palmtree67

Joined

• started 108 topics
• posted 4,607 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by palmtree67

• 
  699

  A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

  by palmtree67 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

  "there are good atheists and bad atheists.

  there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  699

  A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

  by palmtree67 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

  "there are good atheists and bad atheists.

  there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  palmtree67

  and moving forward to start fresh.

  I believe that's what we're discussing, but not in generic "butterflies and froo-froo" terms.

  My goal was to get some specific ways to do that for both POV's, and I'm happy with the results so far.

  No one was bringing up the past.
• 
  699

  A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

  by palmtree67 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

  "there are good atheists and bad atheists.

  there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  palmtree67

  Maybe this could work "Thank you for sharing your view with me. Now here is my view." Then the other person could say, "You are welcome." Then respectfully listen and say, "Thank you for explaining your view."

  LOL Then it's not really a "discussion board" is it?
• 
  699

  A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

  by palmtree67 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

  "there are good atheists and bad atheists.

  there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  palmtree67

  I'm sorry, I got an important phone call and had to take it.

  I thought we were making some progress here.

  Sab, please take your concerns with NC to private PM, as Angharad suggested.

  And can we please leave out the random videos?

  Tec:

  I don't know how much we should 'police' people, so to speak (and i truly, personally, do not like the us/them dichotomy) I think every person is repsonsible for themselves.

  I'm not suggesting anyone but mods should be "policing". I'm suggesting that if a person chooses to "police", they need to not be biased towards one side ot the other. *That* is what is causing the us/them dichotomy more than anything, in my opinion. We can't demand certain behaviour from others, while approving that same behaviour from people we happen to like.

  I agree wtih NC, this kind of thing won't stop until it's required from each "side", by their own respective people.
• 
  699

  A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

  by palmtree67 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

  "there are good atheists and bad atheists.

  there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  palmtree67

  Loz:

  Currently I personally don't attempt to convert anyone, nor would I. It requires a mention to justify my belief in god very often though,

  I know that about you, Loz

  But I'm asking everyone if we can give attention to not polarizing the board by not supporting bad behaviour, even when it's from someone we like.

  And not taking EVERY disagreement with our view personally.

  "There are good atheists and there are bad atheists. There are good believers and bad believers."

  Can we please stop supporting the bad ones on either side?
• 
  699

  A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

  by palmtree67 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

  "there are good atheists and bad atheists.

  there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  palmtree67

  please understand that some of us are just sharing, without any expectation of what anyone does with it.

  Well, if that were true, there would be no arguments on here, though, correct?

  Share.

  And then leave it be.

  When a non-believer shares a scientific paper, or whatever.....they EXPECT and welcome disagreement. They want to learn something they never knew, but it has to have PROOF.

  When a beleiver shares their experience, if they don't expect acceptance (as you say), then disagreement will not bother them.

  So.....share and move on!

  I think the thing I dont' understand is that so many believers claim their experience is PERSONAL and then they share it on an open forum. Which is fine, but if you choose to do so, you can't really expect that everyone is going to accept your experience - because it is PERSONAL and your proof is PERSONAL to you.

  I say, I don't understand it, because as I said before and I remind you now, I don't share those kind of personal experiences with random people.
• 
  699

  A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

  by palmtree67 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

  "there are good atheists and bad atheists.

  there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  palmtree67

  I understand your frustration too but imagine if you will that you experienced something exceptional, something spiritual? You know you're compus mentus, so you know it's legit, you can't deny it, it would make you a liar. A person tells you that you're nuts or whatever and that it didn't happen because they can't relate to such an experience? What a dichotomy.

  Thank you, Loz, that's a good point.

  I can only speak for myself when I have experienced such things. To me, they are very PERSONAL. I don't discuss them with random people. I only discuss them with people with I trust. And if they don't percieve the experience as exceptionally as I do, I don't get angry with them or require them to accept my experience as real - because the experience was still....PERSONAL.

  I don't feel I have to "convert" anyone to my personal experience.
• 
  699

  A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

  by palmtree67 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

  "there are good atheists and bad atheists.

  there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  palmtree67

  Tec:

  I think that dividing people up into 'sides' is a mistake. People are people. That is what I personally think Gervais was getting at with his tweet.

  And if you read the OP, you can easily see I agree with that. My point is that I am asking ALL here to honestly look at what THEY EACH are doing to divide the board.

  Thus my questions, which are largely rhetorical:

  Do we cheerlead certain posters merely because we like them or their views are more like our own, without really giving thought to whether what they are saying is TRUE or FAIR?

  Are we quick to post disagreement with or "call out" a poster that we don't like or agree with GENERALLY, and are we more excusing of posters we like or agree with GENERALLY? Do we do this without really thinking whether what they are posting is TRUE or FAIR?

  When we do these things, we are choosing a "side" , no matter how much we may publicly deny it. Our actions will belie our words.

  I think each POV here can do more to "police" their own.

  It's just a matter of which POV is willing to make the first move.
• 
  699

  A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

  by palmtree67 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

  "there are good atheists and bad atheists.

  there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  palmtree67

  Sometimes the ad homenem attacks from the other side dulls my sense of fair play.

  Excellent point, Cofty.

  Obviously, we all have posters we like personally more than others. (Although, we don't really "know" each other, do we? )

  But my point is:

  Do we cheerlead certain posters merely because we like them or their views are more like our own, without really giving thought to whether what they are saying is TRUE or FAIR?

  Are we quick to post disagreement with or "call out" a poster that we don't like or agree with GENERALLY, and are we more excusing of posters we like or agree with GENERALLY? Do we do this without really thinking whether what they are posting is TRUE or FAIR?

  Obviously, this is a human failing.

  But I think it's something we all need to reflect on.

  For instance, if a poster claimed something that I knew or could easily prove was UNTRUE, do I do myself or my cause any justice by cheerleading them on?

  If we all gave this more thought, wouldn't it create more peace here?
• 
  699

  A truce between Atheists and Non-Atheists?

  by palmtree67 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ricky gervais tweeted this 11/14/12 and i totally agree with it:.

  "there are good atheists and bad atheists.

  there are good believers and bad believers.. no god has ever changed that.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  palmtree67

  What's wrong with a cheerleading squad?

  Good question, Sab.

  Something to think on, huh?