A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

by palmtree67 699 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Qcmbr

  Phatic communication isn't the only way to help people. I wasn't treated with kid gloves or respect when I first joined this site and I'm very grateful for that. I agree that intuitive people can be turned off by criticical treatments but by the same token analytical people can be invigorated by it. I've seen the 'have a piece of pie' approach on the other forum and that obviously works for some people. If this forum turns into that then I'll probably move on as I have different needs.

  I think that many personal attacks do come way too close to the knuckle and sometimes I read a thread wincing at the comments but overall teh vast number of threads are squarely focused on the JW experience and are enlightening, uplifting, bonding and universal. It may just be me but I find the most animosity on threads where a poster puts themselves firmly in the picture and throws out some unprovable assertion and get's all huffy when challenged and it descends from there into a playground pile on.

  Let's not seek to neuter each other. Let's leave the choices and options to mods and owners.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Gladiator, thank you for your whole comment, but especially for this:

  This is a varied and excellent forum and a decade or more of debates have helped many people to break free of their Jehovah's Witness indoctrination. If respect is shown on all sides many thousands more can be helped.
• 

  sizemik

  A truce is best served by clarifying the rules of polite and constructive engagement . . . and identifying and avoiding the threats to it. Everyone is different, but it's still possible to move closer to what is more livable for all. There's been several good comments to that end. Worth absorbing.
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  Qcmbr Your posts are among the most informative and worthwhile on the forum. I have commented a number of times on how highly I rate your contribution. Posters of your quality are not the problem but part of the solution.

  FlyingHighNow Thank you. As always you light up my day.
• 

  palmtree67

  Thanks you, everyone, for your thoughts here.

  I wanted to highlight Q's post, as I think it really "hits the nail on the head".

  What it seems people are objecting to, warring over , is tactics rather than ideas......... Tactics however, can be changed.

  1 - A lack of reflexive statements (e.g. IMO/ I believe) attached to opinions , the paucity of such turns the opinion into an assertion. I believe god speaks to me v god speaks to me. One is subjective the other objective. One specifies your world the other tries to specify mine.

  2 - Blatant bias. We all recognise at some level bias. Some however, use blatant bias as a tool. Extremely obvious support of an insupportable position merely because of who made the initial incorrect statement. Silence is bad enough ( I'm guilty of simply ignoring bad behaviour if I see no personal gain in aggravating the poster so I simply read the next post) but overt intercession to support bad behaviour/ideas is blatant bias and is ugly. Poster x claims poster y is <unacceptable concept> Poster z supports poster x even so far as to begin arguing for < unacceptable concept> simply due to bias.

  3 - Misuse of words. Re-defining words endlessly to match a narrow specific agenda or making up new words is a hallmark of group division. Religions and gangs do it all the time to exclude outsiders (God is love, Jonadub class etc) . It is inappropriate to attempt to steal a word and reclassify it so that it now only means what you want it to. When people say they have 'seen' Christ and we only need to 'look' to him, they are deliberately attempting to reclassify words. If you could see Christ there would be no argument for lack of evidence.

  4 - Bad logic/ bad science/ bad facts. If you wish to reference something from the world of deduction , nature, physics or maths you have to be willing to accept that it can be checked and verified. If you take one science article and sing it's praises for no reason other than it supports something you believe in, it is bad form to reject other science/logic/facts by the same logic. This is Cofty's chess game where you play by the rules until you lose and simply start arbitrarily moving pieces and making up a new game such that you are constantly winning.
• 

  PSacramento

  Treat people the way you want them to treat you.

  Respect people the way you want them to respect you.

  Be the change you want to see happen.

  Consider peoples feelings and expreiences as you want them to consider yours.

  We are not perfect, we all make mistakes and we all do NOT know everything.

  Today's atheist may be tomorrows beleiver and vice versa.

  Respecting and loving each other as human beings is not a bad thing and a pretty good way to go through life.

  Just saying...
• 

  Lozhasleft

  I like that PSac. Often spiritual experiences are personal, as has been said, not provable to anyone else, they don't hold up to scrutiny per se, that doesn't make them any less valid though. This sometimes is the issue that creates the discord. But if we all respect each others feelings then we have the basis for understanding.

  Loz x
• 

  Qcmbr

  Woaha PSac - are you back! Hope so.
• 

  palmtree67

  PSac and Loz: Pretty thoughts, but we've been throwing those platitudes around at each other for many months now and it's gotten us nowhere.

  I think we need something more concrete to work on than just "Respect and love everybody."

  Q has come up with 4 very practical and concrete ways to have discussions that would eliminate a lot of discord.

  You are both of the non-atheist persuasion. What would you like to see change? What practical and concrete ways of posting would work for you?

  I hope I'm making sense here.

  When you say "Just respect and love everyone" it kind of sounds like you just want to be patted on the head when you share a thought, and just want to be listened to without any challenges.

  Loz:

  Often spiritual experiences are personal, as has been said, not provable to anyone else, they don't hold up to scrutiny per se, that doesn't make them any less valid though.

  May I ask you to think about your point here, but from the perspective of a non-believer?
• 

  PSacramento

  Hey guys,

  I still come by to check up on things sure.

  Just don't feel like posting as much and most of the topics here have kind of been "done to death" so...

  But I always have a soft spot in my heart for this place and for posters like you guys :)