On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:43:33 -0400, insaner wrote:
>> Xtians come in here with the express intention of preaching, showing
>> us the foolishness of not believing as they do, or otherwise shoving
>> their tripe down our throats.
>
>much like dawkins, penn and teller, and all manner of other atheists in
>the spotlight do as well..
Can't say that I have ever seen any of them in here, but then, in
here, a.a, they would be preaching to the choir.
>including every atheist poster on the
>internet, whether it be youtube, digg, or any other free forum.
So you consider it preaching, to reply xtian posters, in atheist NGs,
and forums?
>yeah, it
>does happen, people want to express their beliefs at others, and as long
>as you are not saying atheists dont do it, i agree with you.
Some do, some don't, some try to explain, and some take the piss; You
get quite a mixed bag of atheists in atheist NGs.
Xtians in atheist NGs OTOH, predominantly seem to want to preach, and
proselytize.
Then when they find that their message falls on disinterested ears, or
worse, ears that have read more of the bible than they have, and have
a counter quote for every bible verse they spout, the xtian gets nasty
and insulting, as if insults will persuade us.
Of course, some do not wait that long, they start right in with the
insults.
And some of us do the same.
The difference being that it is our atheist group/forum/whatever, and
our rules.
We have had very few theists, of any belief, that were able to say,
"Yes, it is purely faith", and leave it there.
>you forget,
>i am surrounded by christians here,
I cannot forget what I was unaware of to begin with.
>i know they come in all sorts of
>calibers, no excuses, not all christians grew up in christian homes,
>most (actually all) of us are still trying to battle out our old
>selves.. so when we fall (or jump) into difficult situations where
>tempers flare..
Yes, many xtian fanatics display an over abundance of emotion.
>you most likely wont be able to see our best side.
I have seen the good side of xtians, the best side even, but it is
rare and rare, in usenet.
The usenet xtian generally prefers sitting on it's fat duff, waffling
the waffle, to putting it's boots on, and walking the walk.
OTOH, I have worked with xtians who walked the walk, in their bare
feet, because some else needed their boots.
But I doubt me, that many of us would judge all xtians, by the
standards displayed by usenet xtians.
>oh well. i do apologize on behalf of all of us. i shouldnt have to though,
>since its sort of assumed people leave kindness at the door when they
>post on something as impersonal as usenet, not everyone, but thats the
>trend.
It allows the fanatics to spew shit and derision, on the world in
general, and the things and people they hate and fear in particular,
from the safety of their keyboards, or anonymous re-mailers.
It ain't a problem, and while they are fuming and spluttering in
usenet, they aint somewhere else, doing harm.
Besides, we get quite a lot of low brow amusement out of them.
It's an ill wind, and all that.
>
>>
>> The usual xtian introduction is, "I have a question for the atheists,
>> about "Blah blah".
>>
>> Never for the group, only for the atheists.
>
>because we arent atheists.
Granted, but does it never occur to you that there might be xtians in
the group who can see where the atheist is coming from?
You see, if you don't consider that possibility, it is tantamount to
saying that *you* are not going to understand what we tell you,
either.
>we are christians (or whatever the original
>poster happens to be) we arent familiar with the atheist mentality
That is probably because there is no such thing.
>except for what the media portrays, or what we have experienced
>personally, and lets face it, the atheists in the media are anything but
>an example to follow..
In what way?
What do they do, that evangelizing xtians, don't?
>just the same as you would criticize "christians"
>in the media (which we would as well, and hence why we know the figures
>in the media are not representative of all others in the group they are
>claimed to represent). i actually have met an atheist i really
>respected, and while we didnt actually talk about religion much, he was
>nothing but tolerant and helpful (he was my second in command in a very
>christian project) though i know he didnt believe as i did. so i know
>atheists arent by definition what most of us have as that impression.
Some of us are genuine, some are intense, some are easy, and some are
arse holes, and all shades between, just like xtians.
>so call me an idiot
You're an idiot.
>for coming in here giving you ALL the benefit of the
>doubt and being proved wrong,
Sorry, should have read to the end of the line. (:-)
>maybe i should blame usenet?
>
Usenet is what the users make it.
Blame the users.
>>
>> You then proceed to ask a question, loaded with pre-suppositions of
>> what you imagine an atheists opinion would be, or should be,
>
>well of course!! i always say "without questions, there are no answers"
>if someone, lets say an atheist, asks me why i believe in God, obviously
>its hugely loaded with presuppositions and what not,
If you state that you believe in a god, there is no presupposition,
when we ask you why.
> but not for that
>reason will i refuse to answer, and in anything but the kindest and most
>honest way i can. after all, they are not only showing interest in
>knowing why i believe what i believe, but they are also giving me the
>forum to do so. of course we disagree, so what? of course i have my
>presuppositions, thats why i came here, to see if i was judging
>correctly, if i was basing my opinion on hype or truth, which is
>important to me! i want to know that i am right, cuz if im not, i need
>to correct my beliefs! thats how i came to be a christian,
It is also how many of us came to be atheist.
>and thats the
>best way i find to live life.. it also has made me much MUCH more
>tolerant of others beliefs, because, i approach them as inquiry into
>their beliefs, and you learn much more from asking followers than from
>reading their books, since many dont know or follow what is there
>written. so as a social tool, asking is the most accurate one. even if
>the questions are charged,
A charged question cannot have a neutral, non emotional answer, so any
answer to a charged question suspect.
>but then, when faced with contradicting
>evidence to what you thought, you must correct your beliefs.
You must first verify the supposed evidence.
>thats also
>the scientific method, right?
In a rather over simplified form.
>
>> and the
>> correctness of your belief.
>
>obviously i think what i believe is correct! haha, if i thought it was
>wrong, i wouldnt believe it! but it doesnt mean i wont listen to peoples
>answers.. on the contrary, i know what i believe in is correct because i
>listen to others and fairly evaluate their position,
So you(generalisation) add it in, as a condition of your question.
i.e. If you don't believe in God, what have you got to live for?
Or; How can you be moral, if you don't believe in
God/Jesus/Alah/Fred/whatever?
The question tells you that the asker, has already made up it's mind
that what ever answer we offer, is silly, worthless, etc.
There is no point in answering.
>again, thats how i
>became i christian myself.
>
>> Such questions also often contain some sort of insulting remark.
>> Whether that is intentional, or simply because they do not know that
>> they are being insulting, is open to debate.
>
>i find that offending peoples sensibilities is too often too easy to do.
Especially you include remarks like, "Not that I would expect an
atheist to care", or some such similar snide comment.
>its incredible, the other day, i asked someone how they are doing, and
>their response was "why? should i not be ok?" and they got offended!
Everybody has a bad hair day, now and again.
...except me, no hair.
>haha, its inevitable sometimes.. it happens, but i assure you, that
>really wasnt my purpose. so sorry to have offended anyone, but it really
>wasnt my purpose.
I was not being specific, AFAIR.
>
>>
>>
>>> i wanted to get
>>> an answer from you people
>>
>> That would have been:-
>>
>> .................
>> hi, i would like to direct this questions to the atheists who frequent
>> this NG. please, if you are a christian do not answer my question, and
>> if you would like to address the replies to it, do so KINDLY and
>> observing all manner of rules of etiquette. set an example.
>>
>>
>>
>> not kill" and the other commandments are no longer valid guides by
>> which our justice system should judge, since they are "religious"
>> establishments, then, please tell us, in your opinion or another's
>> with whom you agree,
>>
>>
>> what are the morals we should follow? whose morals are correct? how do
>> we agree upon a common set of morals? or even.. what are morals?
>> (answer
>> all if you want, but mainly the first question is of interest)
>> ...............
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> and what resulted was people attacking my
>>> intelligence and all manner of things..
>>
>> Let's look at that post.
>>
>> " Whose morals are correct?".
>>
>> A similar question is "How long is a piece of string?"
>
>maybe it was poorly phrased.
That is something of an understatement.
It is those presuppositions again.
Your first one being that the law of the land, is based on bible law:
It isn't.
Laws like don't Kill Folk, or Don't Rob Folk, are as old as society,
and have nothing to do with your beliefs, or with anyone else's.
>but what i was looking for is a place of
>reference for where to look up a set of guidelines for morality.
Look to your self.
Forget the silly semantics, and ask your self, "Would I like it done
to me and/or mine?"
How much guidance do you need?
>youre
>right it sounds weird, but it was also in the subject of the post, and
>it for sure got peoples attention. again, the purpose was to get what
>each individual person felt were the set of moral guidelines to be
>followed. i got some great answers too, which was really satisfactory.
>so obviously the question wasnt lost on everyone.
>
>>
>>
>> You then preceded to load the question:
>> Quote "thou shallt not
>> kill" and the other commandments are no longer valid guides by which
>> our justice system should judge, since they are "religious"
>> establishments"
>> End.
>
>this was a reference to the recent (at the time) ruling to remove the
>ten commandments from a courthouse monument. and the movement towards
>removing the ten commandments as basis for morality and law.
But the ten commandments is not the basis for your law.
Exodus 20:1 And God spoke all these words: 2 "I am the LORD your
God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
Not in law.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in
heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
Not in law.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your
God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the
fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but
showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep
my commandments.
Not in law.
7 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD
will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
Not in law.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall
labour and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to
the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor
your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your
animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD
made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but
he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath
day and made it holy.
Not in law.
12 "Honour your father and your mother, so that you may live long in
the land the LORD your God is giving you.
Not in law.
13 "You shall not murder.
Law.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
Not in law.
15 "You shall not steal.
Law.
16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbour.
That is an iffy one.
Perjury, libel, and slander are against the law, but that is about it.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbour's house. You shall not covet
your neighbour's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or
donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."
You have got to be joking"
Coveting your neighbour's possessions, is the very foundation of
capitalism, and the American dream.
Two and a bit, out of ten, is not a good argument that American, or
any western country's, law, is based on the ten commandment.
> not sure if
>you heard about that, but thats what i was referring to there. it wasnt
>really me trying to pick a fight.
>
I'm not in America.
>>
>> The fact that communities who had never heard of your god, held to the
>> common morality of "Don't kill, Don't steal, Don't lie, Don't make
>> sheep eyes, your neighbours woman, etc", is eliminated from the
>> question.
>
>actually, that wouldve been the answer. i think you are talking about
>the code of hammurabi here, am i right?
I was thinking of enlightened self interest.
>so then that wouldve been the
>answer, "the morals we should follow are as set by the code of
>hammurabi"..
That is not morality, that is merely the law.
snip
>
>>
>> You are setting your religion, as the source of morality, and
>> expecting us to answer within those parameters.
>
>nono, i was setting my beliefs (not religion)
The difference being?
> as the source of _MY_
>morality, if anything. remember, morality is the set of guidelines for
>what we consider good and bad. obviously different people have different
>morals, and that was the nature of my question, to find out what your
>morals are, as atheists. some (most?) atheists hold secular humanism as
>their moral guidelines (though im not really sure what morals it
>establishes, exactly)
>
>>
>>> THATS how you exacerbate them.
>>> so, again, way to set an example.
>>
>> ...And your loaded questions do not exacerbate us?
>
>well, in any case, that wasnt my purpose, hopefully you believe me. you
>see, as i told you before, i dont just talk to atheists, but i dont have
>as much access to atheists in real life as i do here. and here is where
>you all converge, so this is the best forum to ask these questions. also
>why i didnt want others answering who werent atheists. i already have
>access to christians of all sides of the spectrum and muslims and sikhs
>and jainists and agnostics and jews (again of all sides of the spectrum)
>and hindus and buddhists.. so i head right here because i know ill get
>at least a few answers from atheists. yeah, the questions are loaded,
>but not with the purpose of exacerbating, but really to just understand
>you and your beliefs better.. the same way i do of other beliefs. the
>difference between atheism and all other beliefs by the way, is what
>sets it apart, and thats the complete denial and rejection of God and
>the supernatural.
Not exactly.
>which is quite a phenomenon, and hence why i would
>like to understand it more.
There is little enough to understand.
To say "I do not believe that", is not the same as saying, "that is
not".
All that is required to be an atheist, is "I do not believe that".
Some of us, however, WILL say, "that is not".
What is, leaves objective evidence, and what is not, does not.
It is illogical, childish even, to believe in the existence of
something for which there is no objective evidence.
>
>so, do you believe that my intentions were not mean-spirited or not?
Insufficient data.
>if
>you think everything i say is just to annoy, attack, ridicule, or
>exacerbate, then having proper discourse will be impossible.
Agreed.
I treat everyone as reasonable, until shown differently.
>and yeah,
>im sorry i get irritated here sometimes and use stronger language than i
>would otherwise, but i guess its a usenet thing. its just that those
>same things that bother you, bother me too.. but at least i stick around
>and deal with them, and i dont give up on people who though they might
>be mean, are still being at least serious or straight forward with me.
>
>i dont want to stop frequenting this forum, i think its really
>interesting, im learning a lot, not just about you guys, but about my
>own faith.
Are you learning about your self?
snip
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
