by juandefiero 375 Replies latest jw friends
Outlaw: As this is a thread I started, I would prefer you to take your uncivil, ad hominem attacks to PM. It really is discourteous.
I would ask Cofty to do so also, however he is just reacting to something you started.
As much as I enjoy your cartoons, this rivalry or simmering animosity or whatever it is between the two of you is really quite annoying and ugly...
I hope you don't take this as an attack on you. It's just really getting to be ridiculous and I felt I had to say something.
With respect juan I have made several thoughtful contributions to your excellent thread. I am not going to apologise for making a brief reply to yet another public personal attack.
It is not two people having a mutual personal argument on your thread - I know how annoying that can be - it is one poster who follows me around the forum dishing out insults.
I am sorry it happened on your thread.
Tenacious - Are you familiar with the work of Susan Blackmore?
She is a psychologist who spent half her career trying to prove there was something substantial behind reports of supernatural events. After many years she stopped her investigation completely. Every incident without exception turned out to be a case of exaggeration, delusion or deceit.
With respect juan I have made several thoughtful contributions to your excellent thread. I am not going to apologise for making a brief reply to yet another public personal attack.
I didn't ask for you to apologise. That whole post was directed towards Outlaw. I cannot fault you for reacting when attacked.
I have NEVER presented myself as an academic.....cofty
Your behavior on this forum suggests other wise..
I have a very basic education.
I think most people have figured that out..
He also laughed at some of your attempts to string a proper sentence together......OUTLAW
Then he is an arsehole and not the sort of person I would want as a "buddy".....cofty
Said the person who Pompously Corrects other peoples Grammar..Your notorious for it..
Outlaw - Your repeated off-topic personal attacks are tedious. I have asked you multiple times to stop it. It's like trying to enjoy a mature conversation with a naughty child in the room having a tantrum. Grow up.
You attack people on this forum all the time..
When people have the capability to respond..You whine..
You need to Pick Your Victims more Carefully..
Are you afraid to die?
Do you want to live beyond death?
Do you want to see your dead loved ones again?
Do you feel slighted by society?
Do you feel that life is unfair?
Do you feel unloved?
Do you crave for wicked people to be destroyed?
People who answer yes to most of these questions are highly likely to want to believe in god, therefore they go through mental hula hoops to build up their faith. They don't need proof. They don't need logic. They need something to look forward to beyond this life. They need meaning beyond what this life has to offer. It doesn't matter to them that there is no proof that god exists. None. But who am I to judge? We all try and get by with whatever it is that keeps us going day to day.
We all try and get by with whatever it is that keeps us going day to day.
I can actually respect that. If people were honest enough to admit that they believe just because they want to, then fair enough.
I have never found a believer who takes that position though. Sooner or later positions of faith start making claims about reality.
I remember reading a book by Stephen Jay Gould who proposed "non-overlapping magisteria". In other words faith and science should stick to their own arenas and live side-by-side. In reality it doesn't work. Claiming that somebody rose from the dead is a statement about reality. It shouldn't get a free pass.
It shouldn't get a free pass.
Why do people need a pass from other people? If I believe that kittens will one day rule the world (and they should), and I want to open a thread here and discuss it with other people that agree, why do I need to get a pass from you or anyone else? Why do you feel a need to go in and tell those people that they're stupid for thinking that is a reality just because you don't? So long as the kitty krew isn't hurting you or I, let them have their world.
I don't direct that at any one person just because I quoted it from cofty. It just seems like a segment of people now are so concerned that others might have a view that is different, or wrong from another person's point of view or even from hard evidence, so it must therefore be destroyed and that person should be shamed for thinking like they do. Why? Not everything in life is stated in order to be a debate that one person has to win and another has to lose. Sometimes people want to discuss a world view that is theirs and that they share with others without having others come into that conversation just to tell them that they're idiots when those people aren't hurting anyone.
With that said, I realize that religion or belief in God has hurt many on here and has been a scourge upon the planet and humanity. I get it. However, if some have a view that God exists, they don't need a pass from you or me or anyone else. They get to decide that for themselves. If it works for them in some way, who cares. Maybe a current set of beliefs is just a segue to more "correct" beliefs later and they're on their journey. Why must others interrupt and try to hasten that journey? Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still, so it is just a waste of time to be a blowhard that attacks the perceived errors in the thoughts and feelings and ideologies of others, unless of course the real goal is to inflate one's own ego.
why do I need to get a pass from you or anyone else? - Dubstepped
You don't.
My point was that if they are simply saying that they choose to believe something as a matter of faith then that's their choice.
But if they make statements of fact, like claiming somebody was raised from the dead, and if they claim their belief is based on evidence, then that evidence should be challenged. Statements of fact don't get a free-pass because they are labelled as "religious".
Believers can't have it both ways. Either their beliefs are simply based on faith and immune from scrutiny, or they are backed up by evidence which is open to examination. That seems entirely reasonable to me.
You seem to be objecting to discussing the veracity of religious claims on a religious discussion forum.
