Ex Christian Spirituality: The rough treatment

[VerbosityCat]

13 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

If we take this same argument and apply it to science does it hold water? Because some people here will blast the crap out of science, the scientific method, experts etc. So is it a good argument for me when posting in the science forum to say you are harassing me, telling me I'm religious for accepting science etc? Should we shut out the science section to anyone who argues against it? I'd say no. I simply will either ignore, or more often, attempt to engage with reason the best I can.

 

Midnite says I'm defensive of science and the scientific method, and maybe that's at least partially true. I've been drawn to science for as long as I can remember, it's really what started me on the road out of Christianity. I also think, flawed as it is, its still our best method for getting to the best understanding of reality and what really pisses me off is when people claim that I (and others) have a religious devotion, or think science can do no wrong etc which is simply not true. I have taken this on board and try to be less defensive and more engage with a topic.

 

Midnite asks me why I feel the need to defend science. I ask you and him why do you feel the need to defend spirituality? Are we two sides of the same coin here?

 

I've never said anything against science. Spirituality and Science answer two different questions and are not the same topic. Science is how, Spirituality is why.  It's about the search for personal meaning in life. If you find that invalid, that is your choice. My beliefs are not up for "debate" because I am not going to get into the weeds with you or anybody else about the "truth" of my  mytho-poetic way of viewing the world. These are about different ways of seeing the world. They are not measurable in the way you want to measure them. I fully respect your right to a non-woo life but honestly anybody who gets too much in my face trying to constantly "debate" my spirituality with me when the ex-christian Spirituality part of the forum is FOR the spiritual people to talk ABOUT their spirituality and not to constantly be derailed by the debate on whether or not their woo is real, it's really fucking tiresome. And it is times like that I wish for a mute button frankly.

 

I mean... would you walk into somebody's church and start trying to deconvert them or arguing about their beliefs with them? Do you, in general life, have such disrespect for other people that you just randomly walk up to them and start trying to engage in a debate about whatever their views are. Everything in life is not a debate stage. It is inappropriate to constantly get in people's faces about their beliefs when they didn't ask for your input and they weren't bothering you and they were talking to each other and not you. If you can't understand these basic principles of respect for other human beings personal space, I have no idea what to tell you but everything isn't about you and your right to push your non-belief to the farthest corners of the world. Missionary deconversion is just as fucked up as missionary conversion. IMO.

[florduh]

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

All of us like woo, I suspect.

Of course we do. There are huge industries catering to that taste. It is fantasy and escapism. It goes awry like when some Star Wars fans made a "real" religion built around The Force. Yes, people really did that. Star Wars writers spawned a religion in the real world, so I guess it's not that hard to do. L. Ron Hubbard worked much harder making up his religion.

[VerbosityCat]

13 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

It's not woo in that it can be tested and probabilities given. For some drugs its a high probability at high confidence level, other drugs its so hit and miss that I don't think they should be using them. (Statins for example... should be used sparingly and only in certain circumstances). Usually in drug trials they attempt to control for the placebo effect. It's not an unknown woo effect. It's very well known that people can feel better simply because they believe they are receiving treatment. (One could argue this is a case of mind over matter, however I'd argue its a case of your mental state affects your physiological and physiological functions.) So they try and control for this so when they say this drug will work on 90 out of 100 people they are fairly certain its the drug working, not other factors. Anti depressants I agree are a type of drug that its generally better to exercise etc rather than go on drugs. If that's failing then put people on drugs, but these days with certain classes of drugs e.g. Blood pressure, anti depressants, etc, doctors are too quick to say take a drug rather than go for long walks and chill out. (Note this is all personal opinion, I'm not a doctor, this is not advice, take it with a pinch of salt and a carrot stick).

 

Well after that ramble my point is is that if woo could be demonstrated with the same results and confidence I have when taking Panadol or asthma medication then I'd be a believer in woo. 

 

It's woo when a statin drug has a 54 NNT and the doctor fails to tell the patient this but instead tells them they will "die" if they don't take the drug. When in reality they could probably improve their numbers better with lifestyle changes. Either doctors are ignorant of this (in which case they shouldn't be licensed to practice medicine) or they are practicing magical thinking witch doctor woo in suggesting their patient needs to take a drug where they likely will not be the person who actually medically benefits but instead are more likely to be the person harmed, without divulging this information to the patient.

 

I've asked doctors "what is the NNT for this drug". They say what? I say "the number needed to treat". They have no clue what this is. What the fuck are they teaching them in medical school? Definitely not science.

[VerbosityCat]

23 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I think there's a reason that area is protected, and that's because people who have deconverted yet feel a need for some sort of spirituality don't necessarily need to be treated as many were during deconversion ie attacked for their non belief by family and friends, emotionally abused etc. Additionally, some of them may see this spirituality as part of their recovery process; it could just be experimentation before they move on to another phase. Not all of us are able to let go of beliefs just like that. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with practicing a bit of woo if it harms no one. Some people have might have emotional needs that are met this way, and more importantly, for some they may be coping mechanisms. So, if someone copes that way and it assists them and hurts nobody, I don't think critiquing with logic and reasoning is the best method. I can understand some will take it like an attack, even if not meant that way. Like it or not, that area is this site's "safe space," and I'm in favour of it remaining that way. I know you like to debate the hell out of everything and its fun for you, but I'm just saying, feelings count in this area.

 

It's unfortunate that a "safe space" is even needed and that people can't respect the basic boundaries of other human beings and understand that fundamentalism is fundamentalism whether you are fundie Xtian hell bent on "saving my soul" or a fundie atheist hell bent on saving me from "woo". Also, for many of us, spirituality is not a "phase". I've been out of Christianity 20 years. I could just as easily tell an atheist their atheism is a "phase" and that they were just 'hurt by Xtianity" and will eventually be more spiritual. Nobody really knows what ANYBODY'S path is or isn't going to be. And I really fail to see why people on all sides need to be so fucking smug about everything (I'm not saying you personally are being smug but this is a very common attitude this... oh, you're just in a phase of deconversion here." This site is called EX-CHRISTIAN it is not "ex-religion" or "ex-spirituality". ALL other outcomes besides Christianity should be accepted as legit. Otherwise, it's no better than Christians who allow you to "question god" assuming you end up back at their conclusion that their beliefs are true. This seems like a very closed loop system.

 

 

[TruthSeeker0]

10 minutes ago, VerbosityCat said:

 

By the same token, one might also argue that those who can't leave others the hell alone without trying to change their beliefs never really stopped being fundamentalists.

I've wondered about that sometimes, is it nature or nurture that determines these things? I don't think we'll ever really have a clear picture of it, but nurture/environment definitely plays a role in how we think and act. Therefore, the more aware we are of how our environment has shaped us, the more we can consciously try to change ourselves if we see that it has had negative consequences. However, a great deal of it may just be the nature side of things, our personality, etc.

[VerbosityCat]

7 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I've wondered about that sometimes, is it nature or nurture that determines these things? I don't think we'll ever really have a clear picture of it, but nurture/environment definitely plays a role in how we think and act. Therefore, the more aware we are of how our environment has shaped us, the more we can consciously try to change ourselves if we see that it has had negative consequences. However, a great deal of it may just be the nature side of things, our personality, etc.

 

I found that it was much harder to let go of the need to get others to agree with me and the "need to be right" than it was to get out of Christianity. And deconversion was very hard.

[TruthSeeker0]

9 minutes ago, VerbosityCat said:

 

It's unfortunate that a "safe space" is even needed and that people can't respect the basic boundaries of other human beings and understand that fundamentalism is fundamentalism whether you are fundie Xtian hell bent on "saving my soul" or a fundie atheist hell bent on saving me from "woo". Also, for many of us, spirituality is not a "phase". I've been out of Christianity 20 years. I could just as easily tell an atheist their atheism is a "phase" and that they were just 'hurt by Xtianity" and will eventually be more spiritual. Nobody really knows what ANYBODY'S path is or isn't going to be. And I really fail to see why people on all sides need to be so fucking smug about everything (I'm not saying you personally are being smug but this is a very common attitude this... oh, you're just in a phase of deconversion here." This site is called EX-CHRISTIAN it is not "ex-religion" or "ex-spirituality". ALL other outcomes besides Christianity should be accepted as legit. Otherwise, it's no better than Christians who allow you to "question god" assuming you end up back at their conclusion that their beliefs are true. This seems like a very closed loop system.

 

I understand your point, truly. This reminds me of a previous debate on another section of the forum. I think as long as all sides are able to keep in mind that there is no specific "correct" end point for deconversion, and that there really is no point in comparing one person's journey to another's, that the discussion can remain productive. 'Phase' I know was not the best choice of words, as it has the connotation somehow that one must get out of that state of mind, whatever it is.

This is how I see it: some of us more than others like to really pick apart things logically and debate for the sake of debate itself. But this is a sensitive area when it comes to personal beliefs, and these types don't necessarily realize how their words can be taken by others, or, that debating people's beliefs should perhaps require some discussion from both sides first as to if the beliefs are up to debate. Tact and consideration of other people is never a bad idea. Hence the need for a "safe space" here, where spiritually-minded people have room to breathe without the debaters constantly picking everything apart.

I suppose, does the question come down to, are personal beliefs up to debate? Where's the line with social etiquette? People may have differences of opinion over this one.

[LogicalFallacy]

27 minutes ago, VerbosityCat said:

 

It's woo when a statin drug has a 54 NNT and the doctor fails to tell the patient this but instead tells them they will "die" if they don't take the drug. When in reality they could probably improve their numbers better with lifestyle changes. Either doctors are ignorant of this (in which case they shouldn't be licensed to practice medicine) or they are practicing magical thinking witch doctor woo in suggesting their patient needs to take a drug where they likely will not be the person who actually medically benefits but instead are more likely to be the person harmed, without divulging this information to the patient.

 

I've asked doctors "what is the NNT for this drug". They say what? I say "the number needed to treat". They have no clue what this is. What the fuck are they teaching them in medical school? Definitely not science.

 

You need to define woo because at this point it seems to mean anything. If medical stuff is woo and you are using that perjoritively then are you admitting all woo is bad or unfounded in reality? 

 

Of course even with your examples it's not woo. There is nothing wooist about medicine. What you describe is bad practice. It can be measured, tested and corrected. 

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, VerbosityCat said:

I've never said anything against science. Spirituality and Science answer two different questions and are not the same topic.

 

You missed my point entirely.

 

Quote

My beliefs are not up for "debate" because I am not going to get into the weeds with you or anybody else about the "truth" of my  mytho-poetic way of viewing the world. These are about different ways of seeing the world. They are not measurable in the way you want to measure them. I fully respect your right to a non-woo life but honestly anybody who gets too much in my face trying to constantly "debate" my spirituality with me when the ex-christian Spirituality part of the forum is FOR the spiritual people to talk ABOUT their spirituality and not to constantly be derailed by the debate on whether or not their woo is real, it's really fucking tiresome. And it is times like that I wish for a mute button frankly.

 

I would just like to point out that you are in the LIONS DEN where beliefs and ideas are supposed to be questioned. If you didn't want arrogant atheists questioning your beliefs then you shouldn't be in this thread. If you aren't prepared to actually answer the "rough" stuff (Check thread title) but just want to rail on about horrible closed minded atheists then there is already a thread in the spirituality section where I can't technically "harass" you and you can do so there. I have access there because I like to see what people like JP and Disillusioned say about the topic. I made a mistake by replying to you in that thread and it won't happen again. Satisfied?

 

Quote

 

I mean... would you walk into somebody's church and start trying to deconvert them or arguing about their beliefs with them?

 

No, but on a forum where atheists are allowed I go there and discuss with them. Remember this is not a "Spirituality" forum. It's an Ex-Christian forum. I am sure there are facebook groups, and dedicated forums to spirituality that will instantly ban any person questioning so if you are wanting a true safe space that would be it. How much actual hard nosed activity is there is the Spirituality forum recently? Really? How much actual harassment? 

 

Quote

Do you, in general life, have such disrespect for other people that you just randomly walk up to them and start trying to engage in a debate about whatever their views are. Everything in life is not a debate stage. It is inappropriate to constantly get in people's faces about their beliefs when they didn't ask for your input and they weren't bothering you and they were talking to each other and not you. If you can't understand these basic principles of respect for other human beings personal space, I have no idea what to tell you but everything isn't about you and your right to push your non-belief to the farthest corners of the world. Missionary deconversion is just as fucked up as missionary conversion. IMO.

 

At this point I'd say you've got a chip on your shoulder. No one is trying to convert anyone, and again this is the lions den. The subtitle to this thread is "The rough treatment". Don't come here and start complaining that we are discussing beliefs because I understood that was the point. If you are still going on about my one post to you in the spirituality forum about the 'flawed' way of thinking, I attempted to clarify that with you and I thought you were fine with it. We'll simply have to move forward with it. Midnite then suggested this thread, and I was prepared to have all my posts in the other thread deleted just to keep people happy. That probably wouldn't work anyway.

 

 

 

After all that what I feel we need in this thread is some definitions because woo is being thrown about as a catch all phrase which means we end up talking past each other rather than to each other.

 

 

PS; To my knowledge (And I stand to be corrected) I've never referred to the spiritual members of this forum as crazy, stupid, etc. I've questioned beliefs and why they believe. On the other hand, I have multiple times seen spiritualists describe atheists (Which is a weird descriptor for the group in question because you can be both atheist and spiritual) as "arrogant" "Hard nosed" "Close minded" "Religious" "Deconversion missionaries" and so on. I haven't seen any thread in the science section or in ToT called "Anyone feel put off by spiritualists?" So remind me who is being harassed and insulted again?

[LogicalFallacy]

5 hours ago, midniterider said:

I suspect neither you nor I tout our personal philosophies much to other people outside this website.

 

Yes that's true.

 

Despite accusations I don't randomly bowl into churches or Covens and start preaching. Where there open discussion invited I might. Here on the forum I'm happy to because we already have one thing in common - ex-Christianity, and I have generally assumed that people are happy to discussion stuff here. I will talk science with the family as they are fundie Christians and have grave misunderstandings about the world.

 

3 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

All of us like woo, I suspect. Some of us indulge in it with reading fantasy, sci fi, etc. Some of us go further and "practice" it. I think woo is just the fun side of life, and indulging in it doesn't mean that you can't deal with reality. It's when the woo is used to gain power/influence over people or is harmful, just like some other beliefs are, that it goes off the rails.

 

I have a problem with this definition of woo. It essentially makes the term meaningless and this conversation meaningless.

 

So gaming and fantasy - love woo. In Skyrim my next play through will be a female high elf pure mage. Magics all the way baby, no swords, no armour, no shields. I love star wars and really think the ability to choke annoying people like vader did would be cool   

 

If you are saying well you engage in woo by playing games or reading, then I think that is not the woo I'm talking about. I am talking about genuine sincere (And in my view, mistaken) beliefs that forces as yet unexplained actually defy the laws of physics as we know them to affect reality. Be this spell casting, or belief in disembodied minds capable of functioning absent a physical body, or that rocks can have an effect on you, or that you can channel your Reiki universal life force for energy or healing. So far we really don't have a definition of what we are discussing so we are throwing "woo" about like its salt. So far in this thread woo is woo, medicine is woo, fantasy gaming/books are woo. We are all woo.

[TruthSeeker0]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I have a problem with this definition of woo. It essentially makes the term meaningless and this conversation meaningless.

 

So gaming and fantasy - love woo. In Skyrim my next play through will be a female high elf pure mage. Magics all the way baby, no swords, no armour, no shields. I love star wars and really think the ability to choke annoying people like vader did would be cool   

 

If you are saying well you engage in woo by playing games or reading, then I think that is not the woo I'm talking about. I am talking about genuine sincere (And in my view, mistaken) beliefs that forces as yet unexplained actually defy the laws of physics as we know them to affect reality. Be this spell casting, or belief in disembodied minds capable of functioning absent a physical body, or that rocks can have an effect on you, or that you can channel your Reiki universal life force for energy or healing. So far we really don't have a definition of what we are discussing so we are throwing "woo" about like its salt. So far in this thread woo is woo, medicine is woo, fantasy gaming/books are woo. We are all woo.

If we go by your definition people are going to define it by their own beliefs regarding reality so I doubt you'll get any consensus. Not that we need any. Likely you'll get as many and as varied opinions as you do regarding Christianity. People believe what they want to believe. 

[LogicalFallacy]

36 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

If we go by your definition people are going to define it by their own beliefs regarding reality so I doubt you'll get any consensus. Not that we need any. Likely you'll get as many and as varied opinions as you do regarding Christianity. People believe what they want to believe. 

True but even with Christianity you get people to define what they mean by "god" and that's what I'm asking here. What do you mean by "woo".?

[TruthSeeker0]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

True but even with Christianity you get people to define what they mean by "god" and that's what I'm asking here. What do you mean by "woo".?

Well like anyone else I'll likely define it by what I do and don't believe in. And personally I haven't really explored any alternative beliefs per se after leaving Christianity as they don't interest me at all. And seeing as I know next to nothing about them, I'm not willing to define them as woo or non woo - I'd have to investigate them first and then make up my mind. What's my woo? The universe and nature.

 

Edit: I could probably settle for calling woo escapism from reality as I see it, in all its forms, both the literal and figurative kinds.

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

So far in this thread woo is woo, medicine is woo, fantasy gaming/books are woo. We are all woo.

 

 

[mwc]

7 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

True but even with Christianity you get people to define what they mean by "god" and that's what I'm asking here. What do you mean by "woo".?

     I'm not even sure why we keep using the word "woo" exactly.  Is this a synonym for spirituality that those who believe themselves to be practicing spiritualists use?  As in, if you are a spiritualist you say "I practice woo."  Or are we saying this because it allows us to side-step actually addressing spiritualism and only addressing things that are "woo" even to those who are spiritualists?  In other words we're dodging the very issue we're supposed to be discussing by using this word?  What I'm getting at is that I see spiritualism==woo but if I were a spiritualist then what I engaged in as a spiritualist I would not see as woo so spiritualism!=woo.  Discussing woo would never get us to the same place.

 

     It's like how xians can all pretty much bag on Mormons.  They include them in the larger 2 billion count of xians but when they go to discuss cults with anyone they have no problem calling them out as a cult and not really xians.  Same with JW's.  They count towards the 2 billion but they don't really count.  So in our case they would be included under the spiritualism umbrella but we could throw them under the woo bus and not really harm the "real" spiritualism stuff.

 

          mwc

 

[LogicalFallacy]

33 minutes ago, mwc said:

     I'm not even sure why we keep using the word "woo" exactly.

 

I think Midnite used it as a reverse pejorative for spirituality. We just kept using it.

 

I'm trying to get definitions out of the spirituality people. For example the root of the word spirituality is spirit. But in this thread we talk about spells - which is magic. So is magic part of spirituality? Fucked if I know, and I'm not even sure spiritualists/wooists know.

 

Perhaps supernaturalism is a better umbrella term as that covers everything not covered by our known reality.

[mwc]

14 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I think Midnite used it as a reverse pejorative for spirituality. We just kept using it.

 

I'm trying to get definitions out of the spirituality people. For example the root of the word spirituality is spirit. But in this thread we talk about spells - which is magic. So is magic part of spirituality? Fucked if I know, and I'm not even sure spiritualists/wooists know.

 

Perhaps supernaturalism is a better umbrella term as that covers everything not covered by our known reality.

     I know that I've been done this road before.  I was one of the people that "helped" get the spirituality sub-forum created (in that I butted heads with folks like Antlerman over this sort of stuff...but I openly voiced my opposition to creating a walled garden like we have now since I felt it wasn't in the open discussion nature of the forum as a whole...anyway, it was a fairly divisive issue at the time and openly questioning it could land you in hot water).  I've only set foot in that area a few times by accident so I have no idea about what people are saying about this stuff anymore.

 

          mwc

 

[Joshpantera]

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I think Midnite used it as a reverse pejorative for spirituality. We just kept using it.

 

I'm trying to get definitions out of the spirituality people. For example the root of the word spirituality is spirit. But in this thread we talk about spells - which is magic. So is magic part of spirituality? Fucked if I know, and I'm not even sure spiritualists/wooists know.

 

Perhaps supernaturalism is a better umbrella term as that covers everything not covered by our known reality.

 

It can be for neo-pagans or others who incorporate spells, sigils, or whatever into their spiritual practice. But a spiritual practice could be as basic as just putting time into meditation and trying to quiet your mind and tune into the observer behind your own thoughts. Stuff like that. But most of these terms probably deserve being revised because spiritual, sorcery, soul, mysticism, and other supernatural associations are often used in naturalist contexts. If they're being used in naturalist contexts then it may follow that new terms would be best to describe them. 

 

If taking about feeling interconnected to everything, just say interconnected instead of "spiritual" 

 

If taking about feeling in tune to the mystery of existence, just say it instead of "mystical." 

 

If feeling tuned in to the source of all things, just say it instead of "sorcery." 

 

If feeling tuned in to the eternal aspect of existence, just say it instead of "soul." 

 

I think the problem here is that naturalists will divert to old terminology when they don't really need to. And it confuses things to do so. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 10/21/2018 at 4:54 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

On 10/19/2018 at 10:28 AM, Joshpantera said:

 

You in on the experiment then? 

 

I haven't seen anyone on roller skates in years, maybe decades. Let along pink roller skates. That's pretty off the wall considering. 

 

I've already started, but not using any particular method. Does it require any particular method other than saying "I will see a person on pink roller skates this week"? If so why does the spell require a particular way?

 

(PS yes you are right, been a while since I've seen roller skates)

 

Booyah!!!

 

 

 

[VerbosityCat]

23 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I understand your point, truly. This reminds me of a previous debate on another section of the forum. I think as long as all sides are able to keep in mind that there is no specific "correct" end point for deconversion, and that there really is no point in comparing one person's journey to another's, that the discussion can remain productive. 'Phase' I know was not the best choice of words, as it has the connotation somehow that one must get out of that state of mind, whatever it is.

This is how I see it: some of us more than others like to really pick apart things logically and debate for the sake of debate itself. But this is a sensitive area when it comes to personal beliefs, and these types don't necessarily realize how their words can be taken by others, or, that debating people's beliefs should perhaps require some discussion from both sides first as to if the beliefs are up to debate. Tact and consideration of other people is never a bad idea. Hence the need for a "safe space" here, where spiritually-minded people have room to breathe without the debaters constantly picking everything apart.

I suppose, does the question come down to, are personal beliefs up to debate? Where's the line with social etiquette? People may have differences of opinion over this one.

 

I think as far as this forum goes, a fair solution for everyone would be to just put "debate topics" involving "woo" in the Lion's Den, maybe expand that section to include ALL woo debate, not just Christianity. And leave the ex-christian spirituality forum as a space where we don't have to constantly address people going "Well, I don't believe this and you can't prove it" like holy crap... what is so threatening about someone having a belief. Just leave it alone. Not you personally, I'm saying in general. This idea that absolutely everything in the world requires a response even when the person making a comment wasn't being addressed in any way and it's clear the comments were not even directed toward people like them but to another group entirely.

[VerbosityCat]

23 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

You need to define woo because at this point it seems to mean anything. If medical stuff is woo and you are using that perjoritively then are you admitting all woo is bad or unfounded in reality? 

 

Of course even with your examples it's not woo. There is nothing wooist about medicine. What you describe is bad practice. It can be measured, tested and corrected. 

I don't know if you are intentionally misunderstanding me or if you are just incapable of questioning non-scientific behaviors in the medical or scientific community. There seems to be very much an in-group/out-group mentality in how many skeptics apply their skepticism.

[midniterider]

8 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Booyah!!!

 

 

 

 

Yess!!  Oh yeah, she does have skates on too.

 

[midniterider]

Waits near the skating rink for my magic to manifest. lol  Just joking!

[VerbosityCat]

23 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

You missed my point entirely.

 

 

I would just like to point out that you are in the LIONS DEN where beliefs and ideas are supposed to be questioned. If you didn't want arrogant atheists questioning your beliefs then you shouldn't be in this thread. If you aren't prepared to actually answer the "rough" stuff (Check thread title) but just want to rail on about horrible closed minded atheists then there is already a thread in the spirituality section where I can't technically "harass" you and you can do so there. I have access there because I like to see what people like JP and Disillusioned say about the topic. I made a mistake by replying to you in that thread and it won't happen again. Satisfied?

 

 

No, but on a forum where atheists are allowed I go there and discuss with them. Remember this is not a "Spirituality" forum. It's an Ex-Christian forum. I am sure there are facebook groups, and dedicated forums to spirituality that will instantly ban any person questioning so if you are wanting a true safe space that would be it. How much actual hard nosed activity is there is the Spirituality forum recently? Really? How much actual harassment? 

 

 

At this point I'd say you've got a chip on your shoulder. No one is trying to convert anyone, and again this is the lions den. The subtitle to this thread is "The rough treatment". Don't come here and start complaining that we are discussing beliefs because I understood that was the point. If you are still going on about my one post to you in the spirituality forum about the 'flawed' way of thinking, I attempted to clarify that with you and I thought you were fine with it. We'll simply have to move forward with it. Midnite then suggested this thread, and I was prepared to have all my posts in the other thread deleted just to keep people happy. That probably wouldn't work anyway.

 

 

 

After all that what I feel we need in this thread is some definitions because woo is being thrown about as a catch all phrase which means we end up talking past each other rather than to each other.

 

 

PS; To my knowledge (And I stand to be corrected) I've never referred to the spiritual members of this forum as crazy, stupid, etc. I've questioned beliefs and why they believe. On the other hand, I have multiple times seen spiritualists describe atheists (Which is a weird descriptor for the group in question because you can be both atheist and spiritual) as "arrogant" "Hard nosed" "Close minded" "Religious" "Deconversion missionaries" and so on. I haven't seen any thread in the science section or in ToT called "Anyone feel put off by spiritualists?" So remind me who is being harassed and insulted again?

 

 

I REALIZE this is the lion's den and I have NO PROBLEM with this kind of discussion happening IN the lion's den. But it should NEVER happen in the Ex-C Spirituality forum.

 

And I don't need a "safe space". But I have zero respect for people who can't respect the personal boundaries of other people in general day-to-day interaction. If you are not in a space designated FOR debating something (like this one), then no, it's not appropriate to constantly be up the asses of total random strangers you don't know harassing them about what they do and don't believe and why. I feel like some of you just have no idea how basic social etiquette works and I wonder if you were raised by wolves.

 

Again, I have NO ISSUE with this discussion in THIS forum. I also don't have a "chip on my shoulder". I'm pointing out fucking rudeness where I see it. I would like to know why you assume I'm talking about "YOU PERSONALLY" in all this. I'm not. Actually the member on this forum I find most obnoxious in this regard I've never spoken to in any way and probably never will because I find him so insufferable.  I haven't actually had any kind of real issue with you until this exact moment when you decided to lecture me on how this is the lion's den (when I wasn't talking about this thread) and all the other shit you decided to assume about me.

 

But it is clear to me that we really talk past each other a lot and I find it extremely frustrating. I don't believe we can really discuss things in good faith, you and I. I don't think you have bad intentions, I just find you frustrating and I'm sure you find me the same.

[TABA]

11 minutes ago, VerbosityCat said:

 

I think as far as this forum goes, a fair solution for everyone would be to just put "debate topics" involving "woo" in the Lion's Den, maybe expand that section to include ALL woo debate, not just Christianity. And leave the ex-christian spirituality forum as a space where we don't have to constantly address people going "Well, I don't believe this and you can't prove it" like holy crap... what is so threatening about someone having a belief. Just leave it alone. Not you personally, I'm saying in general. This idea that absolutely everything in the world requires a response even when the person making a comment wasn't being addressed in any way and it's clear the comments were not even directed toward people like them but to another group entirely.

 

As one of the rather non-spiritual types, I have to say this makes sense to me.