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.".
PSac: many times what sounds stupid was just worded in an imprecise and perhaps naive manner.
A good point and something we ALL do at times.
I've seen problems arise when a person is asked for clarification and instead of saying, "Whoops, you're right, I didn't word that well!" gets huffy and tries to support their "stupid" comment.
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.".
I haven't placed you on a side,
VS
I don't see your side taking any blame
Am I missing something?
I'm trying to avoid sweeping statements like the latter. They don't contribute to peace.
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.".
I don't see your side taking any blame.
Firstly, I am neither believer nor atheist. I speak freely (off this board) with both "sides" and I understand both POV's.
And I see atheists here taking plenty of blame.
FHN, if you're just here to inject comments like the above and your "If this thread is truly about a truce", then please refrain from commenting.
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.".
If this thread truly is about finding a truce
Okaaaayyyyy.....
I'm trying to keep my thread on track without one side being blasted or taking all the blame.
No comments on Sizey's fine post?
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.".
Alright, Tal. I guess you did demonstrate that at least atheists can be honest, see their part in the problem, take issue with their own and take responsibility.
Thank you for that.
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.".
Tal and PSac, you both made helpful comments on page 6.
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.
FHN, you clearly favor one side over another. So cheerleading a post that blasts atheists and lays the blame completely at their feet, only seems "helpful" to you.
OK, I'm really giving up now.
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.".
Tal, I was trying to keep this from being lop-sided.
Also, was hoping to keep it productive.
The whole, "Well, they did it first, so it's okay for us to do it, too!" school-yard mentality is getting us no-where. And BTW a markedly un-Christian POV, for those who claim to subscribe to it.
I was hoping to get each side to take responsibility for what they do here.
I guess I give up. In six pages, it's pretty obvious who is willing to do so and who is not.
Carry on as you each see fit.
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.".
Is there such a thing as concrete ideas when it comes to the nuances of discussion about belief?
True, not when it comes to discussions about belief.
However, we are discussing TACTICS of discusssion here. And yes, I think there *are* practical and concrete things each side can do to make things run smoother here.
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.".
For me the difficulties start when there are insults or name calling to undermine the poster as opposed to the post.
Thank you. Now that is something concrete and practical!
I think the difficulty to your practical idea is, as Q pointed out in #2........blatant bias.
Do we scream and yell when someone from the opposite POV does those things and then "cheer on" when someone from our own POV does the same thing?
I'm not trying to assign blame, I see this happening on both POV's......I'm trying to get everyone to see how they each contribute to the problem here and take responsibility.
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.".
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?
