Hi My Name Is Aaron And Im A Christian How Are You Today/nite/morning/afternoon?

[Antlerman]

I recognize the word "woo" is offensive. However I am offended by the idea that I have to treat other people's religion as if it is in touch with reality. Do you have suggestions on how to show respect for a person when they insist on sharing absurdity as if it is reality? This is actually a problem that goes beyond this forum and into real life.

My first problem with it is that it get's applied to members of this site. That's not helpful, and worse, not just calling their beliefs woo, but referring to them with such caustic epithets as "the woos", which I've read quite a lot of and find offensive, like saying you freaks. That to me depletes intellect to brand people like that. But as far as having to treat other people's religion as if it is in touch with reality, I don't believe that saying to use intelligent words is asking for that. Obviously I too can look at some people's views as pretty loopy, I'm not talking just a different way of looking at the world (there are in fact quite a great deal of entirely valid ways to view and understand reality, a spiritual view being one of them, without being out of touch with anything), but those that are in fact 'nutty'. If I am talking about someone whose genuinely nutty after considering all other reasonable and valid alternatives, who thinks things such as drinking poison kool-aide will take them to meet the mothership in the tail of a comet. That's just nuts. But the people themselves are just unfortunate folk on a collision course with disaster.

 

As far as showing respect to those with other views, just simply say 'I appreciate what you're saying from your point of view. I don't see things that way for myself." What's the point in attacking them? If they try to tell you you're wrong and are lost and on your way to hell, then again, rinse and repeat. "I don't see things that way for myself. I don't share those fears you have for me". And one thing I want to add though, is that just because someone's view of reality may seem absurd, you have to ask yourself is it really? Just because you don't understand it, or have never looked at something that way yourself, doesn't necessarily make it absurd. Don't apply what you've left in your own past to all those who 'sound similar'. That may in fact be just surface words with entirely different reality underneath it. It's a good thing to not judge others, but be true to yourself which includes showing respect to them from the high road, not getting on their level and calling them lost right back at them.

[LivingLife]

Lion's Den Rules

 

Attention "True Christians™" and former Christians.

 

This is the section of the board where Christian opinions, arguments, sermons and so on will be more-or-less tolerated. Aggressive evangelism is permitted in this section, but aggressive evangelists should be ready to be met by equally aggressive resistance.

 

An occasionally heated response is allowed and sometimes even encouraged. However, all posters to the Lion's Den are still expected to adhere the general rules of decorum as delineated in the Forum Guidelines. In other words, conversations in the Lion's Den are intended to be permissively unrestrained without devolving into repetitious verbal abuse. Those who are identified as repeatedly abusive -- in this section or any section of this website -- may be suspended or banned from posting without notice.

 

Note: In view of the fiery nature of the discussions which occur in the Lion's Den, only those with a fairly thick skin should participate.

[Antlerman]

IMO, you are trying to project the rules of Spirituality forum into the LD.

"The woos." It is in fact an offensive term and nobody likes it applied to them. Am I trying to project the rules of the Spirituality forum into the LD? No. I am a moderator of this site, and using language repeatedly cast at fellow members that offends them violates the rules of this entire forum. This is not about any one group of people grinding their axes at the expense of fellow members. This site is to encourage all members, not insult them with derogatory labels because you fancy yourself superior to them. If I as a moderator am asking you to lay off the unnecessary derogatory terms in reference to members in the interest of creating a supportive community, than those are the rules wherever I say. This is in keeping with the sites policies, and the liberal power we have as moderation staff. Don't try to tell me how to moderate this site.

 

You're not be asking to avoiding challenging people, not at all. Don't misconstrue that with this.

 

 

Speaking as a member, again, in the interest of having an intelligent discussion with you, I find it virtually impossible to get past language laced with such pejoratives which cast entire groups of people as "the woos". I honestly can't get past someone who just can't keep themselves from spewing editorial comments. That is not intelligent discourse. Period. Even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with me or anyone on the site. I hate language like, "the chinks, the nigs, the woos, the babes, the chicks, the broads, etc. Are you incapable of rising above that in discussion, especially when the other party has told you he finds it offensive? If so, then I'll take every other thing you say in light of that. It's all emotional spew, and I'm not interested in talking with someone like that.

[Antlerman]

P.S. You're pushing it when you try to quote forum rules at me.

[mymistake]

I recognize the word "woo" is offensive. However I am offended by the idea that I have to treat other people's religion as if it is in touch with reality. Do you have suggestions on how to show respect for a person when they insist on sharing absurdity as if it is reality? This is actually a problem that goes beyond this forum and into real life.

My first problem with it is that it get's applied to members of this site. That's not helpful, and worse, not just calling their beliefs woo, but referring to them with such caustic epithets as "the woos", which I've read quite a lot of and find offensive, like saying you freaks. That to me depletes intellect to brand people like that. But as far as having to treat other people's religion as if it is in touch with reality, I don't believe that saying to use intelligent words is asking for that. Obviously I too can look at some people's views as pretty loopy, I'm not talking just a different way of looking at the world (there are in fact quite a great deal of entirely valid ways to view and understand reality, a spiritual view being one of them, without being out of touch with anything), but those that are in fact 'nutty'. If I am talking about someone whose genuinely nutty after considering all other reasonable and valid alternatives, who thinks things such as drinking poison kool-aide will take them to meet the mothership in the tail of a comet. That's just nuts. But the people themselves are just unfortunate folk on a collision course with disaster.

 

As far as showing respect to those with other views, just simply say 'I appreciate what you're saying from your point of view. I don't see things that way for myself." What's the point in attacking them? If they try to tell you you're wrong and are lost and on your way to hell, then again, rinse and repeat. "I don't see things that way for myself. I don't share those fears you have for me". And one thing I want to add though, is that just because someone's view of reality may seem absurd, you have to ask yourself is it really? Just because you don't understand it, or have never looked at something that way yourself, doesn't necessarily make it absurd. Don't apply what you've left in your own past to all those who 'sound similar'. That may in fact be just surface words with entirely different reality underneath it. It's a good thing to not judge others, but be true to yourself which includes showing respect to them from the high road, not getting on their level and calling them lost right back at them.

 

Looking at your answer you seem mostly geared to LL's conversation about this website. My question is more about life in general. It relates to what happens in ex-C between skeptics and religious people but is overshadowed by how much more of it happens offline.

 

The people who drink poison are the ones who were unlucky. Religious thinking is putting on a blindfold and charging full speed through a minefield. It is not in touch with reality. It's choosing to ignore reality. And when people choose to ignore reality there can be consequences if they go too far. Religion is counter productive to the search for the truth.

 

As for "what's the point in attacking them" uh it hurts to watch so many people I care about delude themselves and make random choices for random reasons. (now I'm not saying that "attacking it" is the right thing to do. Just talking about the motives) Because of social obligations I can't talk about how much it bothers me to watch religion disrupt all these lives. Everywhere I go religious people expect me to treat their set of pet beliefs as if it's reality. It's very frustrating. On top of that they are constantly expecting me to join them in their delusion. And they expect me to not laugh when they point out how members of other religions as so deluded.

 

I use to be religious myself so I do understand how much fun it is to be religious. However religion is very divisive. All religion is divisive. That fun religious people have with religion does not come free. You see this as skeptics picking on believers but I see it as the divisiveness that religion carries around everywhere it goes. I am expected to ignore crazy behavior if it's part of religion and often that is an unrealistic expectation. I feel crazy having to watch all this unless I get to talk about it.

[LivingLife]

IMO, you are trying to project the rules of Spirituality forum into the LD.

"The woos." It is in fact an offensive term and nobody likes it applied to them. Am I trying to project the rules of the Spirituality forum into the LD? No.

Yes you are IMO but let us look at the context I last used the word WOO

Is it the not same pleading the woos use to be left to their own beliefs inferring folk like us should simply shaddup?

How did that reflect on you or anyone here. I was specifically referring to evangelicals. Then I said...

It sounds the same to me. The difference is the alternate spiritually folk are generally no danger to others and most (here anyway) do not even make a blip on the radar screen.

 

Really if you are unable to read the context and see what I am saying, you have a problem, not me.

 

I am a moderator of this site, and using language repeatedly cast at fellow members that offends them violates the rules of this entire forum. This is not about any one group of people grinding their axes at the expense of fellow members. This site is to encourage all members, not insult them with derogatory labels because you fancy yourself superior to them. If I as a moderator am asking you to lay off the unnecessary derogatory terms in reference to members in the interest of creating a supportive community, than those are the rules wherever I say. This is in keeping with the sites policies, and the liberal power we have as moderation staff. Don't try to tell me how to moderate this site.

Non sequitur. You are projecting and drawing conclusions where there are none to be had.

 

You're not be asking to avoiding challenging people, not at all. Don't misconstrue that with this.

 

Speaking as a member, again, in the interest of having an intelligent discussion with you, I find it virtually impossible to get past language laced with such pejoratives which cast entire groups of people as "the woos". I honestly can't get past someone who just can't keep themselves from spewing editorial comments. That is not intelligent discourse. Period.

 

Bolded and enlarged to illustrate the obvious veiled threat in this post and the one following.

 

One mention and you are back on your high horse just like the last time, seems nothing changed from your side although you promised to change. I am sorry if this offends you but I call it like I see it. You have a personal issue with me and it is more than simply the term WOO.

 

WTF that is, I cannot fathom out unless you are someone else on another forum I have pissed off.

Even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with me or anyone on the site. I hate language like, "the chinks, the nigs, the woos, the babes, the chicks, the broads, etc.

I do not use anything other than WOO abut let us pause there for a moment...

 

Quite a few folk have stated your postings are condescending and you have talked your way around this to infer no this is not what you meant blah blah blah.... I am not the only one seeing this. IT IS NO DIFFERENT on the face of it than the crap xians espouse. You are the one projecting superiority not me

Are you incapable of rising above that in discussion, especially when the other party has told you he finds it offensive? If so, then I'll take every other thing you say in light of that. It's all emotional spew, and I'm not interested in talking with someone like that.

Well don't talk to me then. You are the only one claiming to take offense EVEN WHEN IT WAS NOT DIRECTED AT YOU OR ANY OTHER MEMBERS HERE, XIAN OR NOT.

 

Other mods do not seem to have an issue with me as I post everywhere and on many different topics. You seem to be singling me out and is verging on internet stalking - hardly the correct decorum for a moderator.

 

I had a reply similar to this but decided not to take your bait and just posted the rules and definitions. But it seems you really want a brawl outside the pub now.

 

You opened up, I toned down, opened up and shared and then you decided not to pursue the topic any further with me,

 

NOW THIS SHIT AGAIN?????

 

Here is a question for your persecuted persona.

 

Have any atheists quoted a post of yours or your fellow spirtualists and brought it into the Den under a new topic to ridicule you or the other members?

 

Or more specific HAVE I EVER DONE THIS?

 

The answer in an emphatic NO.

 

So why not come clean and tell everyone what gripe you have with me personally, It definitely is more than just the word WOO I occasionally use.

[blackpudd1n]

As far as the things I present, they assuredly are not bullshit. They draw from areas of modernity, post-modernity, and more where I am at in a post-post-modernity.

 

Ah. Post-modernity. I understand perfectly now.

 

I had a feeling you were of a post-modernist bent. I don't believe that it is possible to draw from areas of modernity and post-modernity, as the two philosophical movements are so diametrically opposed. And as far as I am aware, post-post-modernity as not been clearly defined as yet, though considering how badly defined post-modernity was, that is not surprising.

 

I am not a fan of post-modernism, and if you are of a post-modernist bent, we will never see eye-to-eye. While modernity may have had its faults, in my view post-modernity has had some disastrous consequences in its non-heirarchial view of knowledge. The most concerning of these consequences that I perceive is the rise of the Intelligent Design movement, which has clearly exploited the view that science is not the be-all and end-all of knowledge. I also lay the balme for the increased tolerance of the ill-effects of fundamentalism firmly at the feet of post-modernity. And I am aware of the debate in many academic circles as to the validity of post-modernism as a philosophical movement. I myself cannot see the validity of a movement that pertains to no structure, when humans, by their very nature, enjoy structure. We are animals of routine.

[Antlerman]

Speaking as a member, again, in the interest of having an intelligent discussion with you, I find it virtually impossible to get past language laced with such pejoratives which cast entire groups of people as "the woos". I honestly can't get past someone who just can't keep themselves from spewing editorial comments. That is not intelligent discourse. Period.

 

Bolded and enlarged to illustrate the obvious veiled threat in this post and the one following.

No that was not a veiled threat. I was being straight forward that I don't like dialog with people who lace their verbiage like this. I desire reasoned discussion, and these are unnecessary epithets in intelligent discourse. That was me speaking of what I personally find acceptable in dialog for me. No threat at all.

 

The only threat I did allude to was as a moderator in regards to throwing forum rules at me to tell me how I should and shouldn't moderate the site. That I said was pushing it, and it is. I know full well what the expectations of the moderation staff is by the Webmaster of this site, and I am well within my rights to make a call on an individual's actions when I see fit. I have been the primary moderator of this forum here in the LD for over 5 years, until we recently made them less 'primary mod' based anymore. You cannot overlook your actions in already accusing me publicly of abusing my moderator role on a couple occasions, saying I hide my arguments about religion behind it, which that accusation got ripped to shreds rather quickly by friends and foes alike, as well as one of the other super-moderators of this site. Now you throw rules at me as though I am not more than fully aware of the spirit of their meaning. They are guidelines for moderation staff to make their judgement calls around, not binding laws upon them. That is pushing it with me in my role as a moderator, and that will evoke a threat from me back at that point. Not to fear, I know where my personal feelings and my role as a moderator lie, and I will not act as a mod for anything less than a site-related reason.

 

One mention and you are back on your high horse just like the last time, seems nothing changed from your side although you promised to change. I am sorry if this offends you but I call it like I see it. You have a personal issue with me and it is more than simply the term WOO.

Perhaps so. I am being honest when I say how much it grates against me to hear it. I'm honestly not entirely sure why, beyond what I've already stated. Try this, and I'm being quite open here, that in all honesty how you judge and criticize others as 'the woo', is to me on an intellectual level really not insightful at all, and subsequently I feel that extended across the board to frankly include me personally. Why should that bother me that you have a narrow view of others and making sweeping judgments? In a word, I am sick of divisiveness, dividing this group from that group. That's what I hear in your rhetoric, and what bothers me so deeply is that the basis for it is frighteningly naive and aggressive. That disdain you express to entire groups, can easily be understood to extend to others including all the members of this site who don't think like you.

 

When I first began presenting the rationale for my thinking, your responses initially were highly combative, "Strawman", dismissive of my presentation, etc. I knee-jerk reacted as I admit to doing with you, and I believe it is because you were treating me in such a way that you viewed me as some religious apologist. Your other rhetoric stated that as well, suggesting I start my own forum, telling me this is the Lion's Den, etc. and then accusing me of abusing my moderator role using it to hide behind in shoving my views upon others. Wow, yes, the impression I get of your disdain of 'the woos' was handed to me directly, it seemed.

 

Am I mistaken? I would love to be. I would prefer intelligent dialog with you, but I honestly do keep coming back to this. This is why I was trying to get us past what is bothering me in your rhetoric by asking you to lay off the use of 'the woos'. I do see that as extended to the other members of this site, as this term of yours is repeated throughout the site, and the message is clear. You see those who don't think in materialist ways as irrational fools. I sure as hell am not. All I'm asking is you back off the rhetoric and lets see if we can't get to real discussion.

 

Quite a few folk have stated your postings are condescending and you have talked your way around this to infer no this is not what you meant blah blah blah....

And there we go again... actually I apologized directly for coming off that way. I acknowledge it. How about you and your condescending rhetoric?

 

I am not the only one seeing this. IT IS NO DIFFERENT on the face of it than the crap xians espouse. You are the one projecting superiority not me

Maybe we both are. Possible?

 

Well don't talk to me then. You are the only one claiming to take offense EVEN WHEN IT WAS NOT DIRECTED AT YOU OR ANY OTHER MEMBERS HERE, XIAN OR NOT.

Oh, I think Mymistake himself just posted a little bit ago that it is an offensive term. Rise above it man. Aren't you more intelligent than that?

 

Other mods do not seem to have an issue with me as I post everywhere and on many different topics. You seem to be singling me out and is verging on internet stalking - hardly the correct decorum for a moderator.

And there you go again accusing me of fucking moderator abuse. What a lame deflection off yourself and your own attitudes. Keep dragging that into this and I'll be happy to show you that moderator hat and give you a healthy time-out from this site.

 

Have any atheists quoted a post of yours or your fellow spirtualists

Me and my fellow spiritualists??? JESUS FUCKING MOOSBALLS! As Kevin likes to say! This is that grouping bullshit that I called you on! You label members of this site, you drive and create divisions. That is what you are doing I object to. Not only as a member but as a moderator.

 

You don't get it do you? Are you dense? OK, moderator hat:

 

 

This site is about encouraging all members trying to find support in whatever path they choose to go as individuals. You do not have to agree with them, you are free to discuss and disagree, but creating camps of "us and them" (You and your fellow spiritualists") is unhealthy for this site. If you wish to have a site more to your liking that is solely for your particular flavor of Atheism, you are free to start your own forum elsewhere. Going forward I expect you to be mindful of the membership here as people of one community, and not a membership divided into atheists and woos. Knock it off. This is not a request.

[Akheia]

The idea that ID might be a consequence of post-modernism is fascinating. Just saying. The inherently anti-hierarchical structure of ID and other nutty ideas that have gained traction in the last generation or so seems like it had to come from somewhere.

[blackpudd1n]

The idea that ID might be a consequence of post-modernism is fascinating. Just saying. The inherently anti-hierarchical structure of ID and other nutty ideas that have gained traction in the last generation or so seems like it had to come from somewhere.

 

Yes, it is a question that I keep coming back to, as I look into the Intelligent Design circus and the issues that it is causing in American schools. George W. Bush said himself that they should be taught alongside each other, and I can't help but think that this sort of argument only has any bearing in post-modernism. Post-modernism itself is pretty against science, and it is the perfect foundation for arguments for Intelligent Design.

[Antlerman]

As far as the things I present, they assuredly are not bullshit. They draw from areas of modernity, post-modernity, and more where I am at in a post-post-modernity.

 

Ah. Post-modernity. I understand perfectly now.

Well, be careful to say you understand perfectly now. I don't label myself a post-modernist, and like you there is a huge amount I balk at.

 

I had a feeling you were of a post-modernist bent. I don't believe that it is possible to draw from areas of modernity and post-modernity, as the two philosophical movements are so diametrically opposed.

Eeh, that's not necessarily true. There is good that comes from all schools of thought. There is baby and bathwater in each.

 

And as far as I am aware, post-post-modernity as not been clearly defined as yet, though considering how badly defined post-modernity was, that is not surprising.

Granted it's not been defined to well. The best you can put me into would be the Integral approach. That's what many see that post-post modernism may eventually come to be seen as.

 

I am not a fan of post-modernism, and if you are of a post-modernist bent, we will never see eye-to-eye. While modernity may have had its faults, in my view post-modernity has had some disastrous consequences in its non-heirarchial view of knowledge. The most concerning of these consequences that I perceive is the rise of the Intelligent Design movement, which has clearly exploited the view that science is not the be-all and end-all of knowledge. I also lay the balme for the increased tolerance of the ill-effects of fundamentalism firmly at the feet of post-modernity. And I am aware of the debate in many academic circles as to the validity of post-modernism as a philosophical movement. I myself cannot see the validity of a movement that pertains to no structure, when humans, by their very nature, enjoy structure. We are animals of routine.

Well, yes. Most of what you say here I agree with you. I accept hierarchy, which pretty much negates me as a postmodernist. I agree here with you.

[blackpudd1n]

I had a feeling you were of a post-modernist bent. I don't believe that it is possible to draw from areas of modernity and post-modernity, as the two philosophical movements are so diametrically opposed.

Eeh, that's not necessarily true. There is good that comes from all schools of thought. There is baby and bathwater in each.

 

I don't see how the two schools of thought cannot be daimetrically opposed. Post-modernism is basically against everything that modernism stood for. As far as I can perceive, post-modernism was basically saying that everything about modernism was 'wrong'.

[Antlerman]

I had a feeling you were of a post-modernist bent. I don't believe that it is possible to draw from areas of modernity and post-modernity, as the two philosophical movements are so diametrically opposed.

Eeh, that's not necessarily true. There is good that comes from all schools of thought. There is baby and bathwater in each.

 

I don't see how the two schools of thought cannot be daimetrically opposed. Post-modernism is basically against everything that modernism stood for. As far as I can perceive, post-modernism was basically saying that everything about modernism was 'wrong'.

That doesn't mean that outside of both of them you can't see truth in both. Right? I'm outside Christianity, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth that cannot be gleaned from it.

[bronxo]

Have you, in any case, in all your offensedness, seen our dear topicstarter anywhere?

 

I did good today

[blackpudd1n]

I had a feeling you were of a post-modernist bent. I don't believe that it is possible to draw from areas of modernity and post-modernity, as the two philosophical movements are so diametrically opposed.

Eeh, that's not necessarily true. There is good that comes from all schools of thought. There is baby and bathwater in each.

 

I don't see how the two schools of thought cannot be daimetrically opposed. Post-modernism is basically against everything that modernism stood for. As far as I can perceive, post-modernism was basically saying that everything about modernism was 'wrong'.

That doesn't mean that outside of both of them you can't see truth in both. Right? I'm outside Christianity, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth that cannot be gleaned from it.

 

I'm not really interested in the 'truth' of either field of thought. I'm more interested in the impacts of each overall. From where I'm standing, modernity, with all its faults, had a more beneficial impact on us than post-modernity did or has. I view christianity the same way. Not concerned with its 'truth' but its impact, which has been more negative than positive.

[LivingLife]

No that was not a veiled threat. I was being straight forward that I don't like dialog with people who lace their verbiage like this. I desire reasoned discussion, and these are unnecessary epithets in intelligent discourse. That was me speaking of what I personally find acceptable in dialog for me. No threat at all.

Well hooray, we all know you personally do not like the term but way to go to fucking ignore the context I bolded and made sure you would read. I did not fucking aim that at you OR anyone else here.

The only threat I did allude to was as a moderator in regards to throwing forum rules at me to tell me how I should and shouldn't moderate the site.

I guess you missed the bolded IMO in my reply. Fuck it seems no one can have any opinion contrary to yours. That sounds EXACTLY like religion to me. (better?)

That I said was pushing it, and it is. I know full well what the expectations of the moderation staff is by the Webmaster of this site, and I am well within my rights to make a call on an individual's actions when I see fit. I have been the primary moderator of this forum here in the LD for over 5 years, until we recently made them less 'primary mod' based anymore. You cannot overlook your actions in already accusing me publicly of abusing my moderator role on a couple occasions, saying I hide my arguments about religion behind it, which that accusation got ripped to shreds rather quickly by friends and foes alike, as well as one of the other super-moderators of this site. Now you throw rules at me as though I am not more than fully aware of the spirit of their meaning. They are guidelines for moderation staff to make their judgement calls around, not binding laws upon them. That is pushing it with me in my role as a moderator, and that will evoke a threat from me back at that point. Not to fear, I know where my personal feelings and my role as a moderator lie, and I will not act as a mod for anything less than a site-related reason.

I accuse you publicly as you did not even had the modicum of decency to address me in private. I have had no warnings or suspensions. You frigging injected yourself into conversations that had fuck all to do with you personally. This has happened TWICE now. I am trying to get to the bottom of why you hate me so much, WTF did I do to you? You keep hiding behind subterfuge and refuse to answer the question. WTF am I supposed to think other than what I have already stated?

Perhaps so. I am being honest when I say how much it grates against me to hear it. I'm honestly not entirely sure why, beyond what I've already stated.

Yes I know it bugs you, we all get it. But in both cases now, you have no leg to stand on as I have not inferred you or your fellow spirtulaists (yes I refer to them as such should I say Buddhists, Wiccans et al. just to be frigging PC? It is not meant to be insulting - no different to when you mouthed off against us atheists ans materialists as if that was some sort of dirty word) You take offence personally where none is intended. The only reason I can surmise is that you categorise yourself among the xians in equal standing regarding spirituality - I say the xian spirituality and personal relationships is ALL IN THE MIND and MAKE BELIEVE so if this is the way you self identify then not much I can do about that now can I?

Try this, and I'm being quite open here, that in all honesty how you judge and criticize others as 'the woo', is to me on an intellectual level really not insightful at all, and subsequently I feel that extended across the board to frankly include me personally.

WHY?

 

Both times you have been wrong. Both time you injected yourself into the conversation between me and another person. I was offending no one, you just took exception to my POV and a general comment and made it your business when you or yyour fellow spitualists were the farthest thing/people on my mind

 

I suppose you think you come over all intellectual sounding and then expect me to concede that you are RIGHT (regarding your worldview and not this shit we are no embroiled with)

Why should that bother me that you have a narrow view of others and making sweeping judgments?

You are the one reading into my posts.

In a word, I am sick of divisiveness, dividing this group from that group. That's what I hear in your rhetoric, and what bothers me so deeply is that the basis for it is frighteningly naive and aggressive. That disdain you express to entire groups, can easily be understood to extend to others including all the members of this site who don't think like you.

So then what, we encompass all according to your rules/preferences? That is why there is the Spirituality forum and I don't go there.

When I first began presenting the rationale for my thinking, your responses initially were highly combative, "Strawman", dismissive of my presentation, etc.

Well if you construct strawmen then proceed to dismantle them why can I not call it what it is? Do we have other rules for debate here that I am unaware of?

I knee-jerk reacted as I admit to doing with you, and I believe it is because you were treating me in such a way that you viewed me as some religious apologist. Your other rhetoric stated that as well, suggesting I start my own forum, telling me this is the Lion's Den, etc. and then accusing me of abusing my moderator role using it to hide behind in shoving my views upon others. Wow, yes, the impression I get of your disdain of 'the woos' was handed to me directly, it seemed.

I made my point pretty clear for the suggestion more than once. I dunno how to elucidate it any further - I am speaking plain English which is my mother tongue BTW.

 

Continued...

[LivingLife]

Am I mistaken? I would love to be.

Yes you are mistaken (see above and try read objectively)

I would prefer intelligent dialog with you, but I honestly do keep coming back to this. This is why I was trying to get us past what is bothering me in your rhetoric by asking you to lay off the use of 'the woos'. I do see that as extended to the other members of this site,

No it is not, how many times do I have to tell you it is not. Hell I even spelled it out bolded it and made the font huge. How could you not see it?

as this term of yours is repeated throughout the site, and the message is clear. You see those who don't think in materialist ways as irrational fools.

Where have I said irrational fool(s) please STOP putting words/lies into my context which is always pretty clear. Hell I do not even use these terms on other sites.

I sure as hell am not. All I'm asking is you back off the rhetoric and lets see if we can't get to real discussion.

When you can prove I have insulted you or anyone personally, then I will consider it. So far all I see from you (AS A MEMBER) are blanket statements w/o citations to anything specific. If I was as bad as you make me out to be, I would have had my ass kicked long ago.

 

(quotes fucked up - cont...)

[LivingLife]

Other mods do not seem to have an issue with me as I post everywhere and on many different topics. You seem to be singling me out and is verging on internet stalking - hardly the correct decorum for a moderator.

And there you go again accusing me of fucking moderator abuse. What a lame deflection off yourself and your own attitudes. Keep dragging that into this and I'll be happy to show you that moderator hat and give you a healthy time-out from this site.

I stand by what I said. Read what I said (pay attention to the underlined). It is really difficult to see when you are mod hat on or mod hat off and in a single post it comes over mixed. I have also administered forums and know how it goes. I am not pulling this out of my ass.

 

Have any atheists quoted a post of yours or your fellow spirtualists

Me and my fellow spiritualists??? JESUS FUCKING MOOSBALLS! As Kevin likes to say! This is that grouping bullshit that I called you on! You label members of this site, you drive and create divisions. That is what you are doing I object to. Not only as a member but as a moderator.

Already addressed above. I'll repeat it as you seem to miss stuff I post

I have not inferred you or your fellow spiritualists (yes I refer to them as such should I say Buddhists, Wiccans et al. just to be frigging PC? It is not meant to be insulting - no different to when you mouthed off against us atheists as materialists as if that was some sort of dirty word)

 

You don't get it do you? Are you dense? OK, moderator hat:

And thank you for the direct insult AGAIN regarding my intelligence.

 

Now please answer the questions below. This is the third time I am asking in this thread.

 

Why do you hate me so much?

 

Why am I being singled out?

[Antlerman]

I read this under your 'Interests' on your profile under your photo: "Discussing religion with woo woos". When I read that, it offends me. Can you help me understand what you are trying to say in this?

[LivingLife]

Hmmmm nice deflection tactic. No apologies for directly insulting my intelligence which I have NEVER done to you

 

That profile/interests has been there for jonks and you are only now bringing it up?

 

Ever heard of humour?

 

It means exactly what it says - you are grasping at straws now.

 

ETA: yours is not a religion right? It is an enlightened path of spirituality so it should not really bother you.

 

How the hell should I or anyone take anything you say seriously when you bring subterfuge like this up?

[mymistake]

Have you, in any case, in all your offensedness, seen our dear topicstarter anywhere?

 

I did good today

 

Aaron waved the white flag long ago. He said he was leaving Ex-C and I have not seen him since. It's too bad because he did have a cool handle. Maybe I should change my handle to JesusDestiny9K.

[Antlerman]

No deflections at all. Please quit trying to assign motives to me. I am asking for myself to possibly be able to better answer you sincere question. Why does this rub me so wrong about you? Is it me? Is it you? Both? I find it insulting when i read

that.

[Rev R]

No deflections at all. Please quit trying to assign motives to me. I am asking for myself to possibly be able to better answer you sincere question. Why does this rub me so wrong about you? Is it me? Is it you? Both? I find it insulting when i read that.

 

If I may butt in. Perhaps it is a question you should explore on your own- allow things to breathe, and come back to it later with a fresh perspective (and perhaps topic). Right now no ground has been gained and none has been lost, but the environment suffers the most in wars of attrition.

[Guest end3]

LL,

 

Skimming since you and I left off, but here's the point which I am somewhat sure you are aware. If we label mine woo, and yours non-woo, regardless of facts, reality, non-reality, blah de blah blah, none of them, as they are currently practised, unify the entirity.......So why persist? It's somewhat meaningless in the grand scheme of most everyone's desires.

[Guest end3]

No deflections at all. Please quit trying to assign motives to me. I am asking for myself to possibly be able to better answer you sincere question. Why does this rub me so wrong about you? Is it me? Is it you? Both? I find it insulting when i read that.

 

If I may butt in. Perhaps it is a question you should explore on your own- allow things to breathe, and come back to it later with a fresh perspective (and perhaps topic). Right now no ground has been gained and none has been lost, but the environment suffers the most in wars of attrition.

 

Yes, thanks.