Slamming the Christians

[dogmatically_challenged]

Thank you, D_C, for being such a gracious sport about this.  In response to your question in PM about talking theology and history as well as tactics and ethics, I'd be delighted to, though it probably ought to be on a different thread.  If you scroll through my post history you can find quite a bit of my brain droppings on those subjects posted already, particularly in some of Mythra's recent threads posting alongside AUB.

 

-Lokmer

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Lokmer! I am here to learn.

[Cerise]

You don’t want to put people in emotion mode for the arguments; you want to put them into reason mode. That’s our strongest weapon. Emotion is what drives a believer, but reason is what drives us!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Truly do you believe this? I'm with Kierkegaard these days. Today's people have no passion at all. And it is a sad, sad world because of it.

[Ouroboros]

Truly do you believe this?  I'm with Kierkegaard these days.  Today's people have no passion at all.  And it is a sad, sad world because of it.

So what do you consider a better approach?

[dogmatically_challenged]

So what do you consider a better approach?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am curious as well. I'll be a fly on the wall. I'm giving it a rest for a spell. But I would like to read her response to your question.

[Alice]

I am 16 Lokmer. It probably shos huh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

DC -

 

the fact that you are 16 has shown me that I must never underestimate how much I can learn from someone who is 'just 16'.

 

This whole debate did kinda get out of hand at one stage - but it has been your courage and persistence and willingness to learn that ensured it got back on track again.

 

Although I agree with the stance Lokmer and others take on debating with and relating to christians - you did end up on the receiving end of his frustration and anger - and you didn't deserve it (you have by no means been the 'worst offender!')

 

I have learnt from the gracious way you have accepted Lokmer's apology, something well worth emulating.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Thanks Hesitent. I started the whole thing because I misunderstood the Wizard. I was the first one to get emotional. I didn't know that until after I made this thread. I reread the exchanges.

 

Also it ticks me off that I lost my temper like that. Even if I hadn't the first one to get emotional I still had zero excuse to rage like that.

 

 

Thank you Hesitent. I really apreciate hearing this.

[Vigile]

I am 16 Lokmer. It probably shos huh.

 

DC, your age does not show. My god man, I am floored. I thought you were at least 25 and I have got to say that to have your rhetorical ability at any age is astounding, but 16?! Likewise, I think your willingness to be wrong and learn shows a level of maturity that we could all strive for. You will do great things in this world.

 

All right, now don't let any of this go to your head now

[Ouroboros]

I really like Cerise, and I get the feeling she like to do this to me right now:

 

So now I'm curious to what C thinks.

 

---

 

And about passion... I don't agree... I'm full of passion!

It's rather my problem.

[Cerise]

So what do you consider a better approach?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And about passion... I don't agree... I'm full of passion!

It's rather my problem.

 

Well first you said we are driven by reason, while Christians are driven by emotion. And I don't think that can be true. If you are driven by anything it means you feel for it, you have passion. Calm detachment cannot drive you (unless you mean in a physical here-is-a-calmly-detached-car for your riding pleasure TAXI! type way).

 

If something is driving you, there is emotion involved.

 

And truly, I didn't leave Christianity because someone sat down and gave me a perfunctory list of the reasons why I should, or demonstrated scientifically the imporbability of a god, or outlined their thesis on the contradictions of the bible. If I had these things I might have been interested enough to look into what I felt about it, but I would never have left.

 

I did leave because I discovered a passion for justice that (and I'm still working on SOIL believing this) couldn't be satisfied in Christianity, or any current religion I see. Which is why, when I talk to Dennis, he knows not only what I think, but ultimately how I feel towards his religion. He thinks and feels the opposite, that there is a justice to Christianity that cannot be satisfied in a godless world. How we interact is always going to be filled with emotion, because we converse in the place where our passions for justice intersect and then move off into opposite directions.

 

I daresay that's what makes it so interesting. But regardless, no matter how much Dennis thinks about conversion, he won't ever do it unless it feels like the right thing to do. Just like I wouldn't rejoin Chrisitianity unless this passion of mine could be soothed by it.

 

I agree with Kierkegaard that I would rather have one sinner with passion for something, rather then a hundred piously dull plodders, levelling the playing field without regard for the ideas it runs over.

 

Passion and The Present Age

[Ouroboros]

I see you got a point, but to counter your argument a bit…

 

The passion and emotions exists on both sides, but are the arguments for a non-faith only based on emotions? Wasn’t your emotional need for justice also based on a rational thought that justice wasn’t reached in religion?

 

Do you consider a heated, aggressive and personal argument done by passion being more productive than a calm, rational and polite, but still with passion? Can a river of water flowing slowly, but with power, still move a rock? Or does the river have to be violent to do it?

[Cerise]

I see you got a point, but to counter your argument a bit…

 

The passion and emotions exists on both sides, but are the arguments for a non-faith only based on emotions? Wasn’t your emotional need for justice also based on a rational thought that justice wasn’t reached in religion?

 

Do you consider a heated, aggressive and personal argument done by passion being more productive than a calm, rational and polite, but still with passion? Can a river of water flowing slowly, but with power, still move a rock? Or does the river have to be violent to do it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Have you ever seen someone be calm rational and polite and still passionate? I would be extremely worried if I saw someone trying to be all these things at once. I might suspect a case of MPD.

 

I repeat, I would never have left Christianity if "rational thought" were all that was offered to me upon leaving. Never.

Otherwise I could have very simply argued my way out of the whole "justice problem" by very rationally thinking that as I am fallible and human, it would not be my place to solve the world's problems.

 

Feeling leads to action. And hopefully when you think, you also feel deeply.

 

I have told professors many times when they comment on my essays that I will never write on a subject for which I don't feel any passion or excitement about. IT would be a waste of my talents and of their time.

 

Fortunately, I feel passionately about a lot of things in my field. That's why I chose it.

[Ouroboros]

Have you ever seen someone be calm rational and polite and still passionate?  I would be extremely worried if I saw someone trying to be all these things at once.  I might suspect a case of MPD.

I would say that our arguments right now are passionate but still very polite and calm. So I can't say that I agree with you here. Our sub-thread actually is proving my point!

 

And besides, I think we all have MP, it's only a matter of how strong our frontal lobe filters the different thoughts. We do have conflicting emotions and reasons, and we do "talk" to ourselves in our mind. So, yes, we all have MPD to some degree.

 

When I correct my children for doing something bad, I try not to raise my voice, and I try not to call them "fucking stupid morons" -- even though it’s what I want to say -- but I'm still very passionate about why they shouldn't do what they're doing. My son probably can support me on this, that sometimes when I've been extremely angry, I go in their face, and speak with a low but harsh voice, but I'm not calling them names and I'm not rude. I use logic, but with a lot of passion in every word I'm saying.

 

Do you have any kids Cerise?

 

I repeat, I would never have left Christianity if "rational thought" were all that was offered to me upon leaving.  Never. 

Otherwise I could have very simply argued my way out of the whole "justice problem" by very rationally thinking that as I am fallible and human, it would not be my place to solve the world's problems. 

 

Feeling leads to action.  And hopefully when you think, you also feel deeply.

But what kind of action; does passionate actions have to lead to violence? Is a war the only way to get through a point? I don't think so, because I haven't seen you being rude in any arguments (as I can remember). So You argue with logic and politeness, and yet with passion. You are probably a pretty good template for what I’m trying to say!

 

My standpoint is that we should argue with Christians the way you and I are doing right now. Name calling doesn't help. That was my point in this sub-thread. We can talk with passion, but rudeness and name calling doesn’t help us.

 

I have told professors many times when they comment on my essays that I will never write on a subject for which I don't feel any passion or excitement about.  IT would be a waste of my talents and of their time.

See! There you go, you can write an essay with passion, and I'm sure you're using logic and good rationale in it too. I guess you don't start with name calling and angry slamming at people of the opposite opinion, but you actually do it with reasoning. Or am I mistaken? I sure hope the professors don’t give you extra points for each ad hominem you can put in the essay.

 

Fortunately, I feel passionately about a lot of things in my field.  That's why I chose it.

And I agree with that. I feel passionate about life and people, and care for people even when they are misled, misinformed and delusional as religious people are.

[Cerise]

I would say that our arguments right now are passionate but still very polite and calm. So I can't say that I agree with you here. Our sub-thread actually is proving my point!

 

I think we are speaking on different points.

When I correct my children for doing something bad, I try not to raise my voice, and I try not to call them "fucking stupid morons" -- even though it’s what I want to say -- but I'm still very passionate about why they shouldn't do what they're doing. My son probably can support me on this, that sometimes when I've been extremely angry, I go in their face, and speak with a low but harsh voice, but I'm not calling them names and I'm not rude. I use logic, but with a lot of passion in every word I'm saying.

 

Why are we suddenly talking about being rude? I was never talking about being rude. Or calling people names.

 

Do you have any kids Cerise?

 

I'm only 22. So nope.

 

But what kind of action; does passionate actions have to lead to violence? Is a war the only way to get through a point? I don't think so, because I haven't seen you being rude in any arguments (as I can remember). So You argue with logic and politeness, and yet with passion. You are probably a pretty good template for what I’m trying to say!

 

And violence, why are we talking about violence? Was I ever talking about violence before?

 

My standpoint is that we should argue with Christians the way you and I are doing right now. Name calling doesn't help. That was my point in this sub-thread. We can talk with passion, but rudeness and name calling doesn’t help us.

 

But sometimes name calling does help. When I see a lie, I call the person saying it a liar. That is a name. If I see something that makes me sick, I call it sickening. That is a name. Name calling for the sake of name calling does not do much, 'tis true. But when has this ever been a single line thread?

 

See! There you go, you can write an essay with passion, and I'm sure you're using logic and good rationale in it too. I guess you don't start with name calling and angry slamming at people of the opposite opinion, but you actually do it with reasoning. Or am I mistaken? I sure hope the professors don’t give you extra points for each ad hominem you can put in the essay.

 

Why are we talking about ad hominems? I was talking about passion.

 

And I agree with that. I feel passionate about life and people, and care for people even when they are misled, misinformed and delusional as religious people are.

 

Ah...you just said a lot of names. Misled. Misinformed. Delusional. But is this an exemption?

[Ouroboros]

I think we are speaking on different points.

Maybe, it could be the reason why we can’t come to an understanding.

 

Why are we suddenly talking about being rude?  I was never talking about being rude.  Or calling people names.

In my previous posts, before the ones you made comments on, I was talking about that I don’t like when we attack Christians that come to this site with name calling and rude remarks, so that’s what we actually are trying to establish here.

 

I never said you’ve done it, and that’s why I was surprised when you started to questioning my points, because you haven’t done anything like that towards anyone yet.

 

I'm only 22.  So nope.

Just a baby.

 

And violence, why are we talking about violence?  Was I ever talking about violence before?

I’m trying to make a point that passion doesn’t have to lead to violence, or even extreme rage, or even loud voices, or even rudeness. My arguments have been through this whole thread that we can be civil in our arguments, and still get results. But don’t misunderstand me that it’s not necessary to sometimes be rude or name calling.

 

I think our misunderstanding here is about; can we ever be rude to a Christian? My answer is, Oh, absolutely; you can be rude and belittle a Christian as much as you want.

 

But my argument was from the beginning of this topic: do we start the first response to a Christian in the most demeaning and belittling way possible? And to that my answer is: No, you start with polite responses. Later on you can put more pressure and more passion into it, if you so like, but I’ve seen some threads here on this site that the first response a Christian get is “f*ck off!” which I don’t consider a good response to a question.

 

But sometimes name calling does help.  When I see a lie, I call the person saying it a liar.  That is a name.  If I see something that makes me sick, I call it sickening.  That is a name.  Name calling for the sake of name calling does not do much, 'tis true.  But when has this ever been a single line thread?

I agree, but I don’t start with name calling before I know what kind of person I’m talking to, or if the other person starts calling me names.

 

Why are we talking about ad hominems?  I was talking about passion.

Because in this thread, all my postings has been about how we do our responses, and that ad hominem are not required as the first response when we have a disagreement. And your and mine discussion here, in this sub-thread, proves my point.

 

My posting where I compared Christian’s emotional arguments against our rational arguments, and I tried to make a point that rationality is our best weapon; you disagreed and wanted us to use passion instead. You didn’t agree that rationality has anything to do with arguing with Christians. So in my larger-thread I talk about our attitude, overall, and we submerged into a particular part of it where passion became the keyword.

 

Ah...you just said a lot of names.  Misled.  Misinformed.  Delusional.  But is this an exemption?

He, he! I think you missed my point. First I haven’t called you any names yet, and I won’t, and second it was directed to the group, and not an ad hominem. My argument is that there’s no need to start calling You any names in the beginning of our discussion. And if the discussion goes deeper, we maybe would start to resolve to name calling each other, and that’s ok.

 

My point again is: we don’t start a discussion that way, with name calling and rude remarks, but you will surely end one when you do.

[Guest vanesa]

Guess who's back!!!!!!

 

This time I want some REAL debate from the Xtians. Oh, don't worry. I won't slam and blam you like I did before. I just now see that there is some real debate ever since I left.

 

I'll tell you why I and others slam the Xtians. They act up and cause trouble, and people are going to give them shit about it. IF the Xtians would knock it off and leave everyone alone, then maybe most of the enlightened half of humanity wouldn't be bashing the Jesus followers at every step. As far as the libural Xtians are concerned, if you all were a bit more vigilant in shutting up the more konservative wings of your organization, then maybe we wouldn't have so many people talking smack about Big Daddy Jesus.

[Ouroboros]

Welcome back Vanesa! I wondered where you've gone.

 

I haven't seen any postings from you in a while, and this topic is perfect for you. Am I right?

[Mythra]

Now I feel old...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hanolo, the senior?

 

He's just wise beyond his years.

 

I've got gym shorts older than Hansolo.

[Cerise]

 

I never said you’ve done it, and that’s why I was surprised when you started to questioning my points, because you haven’t done anything like that towards anyone yet.

 

I questioned one point. The point was this:

 

You don’t want to put people in emotion mode for the arguments; you want to put them into reason mode. That’s our strongest weapon. Emotion is what drives a believer, but reason is what drives us!

 

My argument is: what "modes" we want people in shouldn't matter. Personally, I'm not here or talking to Christians because I want to get them "on my side" or make the agree with me. Talking to someone doesn't hinge on them agreeing with me (which is probably why I find discussions with "let's agree to disagree" so unsatisfying. The point wasn't to agree on anything!) as much as it hinges on expressing myself in a way that makes my thoughts and feelings clear, not only to whoever I'm talking to, but to myself as well. I don't need my discussion partner to be in any particular "mode" for that.

 

And I really don't think reason is our strongest weapon. It is a weapon, to be sure, but if we say that is strongest I think we fool ourselves. Like I said before, reason wasn't why I left in the end. It was part of it, but it wasn't the action maker, the decision maker. Reason was just a tool used to arrive at a place where I knew an action had to be made.

 

And I don't think we can truly say that emotion is what drives a believer while reason is what drives us.

 

My posting where I compared Christian’s emotional arguments against our rational arguments, and I tried to make a point that rationality is our best weapon; you disagreed and wanted us to use passion instead. You didn’t agree that rationality has anything to do with arguing with Christians. So in my larger-thread I talk about our attitude, overall, and we submerged into a particular part of it where passion became the keyword.

 

I don't want you to "use" passion to do anything. But having it is a good thing.

 

And I think rationality has a lot to do with arguing with Christians. But It isn't the most important thing. Nor is it the only thing.

[Ouroboros]

Hanolo, the senior?

 

He's just wise beyond his years.

 

I've got gym shorts older than Hansolo.

Really! You're gym shorts have gone through many repairs if that's the case.

 

How old are you again? I'm turning 40 this year.

[Mythra]

I'm 49 next week. But I'm a very studly 49. Three more years and work becomes an option for me.

 

p.s. I didn't say I spent a lot of time in the gym.

 

A toast to those of us quadragenarians.

[Ouroboros]

My argument is:  what "modes" we want people in shouldn't matter.  Personally, I'm not here or talking to Christians because I want to get them "on my side" or make the agree with me.  Talking to someone doesn't hinge on them agreeing with me (which is probably why I find discussions with "let's agree to disagree" so unsatisfying.  The point wasn't to agree on anything!) as much as it hinges on expressing myself in a way that makes my thoughts and feelings clear, not only to whoever I'm talking to, but to myself as well.  I don't need my discussion partner to be in any particular "mode" for that.

 

And I really don't think reason is our strongest weapon.  It is a weapon, to be sure, but if we say that is strongest I think we fool ourselves.  Like I said before, reason wasn't why I left in the end.  It was part of it, but it wasn't the action maker, the decision maker.  Reason was just a tool used to arrive at a place where I knew an action had to be made.

 

And I don't think we can truly say that emotion is what drives a believer while reason is what drives us.

I don't want you to "use" passion to do anything.  But having it is a good thing.

 

And I think rationality has a lot to do with arguing with Christians.  But It isn't the most important thing.  Nor is it the only thing.

I get the feeling that we actually do agree. You were talking about the passion or rage and anger towards Christianity as a whole that we have internally, while I was talking about how we express the passion or rage. I’m not against the passion we feel for something, but how we sometimes let it come out. And you might be right that reason is not our strongest weapon, so I will spend some time thinking about it.

 

See, our civil way of discussing actually benefited us both, by making me think about something I said. So reason can affect emotions as much as emotions can drive our reasoning.

 

My personal frustration was directed to how we greet people of different opinion, and it was based on some topics we’ve had here on the site with Christians, that they got slammed just because they made a statement, and I don’t agree to start a discussion with abusive language or crude remarks early on. It might very well get to that point, but it doesn’t have to start there.

 

To have passion is good, and both you and me have it, and in my opinion we’ve both been very polite to state our points, but with passion. Isn’t it so?

 

I think we agree on this point. We probably base our understandings on emotions as much as Christians do, but then it would come to how we deal with it in a discussion with a Christian, and that’s what this topic was about.

 

And when it comes to my reasons to have a discussion is not so much about trying to change my “opponents” opinions, but rather to learn more about the other people’s opinions and objectives, as well as learning more about me and understand myself better.

 

*** edit

 

And you're right, we don't have to put people in a certain mode to have a discussion. That was a badly formulated phrase by me.

[Ouroboros]

I'm 49 next week.  But I'm a very studly 49.  Three more years and work becomes an option for me.

 

p.s.  I didn't say I spent a lot of time in the gym. 

 

A toast to those of us quadragenarians.

Yeah! Sheers to us oldies!

 

Okey, if you don't spend much time in the gym, that's why they have been saved untarnished for so long...

[Guest fit2btied]

I have to preface this commentary by saying that I am totally understand that everyone has a right to vent. Everyone here e for a reason, and its up to you to make that experience a positive one.

 

.. snipped

 

Peace

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest fit2btied]

I have to say that it is definately a very hard decision, to leave my religion, but now I can be who I am, not what these hypocrites in my community expect me to bebe

I have to preface this commentary by saying e for a reason, and its up to you to make that experience a positive one.

 

..snipped

 

Peace

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Ouroboros]

I have to say that it is definately  a very  hard decision, to leave my religion, but now I can be who I am, not what these hypocrites in my community expect me to bebe

Hi F2B, I think I said welcome already, but I do it again, welcome!

 

What's your point? Do you somewhat agree to Eponymics statement or do you disagree?