All of you think I'm crazy already... lol so I'll fuel the fire.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2014, 12:20 PM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2014 12:39 PM by Airportkid.)
RE: All of you think I'm crazy already... lol so I'll fuel the fire.
What's the beef against proselytizing? Proselytizing is at its root an attempt to convert someone's point of view, usually religious, but not necessarily. That describes 80% of every post in this forum: an attempt to sway opinion. Why the hell else would we even bother talking to each other if not to joggle points of view?

Now I can see being tired of the usual form of religious proselytizing, but I don't see any reason to ban it, and several reasons to accept it. If you're tired of it, ignore it. Its cost to the operation of the forum is non-existent; its cost to you in terms of time spent is entirely your own call.

Ban it, and you start having to define borders around acceptable forms of persuasion and unacceptable forms of persuasion. Those borders get messy and fuzzy. And they require someone's time to police. Why incur the extra overhead?

Ban it, and you risk missing seeing some new perspective. Ban it, and you join the book burners in essential spirit.

If your beef is that proselytizing is offensive, draw your attention to 6 out of any 10 posts in here that are intentionally offensive across a galaxy of contentious matters. That argument won't fly.

I oppose censorship of any kind, personally. Censorship can only be applied out of arrogance: the arrogance that the censor knows better than you what you should be exposed to.

I see standard religious proselytizing and I turn it off. But that's ME turning it off, not someone else turning it off on my behalf. And sometimes, I DON'T turn it off, just to check it out for anything interesting.

We should be careful, getting in a lather over proselytizing, because, really, it's what we all do, some more elegantly and eloquently than others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Airportkid's post
27-04-2014, 12:22 PM
RE: All of you think I'm crazy already... lol so I'll fuel the fire.
(26-04-2014 06:39 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(26-04-2014 04:56 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  ...the atheists are exercising contradictory doctrines/premises, as well; otherwise they would be working on developing a scientific political charter, instead of spending so much time and energy arguing with you about the existence of your imaginary being that is only the personification of allegorical concepts.
This right here makes no kind of fucking sense.

First of all, atheist, or atheism has no doctrines or premises to be contradictory, except for lack of belief in a "god" or "gods". The only doctrinaire or premise of atheism that could contradiction that is having a belief in a "god" or "gods". But belief in "god/s" is not a premise Mathis, so no contradiction there.
Atheism is the political doctrine determined to eliminate the legislation of law based on theist doctrines.

Humanism is the proper ontological doctrine "opposite' of theism. It is an error in reason to define an ontology based on the opposition of another ontology. Where as, a political doctrine designated the antithesis of an erroneous ontology is acceptable, because when the political doctrine succeeds in defeating the erroneous ontology the correct ontology, humanism, maintains meaning. Where as, "atheism," makes no sense if no theists exist.

In other words; in a couple of hundred years from now, when theism is eradicated, because of the overwhelming exercise of a scientific political charter, it will be absurd to refer to ourselves as "atheists," however, "humanists," will be acceptable.


(26-04-2014 06:39 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(26-04-2014 04:56 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  "...otherwise they would be working on developing a scientific political charter,..."
Ummm..."scientific political charter"...what the fuck are you talking about?
You do not believe it is possible, do you? As much as you believe science exposes the fault of people's belief in gods, you do not believe science can lead mankind to the generation of a more perfect political charter system??? You believe such things, as always before, will be generated by men of the gods.

(26-04-2014 06:39 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(26-04-2014 04:56 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  "...instead of spending so much time and energy arguing with you about the existence of your imaginary being that is only the personification of allegorical concepts."
Couldn't theist spend more time on other things than arguing others about the existence of their imaginary sky daddy? What is your point?
I addressed that when I said something about his god is only interested in arguing about it existence. But, your argument is probably going to be met - Christians are probably going to be credited with having approved of the generation of a scientific political charter, and atheists will be charged with having rejected the idea on its premise.

That's nothing to be proud of.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 12:24 PM
RE: All of you think I'm crazy already... lol so I'll fuel the fire.
Taq... bring your GIF, please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Charis's post
27-04-2014, 12:33 PM
RE: All of you think I'm crazy already... lol so I'll fuel the fire.
(27-04-2014 12:20 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  What's the beef against proselytizing? Proselytizing is at its root an attempt to convert someone's point of view, usually religious, but not necessarily. That describes 80% of every post in this forum: an attempt to sway opinion. Why the hell else would we even bother talking to each other if not to joggle points of view?
Hear, Hear - a man of reason???

(27-04-2014 12:20 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  Ban it, and you start having to define borders around acceptable forms of persuasion and unacceptable forms of persuasion. Those borders get messy and fuzzy. And they req
That is what science does. It's called, "demarcation." And in organization and debate there are needs for classifying truth from falsehoods, and banishment for subversive activity. There is very little sense for the continued tolerance of theist argument in an atheist organization. The problem is that atheist organizations are so flimsy that arguing with theists is the only way to maintain atheist community, and that is starting to wain. Eventually, atheists realize that they need to review their organizational doctrines (implicit and explicit), just like they insist that theist critically review their organizational doctrines.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 12:35 PM
RE: All of you think I'm crazy already... lol so I'll fuel the fire.
(27-04-2014 12:24 PM)Charis Wrote:  Taq... bring your GIF, please.

I agree. I give Taq free rein on this one.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Raptor Jesus's post
27-04-2014, 12:46 PM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2014 05:16 PM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: All of you think I'm crazy already... lol so I'll fuel the fire.
(27-04-2014 12:22 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Atheism is the political doctrine determined to eliminate the legislation of law based on theist doctrines.
You are wrong. Atheism is a lack in a belief in "god/s". That is all it is. No more.


(27-04-2014 12:22 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  ...Humanism ...
Has nothing to do we anything previously mentioned.

(27-04-2014 12:22 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(26-04-2014 06:39 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Ummm..."scientific political charter"...what the fuck are you talking about?
You do not believe it is possible, do you? As much as you believe science exposes the fault of people's belief in gods, you do not believe science can lead mankind to the generation of a more perfect political charter system??? You believe such things, as always before, will be generated by men of the gods.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.

(27-04-2014 12:22 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(26-04-2014 06:39 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Couldn't theist spend more time on other things than arguing others about the existence of their imaginary sky daddy? What is your point?
I addressed that when I said something about his god is only interested in arguing about it existence. But, your argument is probably going to be met - Christians are probably going to be credited with having approved of the generation of a scientific political charter, and atheists will be charged with having rejected the idea on its premise.

That's nothing to be proud of.
What the fuck is it that you think you are even saying? I can't even address this, because it is only simulates a coherent statement, without actually being one.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
27-04-2014, 12:55 PM
RE: All of you think I'm crazy already... lol so I'll fuel the fire.
(27-04-2014 12:20 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  What's the beef against proselytizing? Proselytizing is at its root an attempt to convert someone's point of view, usually religious, but not necessarily. That describes 80% of every post in this forum: an attempt to sway opinion. Why the hell else would we even bother talking to each other if not to joggle points of view?

Now I can see being tired of the usual form of religious proselytizing, but I don't see any reason to ban it, and several reasons to accept it. If you're tired of it, ignore it. Its cost to the operation of the forum is non-existent; its cost to you in terms of time spent is entirely your own call.

Ban it, and you start having to define borders around acceptable forms of persuasion and unacceptable forms of persuasion. Those borders get messy and fuzzy. And they require someone's time to police. Why incur the extra overhead?

Ban it, and you risk missing seeing some new perspective. Ban it, and you join the book burners in essential spirit.

If your beef is that proselytizing is offensive, draw your attention to 6 out of any 10 posts in here that are intentionally offensive across a galaxy of contentious matters. That argument won't fly.

I oppose censorship of any kind, personally. Censorship can only be applied out of arrogance: the arrogance that the censor knows better than you what you should be exposed to.

I see standard religious proselytizing and I turn it off. But that's ME turning it off, not someone else turning it off on my behalf. And sometimes, I DON'T turn it off, just to check it out for anything interesting.

We should be careful, getting in a lather over proselytizing, because, really, it's what we all do, some more elegantly and eloquently than others.

I have no problem with a conversation, or even with one with the intent of convincing someone of their view point.

Proselytizing is different. On the surface it can look similar. But someone who is proselytizing is not having a conversation. No back and forth exchange, other than for the purpose pushing their belief on the other.

There is no conversation there, just a talking to. That is proselytizing.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
27-04-2014, 01:17 PM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2014 01:26 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: All of you think I'm crazy already... lol so I'll fuel the fire.
(27-04-2014 12:33 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  The problem is that atheist organizations are so flimsy that arguing with theists is the only way to maintain atheist community, and that is starting to wain.

*wane. Ha. I beat Vosur the grammar Nazi to it. Ha. Tongue

(27-04-2014 12:35 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(27-04-2014 12:24 PM)Charis Wrote:  Taq... bring your GIF, please.

I agree. I give Taq free rein on this one.

From what I seen Tequila does not generally target fellow atheists but rather reserves his venom for the metaphysically stupid. TrainWreck ain't stupid and when his political musings don't include any universally offensive racist comments it means he's being serious and I don't dismiss his ideas out of hand but consider them. When his posts do include universally offensive comments he's trying to be funny. And then he makes me laugh. But I'm in the minority. Maybe even a minority of one. Big Grin

Why no love for the TrainWreck? He's just misunderstood.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 01:18 PM
RE: All of you think I'm crazy already... lol so I'll fuel the fire.
Hmmmm, perhaps Train Wreck is someone on here who really COULD use an irony/sarcasm font.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 01:29 PM
RE: All of you think I'm crazy already... lol so I'll fuel the fire.
TW is being neither sarcastic nor ironic. At least not intentionally.

Taq doesn't stand a chance BTW. My boy TW will chew Taq up like a...um....ah....chewy....McChewerson....?

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stark Raving's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: