I don't think SusanDoris is deliberately trying to wind people up.
She can post in a Troll-like manner but I don't think it's her intention to do that. She doesn't appear to know how to post differently.
I'm sure she's more than capable of doing so if she put her mind to it.
The trouble is, it's like the Boy Who Cried, 'Wolf!'
We already know what SusanDoris is going to say before she says it. So if she ever came out with anything substantially different we are likely to miss it because we are so used to her arguments running along the same tramlines.
I haven't contributed to the Is Evangelism a Good Thing thread, I don't think, but as soon as I saw SD asking if we'd mind her posting something from the perspective of a non-believer then I knew exactly what to expect. As I scrolled down the page I found I was absolutely right. She said exactly what I'd have been able to predict she'd say. Again. And again. And again.
I think 'Scroll down. Do not read. Do not engage,' might be the best advice. Susan Doris isn't going to come up with anything we haven't heard already, a million times.
May be a mix of both - wanting to interact, not knowing how to interact in the usual way, so saying things that will get a reaction, because even frustrated replies are better than none. That is quite common. Who knows? I tend to see speculative diagnosing of someone's moral motives as similar to speculative diagnosing of any brain condition. Surely the point is that we don't know, and it could be any number of things, and being aware of the things it could be is useful, but making an assumption as to which it is is not. I think most people aren't even fully aware of their own motives, and most people's motives are mixed.
We already know what SusanDoris is going to say before she says it.
Well I thought that, but the last thread she posted on, I was waiting with baited breath for her to start the usual "where's the empirical evidence?" but it never came. So I was wrong and slightly disappointed. - no I'd better not say that - "speak of the devil...."
I think 'Scroll down. Do not read. Do not engage,' might be the best advice. Susan Doris isn't going to come up with anything we haven't heard already, a million times.
Oh yes, that's good advice and will prevent you upsetting the hosts - we all know what that can mean!
I agree, RooK, but I'm not sure she's really capable of posting differently. (I would be charmed to be proven wrong in that.)
This.
@SusanDoris just doesn’t see the problem. If we can’t see a problem we can’t do anything about it.
Basically whatever the subject under discussion @SusanDoris will turn up to tell you atheism is the answer and your beliefs are rubbish. Then she wonders why the responses are often less than polite.
I do not think I have used the word 'rubbish' - but please quote me if I have, and I will re-write the post. And no, atheism is not 'the answer', although I suggest it is morelikely to stand the tests of time - I'm talking of extended time here.
I think I can be of help here SusanDoris. Tubbs never said that you did use the word "rubbish", but you continually imply that it's what you mean. I suggest that the reason you think atheism will stand the test of time is because you see history as a constant progression towards an atheistic utopia. Well may I suggest that you are WRONG. History is more like a pendulum which swings from one extreme to another and back again - which is why history seems to have a strange habit of repeating itself. What happened to Communism? That was supposed to be your utopia, wasn't it? But now we see it repeating itself, only this time it's creeping slowly and subtly into our way of thinking. Will this lead to your dreams of an atheistic utopia? You probably think so, but you will be proved WRONG AGAIN, but perhaps not in our lifetimes.
Not sure why you'd think an atheist would consider communism a utopia. Just because it's run by atheists? I wouldn't consider the Protectorate a utopia, but it was run by Christians.
Not sure why you'd think an atheist would consider communism a utopia. Just because it's run by atheists? I wouldn't consider the Protectorate a utopia, but it was run by Christians.
What a stupid response. I criticize one thing you say, and I'm siding with SusanDoris? Bit of black-or-white fallacy mixed with a soupçon (or two) of ego.
I note also you don't actually respond to my criticism. I suppose because you can't, and you know it.
What a stupid response. I criticize one thing you say, and I'm siding with SusanDoris? Bit of black-or-white fallacy mixed with a soupçon (or two) of ego.
I note also you don't actually respond to my criticism. I suppose because you can't, and you know it.
Not worth it - you're too clever (too clever by half.)
I can’t help smiling slightly ironically to myself – I am not the only one around here whose words are predictable!! (Note to self: Must find outhow to do smileys.)
while making clear that I don't know SD's reasons.
At the risk of being even more annoying than, apparently, usual, the reason for being on message boards at all is that it is something I can do which involves thinking, activity and constantly, well, more or less!, having a variety of topics to read, written by people with an interest in sharing their views.
If those who would prefer the absence of my non-believer’s views can come up with other suggestions of activities I could do – and manage independently – then you won’t see me for dust!! I am very fortunate that I keep physically fit and work at it in order to follow my favourite hobby of tap dancing. Okay, that’s enough. I would not have said all that if FineLine’s post had not been written; and anyone who thinks I sit here with a poor-little-me, self-pitying attitude is so entirely wrong, it’s off the scale!!
... something I can do which involves thinking, activity and constantly, well, more or less!, having a variety of topics to read, written by people with an interest in sharing their views.
That’s great. It’s the same reason I come here.
Now could I politely ask you to stick to the topic. If you have nothing to say on the topic why not ask a pertinent question?
There are whole boards (Ecclesiantics, for example) that I just read and never comment - as I usually have no experience whatever of the subject being discussed as I’m very low Church. But it doesn’t stop them being interesting
If those who would prefer the absence of my non-believer’s views can come up with other suggestions of activities I could do – and manage independently – then you won’t see me for dust!!
It's not up to anyone else here to give you things to do.
And the problem has never been your "non-believer views" but the way you derail threads.
I think I can be of help here SusanDoris. Tubbs never said that you did use the word "rubbish", but you continually imply that it's what you mean.
On the contrary, I most certainly do not think of religious beliefs as rubbish. They are the present state of the accumulated experiences, thought and knowledge of the human species; they include much wisdom but also quite a bit of the evidence of the aggressive characteristics of humans. Not to learn from all this, whether from ancient Greek epicureans or from all that has followed, would be ignorant.
I suggest that the reason you think atheism will stand the test of time is because you see history as a constant progression towards an atheistic utopia. Well may I suggest that you are WRONG. History is more like a pendulum which swings from one extreme to another and back again - which is why history seems to have a strange habit of repeating itself.
I once read a very much abridged version of Utopia – no-one would ever want that! I absolutely agree with the pendulum idea. Fortunately, some things do not swing back, e.g. smokers no longer being the ones to whom others had to defer. I would like to think that religious beliefs will become the minority, but that won’t happen for a very long time.
... something I can do which involves thinking, activity and constantly, well, more or less!, having a variety of topics to read, written by people with an interest in sharing their views.
That’s great. It’s the same reason I come here.
Now could I politely ask you to stick to the topic. If you have nothing to say on the topic why not ask a pertinent question?
Hang on a minute, isn't this Hell?!! And yes, I hope I have done just that.
If those who would prefer the absence of my non-believer’s views can come up with other suggestions of activities I could do – and manage independently – then you won’t see me for dust!!
It's not up to anyone else here to give you things to do.
And that is not what I suggested or asked and I think misinterprets what I thought was the clear meaning of my post.
If those who would prefer the absence of my non-believer’s views can come up with other suggestions of activities I could do – and manage independently – then you won’t see me for dust!!
It's not up to anyone else here to give you things to do.
And that is not what I suggested or asked and I think misinterprets what I thought was the clear meaning of my post.
You said you had a bunch of other things to do and that if other suggestions were offered, we wouldn't see you for dust.
Heh, SusanDoris, I was not for one moment suggesting you have a poor-little-me, self-pitying attitude. I was suggesting maybe you lack awareness as to how you are coming across. Lack of awareness doesn’t tend to lead to self-pity. It more just leads to frustration in other people. Hence this Hell thread!
I also wasn’t saying I don’t know why you post here. I already know why you post and why you enjoy it here, as you have said so quite eloquently many times. I was saying I don’t know why you don’t/can’t stick to the topic, or why you seem so oblivious to why people get annoyed at you.
There seem to be two overall possibilities: either you are doing it on purpose (trolling) to wind people up. Or you are genuinely not realising what you are doing and why people are getting frustrated. Or it could be a mix of both.
As I’ve said before, my general hunch is that you are not a troll. Which is why I gave alternative possibilities of how and why a person can be genuinely unaware rather than trolling. But equally, I can’t know for certain you are not trolling. All I know of you is words on a screen. But at any rate, you seem concerned that people not see you as self-pitying, and I want to assure you I have never once seen you that way.
If those who would prefer the absence of my non-believer’s views can come up with other suggestions of activities I could do – and manage independently – then you won’t see me for dust!!
It's not up to anyone else here to give you things to do.
And that is not what I suggested or asked and I think misinterprets what I thought was the clear meaning of my post.
You said you had a bunch of other things to do and that if other suggestions were offered, we wouldn't see you for dust.
Thats what you wrote.
[/quote]
I will half apologise here! Yes, I did say that if people can think of other things etc, but I did not say I had a 'bunch of other things'. It is always interesting to read what you
say, but I do wish you would quote my exact words. Before writing this, I have gone back and checked carefully to make sure of what I actually said.
By the way, I am much in agreement with your posts on the British Museum.
Heh, SusanDoris, I was not for one moment suggesting you have a poor-little-me, self-pitying attitude. I was suggesting maybe you lack awareness as to how you are coming across. Lack of awareness doesn’t tend to lead to self-pity. It more just leads to frustration in other people. Hence this Hell thread!
I also wasn’t saying I don’t know why you post here. I already know why you post and why you enjoy it here, as you have said so quite eloquently many times. I was saying I don’t know why you don’t/can’t stick to the topic, or why you seem so oblivious to why people get annoyed at you.
There seem to be two overall possibilities: either you are doing it on purpose (trolling) to wind people up. Or you are genuinely not realising what you are doing and why people are getting frustrated. Or it could be a mix of both.
As I’ve said before, my general hunch is that you are not a troll. Which is why I gave alternative possibilities of how and why a person can be genuinely unaware rather than trolling. But equally, I can’t know for certain you are not trolling. All I know of you is words on a screen. But at any rate, you seem concerned that people not see you as self-pitying, and I want to assure you I have never once seen you that way.
And therein lies the rub … All we have to go on is the words on the screen and no real life context. @SusanDoris will find ways to turn all the threads she joins into discussions of The One True Topic ™.
This may be a deliberate attempt to help those of us who still have faith to see, um, the light and admit its all nonsense. It may be that she doesn’t realise that she’s doing it. Either way it’s irrelevant. It still looks perilously like trolling or crusading. Which ain’t on.
@Boogie offers some great advice. You can just read, you don’t have to comment. And if you do comment, stick to the subject or ask questions. As pretty much everyone and their dog have pointed out, it’s not your non-believer views which are the issue. It’s the way you derail threads.
SusanDoris, something else occurred to me after posting. If I were in your situation (as I understand it), I wouldn't be feeling self-pity, but I think these hell calls would be making me increasingly frustrated and annoyed.
I don't know whether you are feeling this way, as you are different from me, but in your shoes, I'd be wanting to say to people: 'Look, FFS, I come to this site because I need the intellectual stimulation or I'd be bored out of my skull. I like you guys (well, most of you), I enjoy these conversations, and I'm genuinely trying to fit in and follow the rules. Quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of people jumping on my posts, and assuming I'm deliberately trying to thwart their discussions. I put a lot of effort into reading the threads and composing my posts, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm sticking to the topic. But if the consensus is that I'm not, why not just create some code phrase to let me know at the time, such as 'Thank you for your post, SusanDoris. Now, getting back to topic...' And then I will stop my little strand of conversation.'
I suspect you are far less easily provoked to impatience than I am, so you wouldn't express yourself with such irritation, but would that sort of code-phrase thing work for you, do you think? Of course, there are hosts who will step in if the off-topic posts start to significantly derail the thread, but as I've said before, people do quite often post a bit of an off-topic post and the topic resumes easily without the need for a hostly intervention, which can also disrupt the flow of the conversation. But given your tendency to post a whole series of posts rather than a one-off, maybe your off-topic ones could be nipped in the bud with an inobtrusive code-phrase?
....I would like to think that religious beliefs will become the minority, but that won’t happen for a very long time.
She thinks if she says it enough times, it will become true. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes - Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Reich Minister for Propaganda.
My biggest gripe with SusanDoris is that she is too dumb to understand her own arguments, and unaware of this.
Most "discussions" with her are like this:
[SusanDoris]: Gives a standard neo-Atheist stock argument.
[Shipmate]: Points out what the consequences of her argument are.
[SusanDoris]: Doesn't understand what Shipmate said, and gives another, slightly related stock argument.
I have had many good discussions with atheists in my life about the relationship between Science and faith. I am thankful for these people. They have put a mirror in front of me, and helped me sharpen and revise my thoughts. SusanDoris isn't one of them. I think we all agree that she simply doesn't have the baggage.
What makes it irritating, is the feeling of smug superiority she lets shine through in all of her discussions, and then the false humility when she is called on it. This is what warrants a Hell call.
I have learned a lot from discussions with atheists in my life. The only thing I'm learning from SusanDoris (but which I will never be able to put into practice) is how to use being an endearling elderly lady as a weapon.
A lessening of belief in gods/spirits/ etc has moved less slowly with widespread and instant communication and, while being resisted by many, is inevitable I think. Evidential facts, which stand up to independent scrutiny, will be more convincing than ideas which do not.
And you said this in response to @mr cheesy's question about how you think atheism will spread:
No, by default. In this country, more and more people lack belief in any God/god/s. Atheism will not 'spread', as you put it, it is religious beliefs that will, eventually and, yes, it is going to take a long time!, , lessen its hierarchical powers and its position as a principal background established culture. There will be an increasing understanding that it is humans who are totally responsible for all the things that humans do for the good and the bad.
It's hard to understand these, and many similar statements made over the years, as saying anything other than that religious belief will generally fade and atheism will generally increase, and that both the decrease in religious belief and the increase in atheism will largely be the result of more and more people recognizing a lack of what you call "objective evidence" to support religious belief. Do you mean something different?
And that is not what I suggested or asked and I think misinterprets what I thought was the clear meaning of my post.
You said you had a bunch of other things to do and that if other suggestions were offered, we wouldn't see you for dust.
Thats what you wrote.
I will half apologise here! Yes, I did say that if people can think of other things etc, but I did not say I had a 'bunch of other things'. It is always interesting to read what you
say, but I do wish you would quote my exact words. Before writing this, I have gone back and checked carefully to make sure of what I actually said.
By the way, I am much in agreement with your posts on the British Museum.
We can all see what you wrote - and whilst I didn't rewrite exactly your words, I did convey accurately the meaning. Which you said I did not.
I have learned a lot from discussions with atheists in my life. The only thing I'm learning from SusanDoris (but which I will never be able to put into practice) is how to use being an endearling elderly lady as a weapon.
Sweet old guy works just as well. Squirrel away the life lesson for when you'll need it.
....I would like to think that religious beliefs will become the minority, but that won’t happen for a very long time.
She thinks if she says it enough times, it will become true. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes - Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Reich Minister for Propaganda.
Sweet old guy works just as well. Squirrel away the life lesson for when you'll need it.
But this means that I'll have to work on my 'sweet' part
It doesn't "work" at all. Whilst I am all in favour of giving people with difficulties some slack here, there is no reason to think that an elderly person is somehow unable to understand and follow basic norms.
For example, I don't need to know on two different threads that Susan agrees with something I wrote. I couldn't give a monkeys, really.
If Susan has something to add or progress a conversation that's fine, but simply telling someone else that she agrees with them is an annoying habit.
My biggest gripe with SusanDoris is that she is too dumb to understand her own arguments, and unaware of this.
Most "discussions" with her are like this:
[SusanDoris]: Gives a standard neo-Atheist stock argument.
[Shipmate]: Points out what the consequences of her argument are.
[SusanDoris]: Doesn't understand what Shipmate said, and gives another, slightly related stock argument.
This is also my frustration with SusanDoris. I sympathise with her wanting to have intelligent discussion, and even with the tendency to bring the discussion back to the issues that are foremost on her mind, but the lack of logic and depth to her arguments, coupled with her lack of insight into this lack, even when pointed out, can make discussion with her circular and pointless, and a waste of time and energy. I don't know what can be done about that though, other than Hell calls, which aren't likely to have an impact, because they kind of rely on a person having some insight and logic. I don't think there are any rules about needing to have a logical mind to participate. Some people just aren't very logical. Many people, in fact, from my observations of some Facebook groups I'm in.
....I would like to think that religious beliefs will become the minority, but that won’t happen for a very long time.
She thinks if she says it enough times, it will become true. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes - Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Reich Minister for Propaganda.
....I would like to think that religious beliefs will become the minority, but that won’t happen for a very long time.
She thinks if she says it enough times, it will become true. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes - Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Reich Minister for Propaganda.
And quite a few Christians, of course.
Huh??? Name one....
What - name a Christian who thinks that their role is to state "the truth" over and over again? That may believe that they're papering over their own personal doubts by repeating something enough times that it will actually become true?
If you can't see the resemblance to this to many Christians, then I can't help you.
....I would like to think that religious beliefs will become the minority, but that won’t happen for a very long time.
She thinks if she says it enough times, it will become true. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes - Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Reich Minister for Propaganda.
And quite a few Christians, of course.
Huh??? Name one....
What - name a Christian who thinks that their role is to state "the truth" over and over again? That may believe that they're papering over their own personal doubts by repeating something enough times that it will actually become true?
If you can't see the resemblance to this to many Christians, then I can't help you.
That's not quite what I meant though - Joseph Goebbels, like SusanDoris, was a Propaganda Minister for the Reich.
....I would like to think that religious beliefs will become the minority, but that won’t happen for a very long time.
She thinks if she says it enough times, it will become true. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes - Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Reich Minister for Propaganda.
And quite a few Christians, of course.
Huh??? Name one....
What - name a Christian who thinks that their role is to state "the truth" over and over again? That may believe that they're papering over their own personal doubts by repeating something enough times that it will actually become true?
If you can't see the resemblance to this to many Christians, then I can't help you.
That's not quite what I meant though - Joseph Goebbels, like SusanDoris, was a Propaganda Minister for the Reich.
Mark Betts you said 'She thinks if she says it enough times, it will become true.'
I would agree with mr cheesy, the same is true of many Christians. Many are unsure how to explain their viewpoint when questioned logically, so they just keep repeating the same thing again and again, often adding something about how people are too scared or stubborn to see the truth. That is pretty similar to what SusanDoris does.
I'm also not sure that likening SusanDoris to Goebbels is realistic or helpful. Seems a bit daft to me!
....I would like to think that religious beliefs will become the minority, but that won’t happen for a very long time.
She thinks if she says it enough times, it will become true. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes - Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Reich Minister for Propaganda.
And quite a few Christians, of course.
Huh??? Name one....
What - name a Christian who thinks that their role is to state "the truth" over and over again? That may believe that they're papering over their own personal doubts by repeating something enough times that it will actually become true?
If you can't see the resemblance to this to many Christians, then I can't help you.
That's not quite what I meant though - Joseph Goebbels, like SusanDoris, was a Propaganda Minister for the Reich.
....I would like to think that religious beliefs will become the minority, but that won’t happen for a very long time.
She thinks if she says it enough times, it will become true. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes - Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Reich Minister for Propaganda.
And quite a few Christians, of course.
Huh??? Name one....
What - name a Christian who thinks that their role is to state "the truth" over and over again? That may believe that they're papering over their own personal doubts by repeating something enough times that it will actually become true?
If you can't see the resemblance to this to many Christians, then I can't help you.
That's not quite what I meant though - Joseph Goebbels, like SusanDoris, was a Propaganda Minister for the Reich.
Susan is not like Goebbels you utter prick.
What is your problem?
Defend her if you want to - tosser.
I'm defending the accurate use of words. There is no sense that Susan is operating like a notorious Nazi propagandist. Nothing she has said has any relationship to Nazism. She's not acting on behalf of any Nazi group - nor anyone else, as far as we know. She's not spreading lies. She's not seeking to hurt the vulnerable or defend murderers.
He may be a tosser in many areas of his life, but refusing to call SD an actual Nazi is not one of them.
I didn't call her an actual Nazi either - I said she was like a certain Nazi when it comes to atheistic propaganda. Is it that hard to understand?
No, it's not hard to understand. It's just wrong.
Whatever @SusanDoris's faults are—and they have been more than adequately laid out in this thread—heading up a propaganda machine ain't one of them. You give her way too much credit, and blow your own credibility in the process.
About Well, folks, for a group of people who think I don’t understand, etc, etc,you are doing a fair old job of reading - and responding so quickly I can’t keep up!!
I see, however, after another hour or two away that you are talking to each other, so I’ll watch from the sidelines.
....I would like to think that religious beliefs will become the minority, but that won’t happen for a very long time.
She thinks if she says it enough times, it will become true. Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes - Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Reich Minister for Propaganda.
And quite a few Christians, of course.
Huh??? Name one....
What - name a Christian who thinks that their role is to state "the truth" over and over again? That may believe that they're papering over their own personal doubts by repeating something enough times that it will actually become true?
If you can't see the resemblance to this to many Christians, then I can't help you.
That's not quite what I meant though - Joseph Goebbels, like SusanDoris, was a Propaganda Minister for the Reich.
Susan is not like Goebbels you utter prick.
What is your problem?
Defend her if you want to - tosser.
I'm defending the accurate use of words. There is no sense that Susan is operating like a notorious Nazi propagandist. Nothing she has said has any relationship to Nazism. She's not acting on behalf of any Nazi group - nor anyone else, as far as we know. She's not spreading lies. She's not seeking to hurt the vulnerable or defend murderers.
So the phrase is simply meaningless. Dickhead.
Perhaps more like the Bolshevics then? As for not spreading propaganda. Are you serious? Maybe she actually believes it, but it's still propaganda you twat.
Comments
She can post in a Troll-like manner but I don't think it's her intention to do that. She doesn't appear to know how to post differently.
I'm sure she's more than capable of doing so if she put her mind to it.
The trouble is, it's like the Boy Who Cried, 'Wolf!'
We already know what SusanDoris is going to say before she says it. So if she ever came out with anything substantially different we are likely to miss it because we are so used to her arguments running along the same tramlines.
I haven't contributed to the Is Evangelism a Good Thing thread, I don't think, but as soon as I saw SD asking if we'd mind her posting something from the perspective of a non-believer then I knew exactly what to expect. As I scrolled down the page I found I was absolutely right. She said exactly what I'd have been able to predict she'd say. Again. And again. And again.
I think 'Scroll down. Do not read. Do not engage,' might be the best advice. Susan Doris isn't going to come up with anything we haven't heard already, a million times.
- no I'd better not say that - "speak of the devil...." Oh yes, that's good advice and will prevent you upsetting the hosts - we all know what that can mean!
You can side with SusanDoris if you like...….
I note also you don't actually respond to my criticism. I suppose because you can't, and you know it.
Not worth it - you're too clever (too clever by half.)
If those who would prefer the absence of my non-believer’s views can come up with other suggestions of activities I could do – and manage independently – then you won’t see me for dust!! I am very fortunate that I keep physically fit and work at it in order to follow my favourite hobby of tap dancing. Okay, that’s enough. I would not have said all that if FineLine’s post had not been written; and anyone who thinks I sit here with a poor-little-me, self-pitying attitude is so entirely wrong, it’s off the scale!!
That’s great. It’s the same reason I come here.
Now could I politely ask you to stick to the topic. If you have nothing to say on the topic why not ask a pertinent question?
There are whole boards (Ecclesiantics, for example) that I just read and never comment - as I usually have no experience whatever of the subject being discussed as I’m very low Church. But it doesn’t stop them being interesting
It's not up to anyone else here to give you things to do.
And the problem has never been your "non-believer views" but the way you derail threads.
You said you had a bunch of other things to do and that if other suggestions were offered, we wouldn't see you for dust.
Thats what you wrote.
'Aaaaarrrghhh!!!'
I also wasn’t saying I don’t know why you post here. I already know why you post and why you enjoy it here, as you have said so quite eloquently many times. I was saying I don’t know why you don’t/can’t stick to the topic, or why you seem so oblivious to why people get annoyed at you.
There seem to be two overall possibilities: either you are doing it on purpose (trolling) to wind people up. Or you are genuinely not realising what you are doing and why people are getting frustrated. Or it could be a mix of both.
As I’ve said before, my general hunch is that you are not a troll. Which is why I gave alternative possibilities of how and why a person can be genuinely unaware rather than trolling. But equally, I can’t know for certain you are not trolling. All I know of you is words on a screen. But at any rate, you seem concerned that people not see you as self-pitying, and I want to assure you I have never once seen you that way.
I will half apologise here! Yes, I did say that if people can think of other things etc, but I did not say I had a 'bunch of other things'. It is always interesting to read what you
say, but I do wish you would quote my exact words. Before writing this, I have gone back and checked carefully to make sure of what I actually said.
By the way, I am much in agreement with your posts on the British Museum.
And therein lies the rub … All we have to go on is the words on the screen and no real life context. @SusanDoris will find ways to turn all the threads she joins into discussions of The One True Topic ™.
This may be a deliberate attempt to help those of us who still have faith to see, um, the light and admit its all nonsense. It may be that she doesn’t realise that she’s doing it. Either way it’s irrelevant. It still looks perilously like trolling or crusading. Which ain’t on.
@Boogie offers some great advice. You can just read, you don’t have to comment. And if you do comment, stick to the subject or ask questions. As pretty much everyone and their dog have pointed out, it’s not your non-believer views which are the issue. It’s the way you derail threads.
I don't know whether you are feeling this way, as you are different from me, but in your shoes, I'd be wanting to say to people: 'Look, FFS, I come to this site because I need the intellectual stimulation or I'd be bored out of my skull. I like you guys (well, most of you), I enjoy these conversations, and I'm genuinely trying to fit in and follow the rules. Quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of people jumping on my posts, and assuming I'm deliberately trying to thwart their discussions. I put a lot of effort into reading the threads and composing my posts, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm sticking to the topic. But if the consensus is that I'm not, why not just create some code phrase to let me know at the time, such as 'Thank you for your post, SusanDoris. Now, getting back to topic...' And then I will stop my little strand of conversation.'
I suspect you are far less easily provoked to impatience than I am, so you wouldn't express yourself with such irritation, but would that sort of code-phrase thing work for you, do you think? Of course, there are hosts who will step in if the off-topic posts start to significantly derail the thread, but as I've said before, people do quite often post a bit of an off-topic post and the topic resumes easily without the need for a hostly intervention, which can also disrupt the flow of the conversation. But given your tendency to post a whole series of posts rather than a one-off, maybe your off-topic ones could be nipped in the bud with an inobtrusive code-phrase?
Most "discussions" with her are like this:
[SusanDoris]: Gives a standard neo-Atheist stock argument.
[Shipmate]: Points out what the consequences of her argument are.
[SusanDoris]: Doesn't understand what Shipmate said, and gives another, slightly related stock argument.
I have had many good discussions with atheists in my life about the relationship between Science and faith. I am thankful for these people. They have put a mirror in front of me, and helped me sharpen and revise my thoughts. SusanDoris isn't one of them. I think we all agree that she simply doesn't have the baggage.
What makes it irritating, is the feeling of smug superiority she lets shine through in all of her discussions, and then the false humility when she is called on it. This is what warrants a Hell call.
I have learned a lot from discussions with atheists in my life. The only thing I'm learning from SusanDoris (but which I will never be able to put into practice) is how to use being an endearling elderly lady as a weapon.
We can all see what you wrote - and whilst I didn't rewrite exactly your words, I did convey accurately the meaning. Which you said I did not.
Sweet old guy works just as well. Squirrel away the life lesson for when you'll need it.
And quite a few Christians, of course.
It doesn't "work" at all. Whilst I am all in favour of giving people with difficulties some slack here, there is no reason to think that an elderly person is somehow unable to understand and follow basic norms.
For example, I don't need to know on two different threads that Susan agrees with something I wrote. I couldn't give a monkeys, really.
If Susan has something to add or progress a conversation that's fine, but simply telling someone else that she agrees with them is an annoying habit.
Okay, I find it hard to stand up to endearing elderly ladies. There, I said it.
This is also my frustration with SusanDoris. I sympathise with her wanting to have intelligent discussion, and even with the tendency to bring the discussion back to the issues that are foremost on her mind, but the lack of logic and depth to her arguments, coupled with her lack of insight into this lack, even when pointed out, can make discussion with her circular and pointless, and a waste of time and energy. I don't know what can be done about that though, other than Hell calls, which aren't likely to have an impact, because they kind of rely on a person having some insight and logic. I don't think there are any rules about needing to have a logical mind to participate. Some people just aren't very logical. Many people, in fact, from my observations of some Facebook groups I'm in.
Huh??? Name one....
What - name a Christian who thinks that their role is to state "the truth" over and over again? That may believe that they're papering over their own personal doubts by repeating something enough times that it will actually become true?
If you can't see the resemblance to this to many Christians, then I can't help you.
It's about why SusanDoris gets on people's wick.
You are beginning to get on mine.
I've sent you a welcoming PM on other issues. Check your in box.
Gam: ..and here's a shit sandwich as well.
That's not quite what I meant though - Joseph Goebbels, like SusanDoris, was a Propaganda Minister for the Reich.
Susan is not like Goebbels you utter prick.
What is your problem?
I would agree with mr cheesy, the same is true of many Christians. Many are unsure how to explain their viewpoint when questioned logically, so they just keep repeating the same thing again and again, often adding something about how people are too scared or stubborn to see the truth. That is pretty similar to what SusanDoris does.
I'm also not sure that likening SusanDoris to Goebbels is realistic or helpful. Seems a bit daft to me!
Defend her if you want to - tosser.
Cantankerous old guy also works.
I didn't call her an actual Nazi either - I said she was like a certain Nazi when it comes to atheistic propaganda. Is it that hard to understand?
I'm defending the accurate use of words. There is no sense that Susan is operating like a notorious Nazi propagandist. Nothing she has said has any relationship to Nazism. She's not acting on behalf of any Nazi group - nor anyone else, as far as we know. She's not spreading lies. She's not seeking to hurt the vulnerable or defend murderers.
So the phrase is simply meaningless. Dickhead.
Whatever @SusanDoris's faults are—and they have been more than adequately laid out in this thread—heading up a propaganda machine ain't one of them. You give her way too much credit, and blow your own credibility in the process.
I see, however, after another hour or two away that you are talking to each other, so I’ll watch from the sidelines.
Perhaps more like the Bolshevics then? As for not spreading propaganda. Are you serious? Maybe she actually believes it, but it's still propaganda you twat.
Any contempt anyone has read in my posts is from the minds of those who think that, not mine.