my point.

Also, I tried not take your topical passionate objections and assume that they were directed at me.

The other thing I thought was useful, is that you tried to be fair. I really noticed that. I didn't feel like you were trying to embarrass me or point out my flaws.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I thought we had a productive conversation in the Biblical Slavery thread. Even though I spoke about religious ideas, I tried not make it seem like you needed to be included in those religious ideas to understand my point.

Also, I tried not take your topical passionate objections and assume that they were directed at me.

The other thing I thought was useful, is that you tried to be fair. I really noticed that. I didn't feel like you were trying to embarrass me or point out my flaws.

You were being super-civil, and I honestly appreciated that, and I tried to act in kind. I think I still had an edge, of sorts, and I am on the fence as to whether I should have let that come through, honestly. And no, the passion I expressed toward the subject was not directed at you, and I am glad you realized that. In other discussions, I do have to admit that some of my "passion" (I am humbled by your apparent thought that I deserve the euphemism) does get directed to others I am conversing with if they seem to display an air of obvious superiority or smugness. I apparently can't help myself.

But yes, I enjoyed our conversation in the other thread, for sure.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You were being super-civil, and I honestly appreciated that, and I tried to act in kind. I think I still had an edge, of sorts, and I am on the fence as to whether I should have let that come through, honestly. And no, the passion I expressed toward the subject was not directed at you, and I am glad you realized that. In other discussions, I do have to admit that some of my "passion" (I am humbled by your apparent thought that I deserve the euphemism) does get directed to others I am conversing with if they seem to display an air of obvious superiority or smugness. I apparently can't help myself.

But yes, I enjoyed our conversation in the other thread, for sure.

I think it's all cool. I can be a bit hyper in real life, sometimes I pace the house for example when deep-thinking. Haven't figured out how to make that hyperness not bleed into my posts somewhat.

 

[dybmh]

an air of obvious superiority or smugness

This is the part I need to work on.... I am at least aware of it. And it will take practice.

Also, I don't have a lot of experience on forums. So expressing my opinion without sounding like a pompous know-it-all is something I need to learn how to do.

 

[dybmh]

A few comments on the video posted; perhaps you will provide your feedback?

The comparison between belief that Elvis is alive and belief in a supernatural God is only humorous because in the example: The person is talking about Elvis being alive in a job interview where discussion of Elvis is wholly irrelevant. It would be equally comical for an interviewer to ask a candidate for a job opening if they believe that Elvis is alive as part of the interview process. Asking about belief in God as part of the interview process might even be illegal.

In a religious debate, if a person speaks about God as a real being with super natural abilities, that is not the same as speaking about Elvis being alive in a Job Interview.

Because of this, I propose that venue and the topic being discussed are important to consider. If the topic is religious, and the belief is not presented as 'preachy', I don't think that the belief should be ridiculed. I think it's rude. Of course, that means excluding comic relief would also exclude many Atheists from religious conversations if they have little to contribute besides criticism.

However, I think that the believer in this video did make some key mistakes. And the individual did embarrass them selves in the video. The first mistake was posture and delivery. The 'believer' visually became uhhhh.... I'm trying to think of the right word. Puffed-up? Egotistical? But I don't think that was intentional. I think that speaking about a lofty metaphysical subject rendered a lofty, puffed-up delivery.

The other mistake I think the 'believer' made, is that when Sam Harris asked probing questions about God, the believer started talking about Sam specifically. The 'believer' implied that Sam's image of himself was flawed, that the believer's POV was correct, and that not adopting this POV was a "mistake". That in my opinion is a big no-no. But it's a trap that I see 'believers' falling into all the time. And honestly, I don't know if it's a Freudian slip, letting their true feelings of superiority leak out, or if it's a mistake resulting from the pressure they are feeling when their belief is questioned. It could even be the pressure of anticipating their beliefs being questioned. Or, it could be that this specific believer actually does feel superior, and Sam did a good job exposing it. It's hard to tell.

What do you think?

And as a practical question for RF: Do you think that non-believers have good reason to pressure, criticize, and ridicule believers and religious people in a religious debate? Is it appropriate as comic relief even if the non-believer has nothing to contribute to the conversation? Is it appropriate as a means of exposing the believer's flaws?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

And as a practical question for RF: Do you think that non-believers have good reason to pressure, criticize, and ridicule believers and religious people in a religious debate? Is it appropriate as comic relief even if the non-believer has nothing to contribute to the conversation? Is it appropriate as a means of exposing the believer's flaws?

We also have to look at the Psychology of it. Suppose an atheist destroys a religious person's beliefs so bad in a debate, or vice versa, the person being destroyed converts - when changing beliefs is no easy process and often leads to self-doubt and cognitive dissonance?

 

[dybmh]

We also have to look at the Psychology of it. Suppose an atheist destroys a religious person's beliefs so bad in a debate, or vice versa, the person being destroyed converts - when changing beliefs is no easy process and often leads to self-doubt and cognitive dissonance?

I hadn't considered that. Most people involved in the debate seem firm in their beliefs. Perhaps someone in the audience would convert because of it?

In politics there's a phrase that gets tossed around: "Strong and Wrong". The idea is that people follow and emulate strength even if it's wrong. But I'm not sure that means that people shouldn't speak with authority.

In general, I think people who's pure objective is to criticize, not to contribute, are few. And I think they expose themselves sooner or later. Their superiority complex leaks out just like anyone else.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I hadn't considered that. Most people involved in the debate seem firm in their beliefs. Perhaps someone in the audience would convert because of it?

When my health was better, I was an active member and more, of a debate forum. I spent three years on there. I got to know things pretty well. Two people actually did convert due to horribly losing arguments. And one of them became Roman Catholic - without getting into the validity of Catholicism itself, there is a lot involved to converting to Catholicism. It's a large commitment.