Just Wondering.

[Ouroboros]

Donny Darko, I love that movie.

 

(Damn it! I wasn't supposed to post anything here yet. You tricked me! The hobbits tricked me!)

[Legion]

Donny Darko, I love that movie.

I've not yet seen it. But now that I have your recommendation I'll keep an eye out for it.

[Antlerman]

Hans. Explain to me the motives for why this topic was started. Is her complaint invalid? Btw you utterly did not get what I was saying. Sorry.

[Antlerman]

Add this. Label yourself if you wish. Not others. Do your own work.

[Ouroboros]

Hans. Explain to me the motives for why this topic was started. Is her complaint invalid?

Her complaint was that she can't express her religious ideas in this forum. I already responded to that.

 

So we're on 9 pages of discussing it, and still the complaint is that believers have nowhere to go because they're harassed by evil and emotionally detached atheists.

 

Btw you utterly did not get what I was saying. Sorry.

Ok. Sorry about that, because after I answered the OP, I moved on and talked about an expanded thing about the topic, not the OP itself. But perhaps that was wrong. Perhaps we should just close the thread since religious people obviously can't express themselves here.

 

You do understand that the OP was started as a complaint about the chat, not the Spirituality forum, right? So are you suggesting that we should implement more rigid censoring on the chat as well, similar to this forum? I can tell you right now I'm not going to spend time babysitting the chat room to block arrogant atheists from there just to protect people who still have spiritual beliefs. It is what it is, and the alternative is just a lot more work for you and me to police that chat. Right?

[Ouroboros]

Add this. Label yourself if you wish. Not others. Do your own work.

Yes, you're right. "People can have opinions and free fucking speech, but it's clear that all that rationality has killed a fuck of a lot of empathy and basic compassion. If that's what it takes to be a mentally healthy smart atheist, I'll stay an insane dumb little theist, thanks" is not hurtful either. Nope. Not at all.

 

And of course, you're right that Dawkins is full of shit. And I'm full of shit too. And atheists are full of shit even more. But I'm sure no one else is...

[Antlerman]

Hans. Explain to me the motives for why this topic was started. Is her complaint invalid?

Her complaint was that she can't express her religious ideas in this forum. I already responded to that.

 

So we're on 9 pages of discussing it, and still the complaint is that believers have nowhere to go because they're harassed by evil and emotionally detached atheists.

 

Btw you utterly did not get what I was saying. Sorry.

Ok. Sorry about that, because after I answered the OP, I moved on and talked about an expanded thing about the topic, not the OP itself. But perhaps that was wrong. Perhaps we should just close the thread since religious people obviously can't express themselves here.

 

You do understand that the OP was started as a complaint about the chat, not the Spirituality forum, right? So are you suggesting that we should implement more rigid censoring on the chat as well, similar to this forum? I can tell you right now I'm not going to spend time babysitting the chat room to block arrogant atheists from there just to protect people who still have spiritual beliefs. It is what it is, and the alternative is just a lot more work for you and me to police that chat. Right?

So you really don't get what the complaint is I guess. It is not about the chat, and the reason I brought it up is because it underscored what I said and you missed. That point is that even if you may legitiamately feel the term delusional is appropriate for yourself, and that is entirely your right, having others label you that always, always, results in a negative response. This topic was started specifically not about the chat room behavior, but being labeled by others a pejoritve term. "You are delusional".

 

Here's what she said,:

 

If religion/spirituality is such a horrid delusion and mental defect, why is this section here?

 

Maybe we should rename this "the ghetto."

 

Sorry, I don't feel I'm delusional. Shrinks don't think so either. Yes, I do suffer from mental illness, but it's depression and anxiety, so thanks to those who punched my bruises by suggesting the one aspect of my life that keeps me from killing myself is another illness.

 

People can have opinions and free fucking speech, but it's clear that all that rationality has killed a fuck of a lot of empathy and basic compassion. If that's what it takes to be a mentally healthy smart atheist, I'll stay an insane dumb little theist, thanks.

 

And I'm still an ex-Christian. I am one too. And I'm religious. See what you can do about it. Nothing.

I don't know how you can read that and think it's about censorship in the chat room. My point stands. It's use offends people. The proof is right there.

 

I do not label all atheist one thing or another, and I certainly was not meaning to lump you into those who bat that term about as a weapon (which many in fact do). I was saying that no matter how you slice it, when it is used as it has been historically (which almost goes without needing to lay out for you), it is derogatory slam against people's beliefs as a whole. It is not about individuals, but any who think like you is delusional. I know I said this before but you missed that.

[Ouroboros]

Hans. Explain to me the motives for why this topic was started. Is her complaint invalid?

Her complaint was that she can't express her religious ideas in this forum. I already responded to that.

 

So we're on 9 pages of discussing it, and still the complaint is that believers have nowhere to go because they're harassed by evil and emotionally detached atheists.

 

Btw you utterly did not get what I was saying. Sorry.

Ok. Sorry about that, because after I answered the OP, I moved on and talked about an expanded thing about the topic, not the OP itself. But perhaps that was wrong. Perhaps we should just close the thread since religious people obviously can't express themselves here.

 

You do understand that the OP was started as a complaint about the chat, not the Spirituality forum, right? So are you suggesting that we should implement more rigid censoring on the chat as well, similar to this forum? I can tell you right now I'm not going to spend time babysitting the chat room to block arrogant atheists from there just to protect people who still have spiritual beliefs. It is what it is, and the alternative is just a lot more work for you and me to police that chat. Right?

So you really don't get what the complaint is I guess. It is not about the chat, and the reason I brought it up is because it underscored what I said and you missed. That point is that even if you may legitiamately feel the term delusional is appropriate for yourself, and that is entirely your right, having others label you that always, always, results in a negative response. This topic was started specifically not about the chat room behavior, but being labeled by others a pejoritve term. "You are delusional".

 

Here's what she said,:

 

If religion/spirituality is such a horrid delusion and mental defect, why is this section here?

 

Maybe we should rename this "the ghetto."

 

Sorry, I don't feel I'm delusional. Shrinks don't think so either. Yes, I do suffer from mental illness, but it's depression and anxiety, so thanks to those who punched my bruises by suggesting the one aspect of my life that keeps me from killing myself is another illness.

 

People can have opinions and free fucking speech, but it's clear that all that rationality has killed a fuck of a lot of empathy and basic compassion. If that's what it takes to be a mentally healthy smart atheist, I'll stay an insane dumb little theist, thanks.

 

And I'm still an ex-Christian. I am one too. And I'm religious. See what you can do about it. Nothing.

I don't know how you can read that and think it's about censorship in the chat room. My point stands. It's use offends people. The proof is right there.

 

I do not label all atheist one thing or another, and I certainly was not meaning to lump you into those who bat that term about as a weapon (which many in fact do). I was saying that no matter how you slice it, when it is used as it has been historically (which almost goes without needing to lay out for you), it is derogatory slam against people's beliefs as a whole. It is not about individuals, but any who think like you is delusional. I know I said this before but you missed that.

Okay. I get it. It's a term that hurts people. There are other terms that hurt people. People are hurting people with terms all the time. I'm getting hurt by religious people using derogatory terms about "my kind". Other people get hurt by what I say about them when I express what I think about what they believe. It's a circle of hurt.

 

So what's your solution? Everyone shut up? Or everyone get used to it and grow a little resilience against being offended by other people's use of terms?

[badpuppy]

@Vigile, we don’t “know we evolved via a naturalistic means”, that’s an metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality. But... either way, in order for ANY of that to happen, abiogenisis has to be proven as actually possible first. I don’t even want to “touch” big bang, mindless evolution, etc before we nail down abiogenisis.

 

Be careful not to confuse abiogenesis with evolution. They are two separate areas of study.

 

We do know for a fact we evolved from a very simple form of life. Life remained relatively simple for billions of years before it began to gain complexity. At issue is merely the very beginning and that very first, very simple form of life. All we know is we are here and something happened at a time in the very distant past. It makes no sense to me to presuppose magic may have been involved or some other form of intelligence may have been involved when we know for a fact that there was no intelligence or magic involved over those billions and billions of years hence.

 

But if there was, what does it have to do with us today? It seems to me it was very much an absentee entity over 99.999999999...% of biological development.

 

I'm not "confusing abiogenesis with evolution" but we MUST have "life" first for it to evolve. My position is that as SOON as abiogenesis can be reproduced through naturalistic means (i.e. not an intelligent chemist manipulating things in just the right way and tweaking the process repeatedly) then I will accept this is "possible". Science already ruled out spontaneous generation over a hundred years ago. And yet... abiogensis IS spontaneous generation of life. it's a BIG logic problem for me. I don't think it's something we can just "skip over" so we can get to the evolution part. I also think there are problems with the evolution story. (again not saying I don't think it has happened, just that I don't buy certain aspects of it.) But I see no need to even debate evolution until someone can prove to me that life can arise through naturalistic means without falling back on "well, it HAD to have happened that way because the supernatural isn't real". I'm not impressed by that argument.

 

WHEN that happens (life springing up from non-life through random chance), I will adjust my thinking. I also already know about ribozymes and self-replicating RNA. So let's not pretend that is somehow indicative of "life forming from nothing". And the Urey-Miller experiment presupposes an earth environment that may not have actually BEEN the early earth environment, though even if it was, it's still problematic in it's own ways. And if it takes billions of years for life to form by itself... well, that's a faith statement. I'm sorry, but it just is. Science is reproducible and falsifiable. When all it is is a bunch of conjecture about something at some distant point in the past and "well maybe this happened, and that would have had to have happened in order for this to have happened" then we're not talking about science anymore. And redefining everything along a false dichotomy of absolute materialism or "the supernatural", is NOT a solution to the problem.

 

We do NOT know for a fact that we evolved from very simple life forms. We absolutely do not. Stop stating it as a fact when you can't even show me how life could have began by itself in the first place. (Also keep in mind that the original theories for origin of life came about when life was thought to be much simpler than it's turned out to be.) Acting like abiogenesis is completely irrelevant is not acceptable. You can't evolve until you have life to evolve. And evolving from simple to complex means "additional information" being added. It's a clusterfuck (excuse my french) from start to finish. And don't label me as a creationist or IDer. I am NOT either of those things. (I know you're thinking of me in those terms because of your last statement about an absentee being. It's not absentee it's creating right now WE are creating right now. We are it. IMO.)

 

I told you I think this is a group dream. I mean that fairly literally. Creationism/ID is still operating from materialistic assumptions. I reject those assumptions about the nature of reality because they make little sense to me on either side. You are welcome to think my viewpoint is insane but don't mischaracterize it as some outside supernatural force. Mind is not supernatural. I have one and you have one. We have dreams. Nothing supernatural about it. A larger mind having a dream wouldn't be supernatural either.

 

Abiogenesis is an extraordinary claim and we are nowhere near extraordinary proof. Minds having dreams is not extraordinary. It's normal, repeatable, and observed by nearly every human being every day of their lives.

 

Again, my idea, while you may disagree with it or think it's crazy is no more "magic" than you or I having a dream. Why is intelligence magic when it's bigger than yours or merely a collective you are a part of? Isn't that a teeny bit arrogant of a presupposition? Also, when and how did consciousness "evolve"? What purpose did it serve? We can't create artificial intelligence with our own intelligence and yet... a mindless and undirected process over a long time brought us consciousness?

 

Again, I'm not saying you can't be right. I'm saying there isn't even the barest hint of real evidence that you might be. Until that evidence randomly creates itself (sorry, couldn't help it), then I see no reason to just "accept" your assumptions about the nature of reality.

 

For now, I stand by my opinion that matter comes from consciousness, not the other way around. Having some mental block based on primitive and superstitious conceptualizations of "god" doesn't make materialism any more logical.

[badpuppy]

Also, one of the unfortunate issues here is that a lot of things I think about things are things many Creationists/IDers ALSO think. But I disagree with MANY of THEIR assumptions, too. The problem, though, is... anything that "smells like" creationism is going to make someone assume I have some supernatural/creationist view and they're going to shut down and not HEAR me. I'm perfectly comfortable with someone thinking I'm delusional or crazy... just think I'm delusional or crazy about what I actually think rather than what you think I think.

 

Hitler liked dogs. That doesn't make every dog lover a Nazi.

 

The reason I'm not a creationist/ID'er is because they are working from a largely materialistic assumption about the nature of reality and then interject some type of creative force into it. I don't start from the materialistic assumption. Creationism/materialism are two sides of the same coin. I'm off that grid entirely. (This is part of why I identified with Buddhism as my "label" for so long. Because it is neither theistic nor atheistic. It's off the grid. And a lot of it matched with a lot of how I think about things.)

[Ouroboros]

The reason I'm not a creationist/ID'er is because they are working from a largely materialistic assumption about the nature of reality and then interject some type of creative force into it. I don't start from the materialistic assumption. Creationism/materialism are two sides of the same coin. I'm off that grid entirely. (This is part of why I identified with Buddhism as my "label" for so long. Because it is neither theistic nor atheistic. It's off the grid. And a lot of it matched with a lot of how I think about things.)

And I think Buddhism is cool. I would be a Buddhist if I had more interest in having a religion or belief to rely on. And btw, I don't call Buddhism a delusion.

[badpuppy]

The use of the word delusion in fact was and is an attack word.

 

 

Thank you.

[Antlerman]

Hans. Explain to me the motives for why this topic was started. Is her complaint invalid?

Her complaint was that she can't express her religious ideas in this forum. I already responded to that.

 

So we're on 9 pages of discussing it, and still the complaint is that believers have nowhere to go because they're harassed by evil and emotionally detached atheists.

 

Btw you utterly did not get what I was saying. Sorry.

Ok. Sorry about that, because after I answered the OP, I moved on and talked about an expanded thing about the topic, not the OP itself. But perhaps that was wrong. Perhaps we should just close the thread since religious people obviously can't express themselves here.

 

You do understand that the OP was started as a complaint about the chat, not the Spirituality forum, right? So are you suggesting that we should implement more rigid censoring on the chat as well, similar to this forum? I can tell you right now I'm not going to spend time babysitting the chat room to block arrogant atheists from there just to protect people who still have spiritual beliefs. It is what it is, and the alternative is just a lot more work for you and me to police that chat. Right?

So you really don't get what the complaint is I guess. It is not about the chat, and the reason I brought it up is because it underscored what I said and you missed. That point is that even if you may legitiamately feel the term delusional is appropriate for yourself, and that is entirely your right, having others label you that always, always, results in a negative response. This topic was started specifically not about the chat room behavior, but being labeled by others a pejoritve term. "You are delusional".

 

Here's what she said,:

 

If religion/spirituality is such a horrid delusion and mental defect, why is this section here?

 

Maybe we should rename this "the ghetto."

 

Sorry, I don't feel I'm delusional. Shrinks don't think so either. Yes, I do suffer from mental illness, but it's depression and anxiety, so thanks to those who punched my bruises by suggesting the one aspect of my life that keeps me from killing myself is another illness.

 

People can have opinions and free fucking speech, but it's clear that all that rationality has killed a fuck of a lot of empathy and basic compassion. If that's what it takes to be a mentally healthy smart atheist, I'll stay an insane dumb little theist, thanks.

 

And I'm still an ex-Christian. I am one too. And I'm religious. See what you can do about it. Nothing.

I don't know how you can read that and think it's about censorship in the chat room. My point stands. It's use offends people. The proof is right there.

 

I do not label all atheist one thing or another, and I certainly was not meaning to lump you into those who bat that term about as a weapon (which many in fact do). I was saying that no matter how you slice it, when it is used as it has been historically (which almost goes without needing to lay out for you), it is derogatory slam against people's beliefs as a whole. It is not about individuals, but any who think like you is delusional. I know I said this before but you missed that.

Okay. I get it. It's a term that hurts people. There are other terms that hurt people. People are hurting people with terms all the time. I'm getting hurt by religious people using derogatory terms about "my kind". Other people get hurt by what I say about them when I express what I think about what they believe. It's a circle of hurt.

 

So what's your solution? Everyone shut up? Or everyone get used to it and grow a little resilience against being offended by other people's use of terms?

No, not shut up, but to respect when others tell you something hurts, and not try to justify using it. That term is particularly bad because of it's being made famous by Richard Dawkins. It is an abused term, and I personally hate it from all the myriad pots it has, and continues to stir. It's unnecessary.

 

I completely support disagreements. But how would it be if people just started saying "idiot atheists". It too is unnecessary.

[Antlerman]

The use of the word delusion in fact was and is an attack word.

 

 

Thank you.

You're welcome.

[badpuppy]

Dawkins is full of shit.

Hey! You can't say that!

 

I think he should have stuck with studying and elucidating the evolutionary process on Earth. I liked the Blind Watchmaker and the Selfish Gene when I read them many years ago. I'm sure if I read them now though that I would see all kinds of flaws in them. I am certain that Dawkins (as everyone does) has a lot to learn about biology.

 

I have zero respect for Dawkins. Not because he's a materialist, but because he's an unrepentant and quite gleeful asshole. He seems to have lost his humanity right along with his 'god delusion'. IMO it wasn't a trade worth making.

[Ouroboros]

No, not shut up, but to respect when others tell you something hurts, and not try to justify using it. That term is particularly bad because of it's being made famous by Richard Dawkins. It is an abused term, and I personally hate it from all the myriad pots it has, and continues to stir. It's unnecessary.

My point was not to defend it to be used as a large derogatory term for all belief or spirituality. I didn't defend that attitude. What I was defending was that there are legit (in my view) ways of using the term when it comes to religion. I do believe there are delusions in religion, but not all religions and not all beliefs. But still, there are, which can be seen and studied in some psychological journals where religious extremism and delusions have been correlated. It's not totally out of the ballpark, but I agree, it's not a term that can be used for every belief. If there is no evidence for or against a belief, it's just in a void, not a delusion. But if there is a belief that is detrimental to society to groups of people and it's in contradiction to known facts about the world, it is a delusion even if it's a religion or belief. Just by calling it a belief doesn't remove it from what it is.

 

I completely support disagreements. How would it be if people just started saying "idiot atheists". It too is unnecessary.

Well, I've heard it many times and it doesn't bother me. I've been called many names on this board and worse than that.

 

The interesting thing though, I've been called names more often in the political discussions than in religious. I wonder if some (notice "some" not "all) political ideologies can also be delusional? (you don't have to answer that.)

[Ouroboros]

I have zero respect for Dawkins. Not because he's a materialist, but because he's an unrepentant and quite gleeful asshole. He seems to have lost his humanity right along with his 'god delusion'. IMO it wasn't a trade worth making.

And I love Dawkins. He says what he thinks, and he's wrong sometimes. I went to a panel once, and there were things I disagreed with. He's strong minded and stubborn, and many times right, sometimes wrong, but still, I like him.

[badpuppy]

The reason I'm not a creationist/ID'er is because they are working from a largely materialistic assumption about the nature of reality and then interject some type of creative force into it. I don't start from the materialistic assumption. Creationism/materialism are two sides of the same coin. I'm off that grid entirely. (This is part of why I identified with Buddhism as my "label" for so long. Because it is neither theistic nor atheistic. It's off the grid. And a lot of it matched with a lot of how I think about things.)

And I think Buddhism is cool. I would be a Buddhist if I had more interest in having a religion or belief to rely on. And btw, I don't call Buddhism a delusion.

 

 

This is largely why I dropped the label. I want to be a "student of everything and a follower of nothing". I want my views about things to unfold naturally without me ever trying to fit myself into somebody else's box. Even though some people agree with a dream concept like what I have, inevitably they don't think exactly what I think. (Which is fine). Human perception and interpretation is wildly different. And even though I agree a lot with Robert Lanza's biocentrism concept, he doesn't believe in free will (so you might like him, haha!)... which actually I think would work inside the dream concept... but he didn't go so far as to say it's a "dream", I just thought the dream thing fit well with his ideas with no real contradiction.

 

And... even if you thought Buddhism was delusional or I was/am delusional...that's okay. I believe in everybody's right to honestly think and feel how they think and feel. My issue was mainly that the word "delusional" is offensive to many when directed at them. People can THINK it all they want to, but when they say it, they can't act all shocked and appalled that someone was hurt by it. (well, actually, they also have the freedom to react that way, but it shouldn't be shocking LOL)

 

And also I don't think it's right for us to brush aside someone else's hurt feelings for the sake of our need to express ourselves with hurtful words. I don't think it's about free speech so much as it is understanding that the words one chooses to use will be responded to by another person and the response may not be favorable. (And I can often be a forceful smart ass so people sometimes react to my words in less than happy happy ways haha) To brush the person off further or act as if they are overly sensitive or overreacting is to invalidate other people's feelings.

 

When someone tells me I've hurt them I don't try to justify and rationalize what I meant. I might explain what I meant, but I'm still going to say I'm sorry my words hurt them.

[mymistake]

No, not shut up, but to respect when others tell you something hurts, and not try to justify using it.

 

Well I feel hurt when somebody takes my use of the word delusion and turns it into the word delusional. I've tried to explain this for the last four days and I can't seem to get through to people who insist that they can take my use of one word and turn it into the other word. Where is their respect?

 

My "I didn't say delusional." is met with "How come you can't see that it hurt when you say delusional?". I can't make them listen. They want to paint the atheists as lording it over others with "group think" and there just isn't any respect for what was actually said. You quoted the OP in this thread but look at it compared to Interested's comments about what he wants in a significant other. That was what got this thread going. Interested is a bigot for wanting to marry an atheist. But isn't that his right to marry anybody he wants? Pointing out that he has that right is how I got branded as a bad atheist.

 

That term is particularly bad because of it's being made famous by Richard Dawkins. It is an abused term, and I personally hate it from all the myriad pots it has, and continues to stir. It's unnecessary.

 

I find it ridiculous that some people use delusion and delusional interchangeably.

 

I completely support disagreements. But how would it be if people just started saying "idiot atheists". It too is unnecessary.

 

I really wouldn't be bothered by that and I certainly wouldn't talk about suicide over it. I am willing to use less controversial words. I'm even taking advise about it. I would like to see the religious members of this board to single out the real trouble makers who are actually hurting them and not lump all atheists together as "group think" or "fundamentalist atheists". But if I don't get what I want nothing is really going to change. I'm still not going to threaten suicide. That is either a real problem or a cheap tactic. I find it a bit annoying that in order to try to help somebody who might have a real problem I had to go through this huge semantics battle.

[Vigile]

We do NOT know for a fact that we evolved from very simple life forms. We absolutely do not.

 

If you believe that, you're deluded.

 

Sorry, couldn't help myself. But seriously, the burden is on you with this one as you're bucking the biological community and well-accepted science.

 

I told you I think this is a group dream. I mean that fairly literally.

 

Aiy yai yai...

 

I'm outta this...

[badpuppy]

I have zero respect for Dawkins. Not because he's a materialist, but because he's an unrepentant and quite gleeful asshole. He seems to have lost his humanity right along with his 'god delusion'. IMO it wasn't a trade worth making.

And I love Dawkins. He says what he thinks, and he's wrong sometimes. I went to a panel once, and there were things I disagreed with. He's strong minded and stubborn, and many times right, sometimes wrong, but still, I like him.

 

 

The really sad part is... you didn't like him of your own free will. sorry sorry! I had to! You can mess with me, too. haha.

[Vigile]

No, not shut up, but to respect when others tell you something hurts, and not try to justify using it.

 

Sometimes it's accurate. Feel free to disagree. But it's up to you to make it a pejorative even if it's sometimes objectively just a statement of fact.

[Ouroboros]

This is largely why I dropped the label. I want to be a "student of everything and a follower of nothing". I want my views about things to unfold naturally without me ever trying to fit myself into somebody else's box. Even though some people agree with a dream concept like what I have, inevitably they don't think exactly what I think. (Which is fine). Human perception and interpretation is wildly different. And even though I agree a lot with Robert Lanza's biocentrism concept, he doesn't believe in free will (so you might like him, haha!)... which actually I think would work inside the dream concept... but he didn't go so far as to say it's a "dream", I just thought the dream thing fit well with his ideas with no real contradiction.

That's all good with me.

 

And... even if you thought Buddhism was delusional or I was/am delusional...that's okay. I believe in everybody's right to honestly think and feel how they think and feel. My issue was mainly that the word "delusional" is offensive to many when directed at them. People can THINK it all they want to, but when they say it, they can't act all shocked and appalled that someone was hurt by it. (well, actually, they also have the freedom to react that way, but it shouldn't be shocking LOL)

Of course it can be hurtful. I know since every so often there's an article in the media about how atheists are amoral and are considered lower on the scale than rapists. We're almost compared to the devil's spawn just because we don't believe. So I do understand that.

 

And also I don't think it's right for us to brush aside someone else's hurt feelings for the sake of our need to express ourselves with hurtful words.

Is that what we did? I'm not sure how I or any other atheist brushed any victim's feelings aside. Can you give me an example to enlighten me.

 

I don't think it's about free speech so much as it is understanding that the words one chooses to use will be responded to by another person and the response may not be favorable. (And I can often be a forceful smart ass so people sometimes react to my words in less than happy happy ways haha) To brush the person off further or act as if they are overly sensitive or overreacting is to invalidate other people's feelings.

Of course. I don't expect people to be happy to hear what I think about them.

 

I'm sure that people who gets the news they have cancer would rather hear it than the doctor holding it back for fear of hurting the person's emotions. Unfortunately, I have to live with extreme emotional pain and suffering almost daily, and I'm trying my best not to go insane or let my family suffer that fate.

 

When someone tells me I've hurt them I don't try to justify and rationalize what I meant. I might explain what I meant, but I'm still going to say I'm sorry my words hurt them.

Since I wasn't the one making that comment in the chat room, I can't speak for the person. My "rationalizing" was more an explanation of my standpoint and different view on the "all religions are delusional" to show that some atheists actually do understand that not "all religions are delusional." That's not a rationalization or excuse of the phrase "all religions are delusional" but rather to show that I agree that not all religions and beliefs are delusional. And this is a point that I see is missed over and over in this discussion.

 

Let me explain it again:

 

Not all religions and beliefs are delusional.

 

But some are.

 

But not all.

 

 

The reason why I can say some are, is because there are articles in psychological journals drawing correlations between some extreme religious behaviors and views and beliefs and schizophrenia and delusional ideations. I looked as some earlier today. But that's not really important to this discussion.

 

I don't think the OP or you are delusional.

 

But I do think that Young Earth Creationists are.

[Ouroboros]

I have zero respect for Dawkins. Not because he's a materialist, but because he's an unrepentant and quite gleeful asshole. He seems to have lost his humanity right along with his 'god delusion'. IMO it wasn't a trade worth making.

And I love Dawkins. He says what he thinks, and he's wrong sometimes. I went to a panel once, and there were things I disagreed with. He's strong minded and stubborn, and many times right, sometimes wrong, but still, I like him.

 

 

The really sad part is... you didn't like him of your own free will. sorry sorry! I had to! You can mess with me, too. haha.

I'm glad you can deal with it on the humorous side. That's how I deal with life most of the time.

[badpuppy]

No, not shut up, but to respect when others tell you something hurts, and not try to justify using it.

 

Well I feel hurt when somebody takes my use of the word delusion and turns it into the word delusional. I've tried to explain this for the last four days and I can't seem to get through to people who insist that they can take my use of one word and turn it into the other word. Where is their respect?

 

My "I didn't say delusional." is met with "How come you can't see that it hurt when you say delusional?". I can't make them listen. They want to paint the atheists as lording it over others with "group think" and there just isn't any respect for what was actually said. You quoted the OP in this thread but look at it compared to Interested's comments about what he wants in a significant other. That was what got this thread going. Interested is a bigot for wanting to marry an atheist. But isn't that his right to marry anybody he wants? Pointing out that he has that right is how I got branded as a bad atheist.

 

That term is particularly bad because of it's being made famous by Richard Dawkins. It is an abused term, and I personally hate it from all the myriad pots it has, and continues to stir. It's unnecessary.

 

I find it ridiculous that some people use delusion and delusional interchangeably.

 

I completely support disagreements. But how would it be if people just started saying "idiot atheists". It too is unnecessary.

 

I really wouldn't be bothered by that and I certainly wouldn't talk about suicide over it. I am willing to use less controversial words. I'm even taking advise about it. I would like to see the religious members of this board to single out the real trouble makers who are actually hurting them and not lump all atheists together as "group think" or "fundamentalist atheists". But if I don't get what I want nothing is really going to change. I'm still not going to threaten suicide. That is either a real problem or a cheap tactic. I find it a bit annoying that in order to try to help somebody who might have a real problem I had to go through this huge semantics battle.

 

 

MM if you really feel hurt, then I apologize for any part I may have had in it. Now here's the explanation: I wasn't specifically speaking about what YOU said. And if I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be) the original statement that started all this in another thread was the word "delusional" (YOU may have said delusion but I think others said delusional), but from my perspective delusion vs. delusional is merely semantics because one is a noun and one is an adjective describing the state of having that noun. (I'm a writer, I cannot separate my understanding of language and how it interacts in it's different forms from this discussion.)

 

So it doesn't help to change it to a noun because any time you say someone has a delusion, then that person can correctly be described as 'delusional'. There is no way of escaping that fact. Even if you want to. If you don't feel someone is delusional who you may think has a delusion then why or why not? If the word "delusional" is too strong and loaded then is the word "delusion" appropriate and accurate to use? Because it is ACCURATE to say someone holding a delusion is delusional... in context with that particular delusion.

 

Again, like Antlerman said.. it's okay to self-describe as having a delusion but if you tell other people they have a delusion they may find that hurtful and/or arrogant (i.e. how do you KNOW you're right and they are wrong about the issue? Like i mentioned before, some things are easy to determine like that but ALL spirituality and ALL religion cannot fall into the "delusion" category because you simply are not all-knowing about the nature of reality... and neither am I.)

 

Also, you have consistently ignored all of us when we've told you that BOTH the word delusion and delusional when applied to another human being is generally HURTFUL. You've also consistently ignored everybody here telling you that we don't have a problem with "Atheists", we have a problem with certain types of behaviors engaged in by certain atheists. Not all atheists. Not atheism as a philosophy in general.

 

You're simultaneously doing the thing you're complaining about and refusing to acknowledge you're doing it. I ALSO stood beside Interested in that thread and even defended his right to find me delusional and... if I were single and he were otherwise interested... pass over me as a dating option merely for not being a materialist. Because anyone can sleep with or not sleep with anybody they want based upon any subjective criteria they choose. And no one has the right to insist they be PC and "give everybody a chance."

 

Again, I know you aren't just talking about me, as I'm not the only one in this thread, but you do seem to be conveniently ignoring a lot of facts of the exchange, but that of course doesn't negate the fact that I AM sorry if I contributed to you being hurt or frustrated.