SusanDoris the millstone

1235734

Comments

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    mousethief (I think) wants you to explain why you bring every discussion back to the same thing (God doesn’t exist).

    Why not start threads around this subject rather than posting on threads where God’s existence is assumed by all the posters?

    Posting on those threads where people are getting deep into the theology of the question derails them and becomes disruptive.

    He doesn’t want to talk with you about whether you argue but about how you argue and why you join some threads at all when the subject matter isn’t within your belief system at all - like the example I gave about citronella and buzz collars for dogs. I can’t join a discussion about those things as I fundamentally disagree with their use. So I either disrupt their discussion or keep out of it and start a new thread saying why I have such strong feelings/beliefs about it.
  • Thank you, Nick. <collapses in despair>
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    The strongest counter evidence is that it's supernatural.
    The cause of the event might be supernatural, but the question whether the tomb was empty, and whether people saw and spoke to Jesus two days after his crucifixion are simply about effects/events in the natural world. In principle they are legitimate matters of historical enquiry.
    As is whether there was any tomb to be empty.

    Most modern historians agree that an itinerant preacher named Jesus existed in Judea and Galilee at the very beginning of what we now call the first century AD, and that he was executed by the Romans.

    The existence of the tomb is virtually unchallenged. Whether it remained occupied for more than a few days is moot.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    As I've said I think this Hell call, and responses to her in general, are partly because of her atheism.
    Her manner of posting can be genuinely irritating, I get that, and that irritation is part of the call. ... So the question is why was SD called? And I genuinely think that atheism has a part in that. We humans do not like our beliefs challenged, our brains react the same to that as a physical threat. So it is natural and reasonable to feel more annoyed with a refutation than an internecine squabble. Hence, the point I have been making.

    I think you're wrong. RooK isn't being called on his atheism, nor are others, as far as I've seen. On the other hand people get dragged to Hell weekly for posting style problems. For some reason style tends to irritate more.

    My personal problem with SD is minor but yes, it's style. It's the Olympian tone--the "I have it all together and let me advise you from the heights of my superiority" thing. I have no sense of a real person there--unlike with other posters on the Ship. We may be happy, but we may also be annoyed, irritated, frustrated, confused... SD is none of these things. As presented, she is a polished and perfected piece of art. And that doesn't seem real to me at all.

    I posted this but the quote tags must be wrong. I've tried to edit but not sure how to change it. Apologies.

    ]If only!!!!! wrinkled, now skinny arms, height two inches shorter than it used to be, knee-high support stockings, weekly visit to hairdresser's - although here I have a small asset: some natural colour left. I wish I could still give you a link to my website, but my ISP vanished it a couple of years ago. I have all the draft pages, but no vehicle to put them on. I'll see if the Tech chap can sort out how to put a link to me tap dancing, taken a year ago by my daughter-in-law so that there is a video of me at my favourite hobby for my sons to see, since otherwise they will never have observed this phenomenon when I die!

    But this is wholly external. You express no needs or frustrations, you make no mistakes, you need never apologize, you have no temper to watch, you appear to suffer from no fears or even mild concerns; you ask for no advice, because you need none; you are totally self-sufficient in the electronic world; you are, in short, without negative human experience. Even your genetics are good, as you have told us several times. When you come on Ship, you apparently gain nothing from Shipmates but a mild pleasure in reading their posts (which do not, however, ever change your mind on anything), and your communication is wholly focused on helping us lower beings overcome the blinding obstacles that prevent us from becoming the superior being that you are.

    Jesus himself in all his perfection still felt, suffered, had compassion, cried out against injustice, had bad days. But not you. Not as you present yourself on Ship, at least. If your humanity is only reflected in aging (and even there you hasten to tell us that you don't suffer as others do from complete hair color loss), well, how do you expect us to be able to relate to you? You are basically perfect in every way. And God knows none of us are.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    SusanDoris - quick question. Can you see that what you think you are communicating may not be what others are receiving? And that what you think others are saying/asking may be quite different from what they are intending to say? And that therefore this sort of conversation here in Hell may be a way for clarifications to happen?

    I think what people are asking now is why do you repeat the same question/point again and again, and is it serving any purpose?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    The strongest counter evidence is that it's supernatural.
    The cause of the event might be supernatural, but the question whether the tomb was empty, and whether people saw and spoke to Jesus two days after his crucifixion are simply about effects/events in the natural world. In principle they are legitimate matters of historical enquiry.
    As is whether there was any tomb to be empty.

    Most modern historians agree that an itinerant preacher named Jesus existed in Judea and Galilee at the very beginning of what we now call the first century AD, and that he was executed by the Romans.
    Modern historians agree that there is no particular reason to doubt, which is not quite the same thing. Same for secular figure like Socrates.
    The existence of the tomb is virtually unchallenged. Whether it remained occupied for more than a few days is moot.
    Actually, that is a point of contention as the common practice was to let the crucified rot in place. This was not a random thing, but part of the whole punishment. This is how you will die and this is how you will be shamed/made an example of after you are dead. To be able to remove a body is at least unusual. Unusual enough that there is only ONE 1C body that was verified to have been crucified.

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    mousethief wrote: »
    My point is about the way she argues, refusing to play by the standard she set up. Her response: Yeah, my lack of belief is an essential part of me. Belief is an essential part of others. What should change my mind?

    I didn't say ANYTHING about changing her mind. Nothing. I was talking about the way she argues. Which she did not respond to AT ALL.

    OK, never mind; we do see it the same way.
    @SusanDoris essentially makes the same post in every case - "this is what I think". And not only does it not address anything specific in the posts she seems to be responding to, but it appears that she has a very narrow range of thoughts.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Dafyd

    I think I'll have one of those, please!! Can I get it on Amazon? :D

    You've got one already. Don't you own the patent?
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    SusanDoris, responding to a quote is not the same as engaging with what was said in the quote. @mousethief made three very clear, to me at least, and related points:

    First, he said you have set standards—I believe he means standards of evidence on what is "nown"—that you hold others to but do not hold yourself to.
    I have read that several times. I cannot think of where this has happened and an example would be appreciated. I personally am not in a position to set standards, particularly in science, but as a result of their standards, we are in a better position from the point of view of knowledge and technology etc than ever before.
    what standards do I not hold to myself and to which I hold others? And apologies if that makes mousethief clutch his head in frustration, but there we are.
    Second, he said that you equate atheism with reasonableness.
    Yes, that seems sensible. In what way is atheism - the lack of belief itself, not the people lacking the belief - not reasonable?
    Third, he said that, despite your equation of atheism with reasonableness, you are unreasonable in how you engage with others because you refuse to hold yourself to the standards to which you hold others.
    See response to point one above.

    And thank you for setting that out clearly.


  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    In what way is atheism - the lack of belief itself, not the people lacking the belief - not reasonable?
    In my experience, atheism tends to go beyond lack of belief (“I don’t believe there is/in a god”), and makes a more definite assertion “(I believe) there is no such thing as (a) god”
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Second, he said that you equate atheism with reasonableness.
    Yes, that seems sensible. In what way is atheism - the lack of belief itself, not the people lacking the belief - not reasonable?

    Here is a case where you miss the mark. He wrote: "You equate atheism with reasonableness." He did not write "You believe it is reasonable to be an atheist." Do you see the difference?

    In the first case, you are taking atheism to be the marker of whether a person is reasonable: if they are atheist, they are reasonable, and if they are not atheist, they are not reasonable. It is an a equals b situation. And what that does (to our great annoyance) is to rule out the majority of the human race from any claim to reasonableness. They are not atheists, and therefore they cannot be reasonable.

    In the second case, saying simply "it is reasonable to be an atheist," the speaker does NOT rule out the possibility of non-atheists being reasonable as well.

    Mousethief states that you do the first (equate atheism with reasonableness) and not the second (claim only that atheism is a reasonable position, one among many). In your reply you slid from answering Mousethief's statement and twisted it into an answer to number 2. The two positions are not logically the same, and it is intellectually dishonest for you to slide from one to the other and imply that Mousethief meant number 2 all along.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    In what way is atheism - the lack of belief itself, not the people lacking the belief - not reasonable?
    This begs the question. Argues in a circle. If there is a god, then not believing in him/her/it/they is not reasonable. Atheism is only reasonable if there is no god, and even then one's atheism could be based on irrational thinking. If I think "My one true love has left me. There must be no god," then my atheism is not rational. SusanDoris, you yourself have said that you didn't come to atheism via any argument or process of reasoning, but just kind of drifted away from belief. That's neither unreasonable nor reasonable. It's certainly not "rational."
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    SusanDoris, responding to a quote is not the same as engaging with what was said in the quote. @mousethief made three very clear, to me at least, and related points:

    First, he said you have set standards—I believe he means standards of evidence on what is "nown"—that you hold others to but do not hold yourself to.
    I have read that several times. I cannot think of where this has happened and an example would be appreciated.
    Here is a large part of the problem. Multiple people say that it has happened and point you to places it has happened. Yet you refuse to engage. It never even occurs to you -- not a glimmer -- that maybe you are wrong, that maybe these other people have a point and you need to do a little self-introspection about the way you come across. No, not you. It's SusanDoris contra mundum, and mundum be damned.

    ___________________
    *against the world -- from the phrase Athanasius contra mundum, from a historical situation in which the bishop Athanasius held out against seas of heretics to finally be proclaimed correct on the nature of the Trinity. Please don't start an argument about this as it's irrelevant other than an explanation of the phrase.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    In what way is atheism - the lack of belief itself, not the people lacking the belief - not reasonable?
    In my experience, atheism tends to go beyond lack of belief (“I don’t believe there is/in a god”), and makes a more definite assertion “(I believe) there is no such thing as (a) god”
    I think this is a false distinction that Christians like to make to try to put atheism on the same plane as religion.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    I don’t think when someone who is an atheist says “I don’t believe in god” they mean to leave open the possibility that there may or may not be a god, but they don’t believe in one. They usually mean “I believe there is no such thing as a god”
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    I know both atheists and agnostics who make that distinction. It's certainly not something I've only heard Christians say. As with Christians, there are different atheists who describe and understand their atheism quite differently, and create categories within it.
  • Some atheists don't believe in the fundagelical Christian god, but don't believe that any others exist enough to not be believed in. So to speak.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    In what way is atheism - the lack of belief itself, not the people lacking the belief - not reasonable?
    In my experience, atheism tends to go beyond lack of belief (“I don’t believe there is/in a god”), and makes a more definite assertion “(I believe) there is no such thing as (a) god”
    I think this is a false distinction that Christians like to make to try to put atheism on the same plane as religion.

    If you'll forgive me, I think that's the sort of thing Buddhists say to beg the question as to whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy.
  • LambChopped

    I simply couldnt’t manage to put the comments in the right places, so this is the best I could do in response to your post.
    That is your interpretation. I can only tell you that at this time in my life, I do not waste time on having such feelings of superiority or anything else. In fact, I was only thinking today that the world has rushed on ahead of me and I'm quite happy about that.

    ]Nope. Just old!! I went to the gym this morning and there is usually someone there I know and those brief contacts I hope keep me in touch. Oh, and please don't think that is a sob story because it is definitely not!!
    But this is wholly external. You express no needs or frustrations,
    I have plenty, but I deal with them. Why should I bring them here?
    you make no mistakes,
    Well, that’s just not treue!!
    you need never apologize, you have no temper to watch, you appear to suffer from no fears or even mild concerns;
    Pause to wipe away the tears that well … but I’ve been there, done that, got the T-shirt applies here. …
    you ask for no advice, because you need none; you are totally self-sufficient in the electronic world; you are, in short, without negative human experience.
    Quite wrong.
    Even your genetics are good, as you have told us several times. When you come on Ship, you apparently gain nothing from Shipmates but a mild pleasure in reading their posts (which do not, however, ever change your mind on anything),
    Just because the views expressed do not change my mind does not alter the fact that the posts I read here are far more interesting than other forums and have enhanced my life. I am sorry that I have not had the same effect on some here.
    and your communication is wholly focused on helping us lower beings overcome the blinding obstacles that prevent us from becoming the superior being that you are.
    No comment, I think.

  • fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris - quick question. Can you see that what you think you are communicating may not be what others are receiving? And that what you think others are saying/asking may be quite different from what they are intending to say? And that therefore this sort of conversation here in Hell may be a way for clarifications to happen?

    I think what people are asking now is why do you repeat the same question/point again and again, and is it serving any purpose?
    Yes to the first paragraph. Wil think about the second.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    In what way is atheism - the lack of belief itself, not the people lacking the belief - not reasonable?
    In my experience, atheism tends to go beyond lack of belief (“I don’t believe there is/in a god”), and makes a more definite assertion “(I believe) there is no such thing as (a) god”
    I think this is a false distinction that Christians like to make to try to put atheism on the same plane as religion.

    If you'll forgive me, I think that's the sort of thing Buddhists say to beg the question as to whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy.
    Not getting this.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    In what way is atheism - the lack of belief itself, not the people lacking the belief - not reasonable?
    In my experience, atheism tends to go beyond lack of belief (“I don’t believe there is/in a god”), and makes a more definite assertion “(I believe) there is no such thing as (a) god”
    I think this is a false distinction that Christians like to make to try to put atheism on the same plane as religion.

    If you'll forgive me, I think that's the sort of thing Buddhists say to beg the question as to whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy.
    Not getting this.

    The point I'm making is that, if you posit a lack of difference between conviction of the absence of a deity, and lack of conviction of divine presence, then the need to decide and proclaim a position on either side of that divide evaporates. It's a question I have often heard posed about Buddhism, but I don't see how it matters if it is longer possible to actively assert the absence of a deity. The lack of propositions as to a deity's nature is then sufficient.
  • I should probably add that, to my mind, as a philosophy it is agnostic, whereas if it is a faith, it is an agnostic one and therefore incompatible with belief in a deity.
  • GarasuGarasu Shipmate
    But several versions of Buddhism have deities, don't they?
  • Buddhism is more non-theistic than agnostic or atheistic. But it's complicated.
    In some variants, supernatural beings play a part, but not in the way that God does. And, ultimately, are not the way to enlightenment, though some variations believe they can help. at least to an extent. And then there are folk traditions mixed in with some practices and that is a whole 'nother kettle of conundrums.
    It is certainly a more complex question and answer for Buddhism than most religions, but the tl;dr is in the first two sentences.
  • What happened? Tried to edit that to say that as a faith it seems to me atheistic, but in any case I will take your point.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    I'm just wondering if a Christian's passing reference to God - on a thread which isn't really about whether God exists - is as annoying to atheists as an atheist's passing reference to God being totally imaginary of course, on a thread that isn't really about that either, is to believers ?

    Some of us talk about God in the subjunctive - saying something that means something because of the supposed characteristics of God, that doesn't depend for its truth or insight on whether He is real or invented.

    That's a particularly academic trait - positing something for the sake of making an argument whilst deliberately suspending judgment for the time being as to whether what is posited is true or not.

    Maybe not a style that comes naturally to SusanDoris ?

    Or am I maundering again ?
  • Russ wrote: »
    I'm just wondering if a Christian's passing reference to God - on a thread which isn't really about whether God exists - is as annoying to atheists as an atheist's passing reference to God being totally imaginary of course, on a thread that isn't really about that either, is to believers ?

    Some of us talk about God in the subjunctive - saying something that means something because of the supposed characteristics of God, that doesn't depend for its truth or insight on whether He is real or invented.

    That's a particularly academic trait - positing something for the sake of making an argument whilst deliberately suspending judgment for the time being as to whether what is posited is true or not.

    Maybe not a style that comes naturally to SusanDoris ?

    Or am I maundering again ?
    Sounds about right! I think that one of the things I will pick up on, when the subject of agnosticism for instance comes up, is the apparent assumption by believers that the probability of God (any god) existing as against the probability of its not existing is a sort of 50-50 case. Whereas it can only be a 1-99 - keeping the probabilities as for and against the same as the previous 50-50 above. Any atheist who has thought about it wil know there must be that small space left for a god to appear one day but that can remain unsaid for most of the time.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    <snip>the apparent assumption by believers that the probability of God (any god) existing as against the probability of its not existing is a sort of 50-50 case. Whereas it can only be a 1-99 - keeping the probabilities as for and against the same as the previous 50-50 above. <snip>
    I very strongly doubt that there’s any way of meaningfully attaching a numerical probability to the existence or otherwise of a god. Either there is or there isn’t so, as far as general atheism goes, the choice must be binary - yes or no. I guess that the binary nature of the question can come across as implying a 50/50 probability.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    <snip>the apparent assumption by believers that the probability of God (any god) existing as against the probability of its not existing is a sort of 50-50 case. Whereas it can only be a 1-99 - keeping the probabilities as for and against the same as the previous 50-50 above. <snip>
    I very strongly doubt that there’s any way of meaningfully attaching a numerical probability to the existence or otherwise of a god. Either there is or there isn’t so, as far as general atheism goes, the choice must be binary - yes or no. I guess that the binary nature of the question can come across as implying a 50/50 probability.

    There ought to be a name for the binary = 50/50 fallacy, because I've heard it elsewhere.

    I have a lot of sympathy for SD because as has been rehearsed before, looking for objective (note - not necessarily scientific) evidence for an objective proposition (eg. "there is a God") seems eminently reasonable. And it is foundational; there seems little point arguing over his position on maniples if he doesn't actually exist.
  • But not of these points need to be made on every. single. thread. ever. None of them. Not a one. None.

    Your point is made, for good or ill. You need a new point, or to do the other thing.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    But not of these points need to be made on every. single. thread. ever. None of them. Not a one. None.

    Your point is made, for good or ill. You need a new point, or to do the other thing.

    Well, yes, but I just can't see how this is generating a Hell call. Just scroll by. Fuck me, is your life so free of hassles that one person with a bee in their bonnet causes such an issue, because we can happily swap lives if so.
  • SusanDoris, I feel like I should probably apologize for causing you pain--but I'm really not sure that I have done so! This is why I get frustrated. I can't get a sense of you as a person. If I have hurt you, I apologize.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Something I want to add is that in my experience, some people simply don't share their struggles and frustrations, because they don't think it's helpful to impose them on others - sometimes this can be a generational thing, and also a personality thing. It doesn't necessarily mean a person thinks they are superior or problem-free.

    Also, I observe that some people simply don’t engage emotionally with others. Which is how I read SusanDoris, and a few others here, though her way is unique to her. I see it that she’s here for the discussion, that she ignores when it gets personal, but here in hell, realising this is an issue, will tell you if she feels you’ve misread her, and let you know she’s a human being with struggles, same as everyone. But that’s as far as it goes. SusanDoris can of course correct me if I’m wrong.

  • Somebody upthread asserted that SusanDoris doesn't engage. Which made me laugh, because for 5 pages here she has been engaging rather well!
  • I think that was me!
    You're right, SusanDoris has

    I also think others posting here have summarised it far better than I did as being about posting style in those engagements, especially as regards commenting in response to what someone else has posted by restating one's broad position rather than responding to the detail.
  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    fineline wrote: »
    Something I want to add is that in my experience, some people simply don't share their struggles and frustrations, because they don't think it's helpful to impose them on others - sometimes this can be a generational thing, and also a personality thing. It doesn't necessarily mean a person thinks they are superior or problem-free.

    Also, I observe that some people simply don’t engage emotionally with others. Which is how I read SusanDoris, and a few others here, though her way is unique to her. I see it that she’s here for the discussion, that she ignores when it gets personal, but here in hell, realising this is an issue, will tell you if she feels you’ve misread her, and let you know she’s a human being with struggles, same as everyone. But that’s as far as it goes. SusanDoris can of course correct me if I’m wrong.
    No, you are not wrong. And thank you. By the way, I am working on the idea of a Purg topic on scientifically proving god!!]
    Lamb Chopped
    No need for apology, but thank you anyway. I always like reading your posts with their vigour , warmth and generosity..

  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Second, he said that you equate atheism with reasonableness.
    Yes, that seems sensible. In what way is atheism - the lack of belief itself, not the people lacking the belief - not reasonable?

    Here is a case where you miss the mark. He wrote: "You equate atheism with reasonableness." He did not write "You believe it is reasonable to be an atheist." Do you see the difference?
    I meant to respond to the above earlier ... ...
    The thought did not enter my head that people who believe or people who don't are unreasonable. Nor do I think of belief itself as unreasonable. The reasons for belief, for thousands of years, are innumerable.
    In the first case, you are taking atheism to be the marker of whether a person is reasonable: if they are atheist, they are reasonable, and if they are not atheist, they are not reasonable. It is an a equals b situation. And what that does (to our great annoyance) is to rule out the majority of the human race from any claim to reasonableness. They are not atheists, and therefore they cannot be reasonable.
    As I say, I did not think that! Belief and atheism are one aspect of a person and to take it on its own and judge a person as reasonable or unreasonable on that one thing would be daft.
    In the second case, saying simply "it is reasonable to be an atheist," the speaker does NOT rule out the possibility of non-atheists being reasonable as well.

    Mousethief states that you do the first (equate atheism with reasonableness) and not the second (claim only that atheism is a reasonable position, one among many). In your reply you slid from answering Mousethief's statement and twisted it into an answer to number 2. The two positions are not logically the same, and it is intellectually dishonest for you to slide from one to the other and imply that Mousethief meant number 2 all along.

    mousethief was inferring something I hadnn't even thought of so that's why I didn't realise he had inferred it!! Hope that hasn't muddled things further!! Also do hope I haven't fouled up the tags!
    mousethief wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    In what way is atheism - the lack of belief itself, not the people lacking the belief - not reasonable?
    This begs the question. Argues in a circle. If there is a god, then not believing in him/her/it/they is not reasonable. Atheism is only reasonable if there is no god, and even then one's atheism could be based on irrational thinking. If I think "My one true love has left me. There must be no god," then my atheism is not rational. SusanDoris, you yourself have said that you didn't come to atheism via any argument or process of reasoning, but just kind of drifted away from belief. That's neither unreasonable nor reasonable. It's certainly not "rational."

  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    You may not have meant those things, but that is what you wrote. Therefore the communication problem... I don't know how to fix it, though. Or rather, to prevent it. That's the sort of thing that snarls up a thread.
  • This is not engagement; it's retaliation, screed for screed.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    But not of these points need to be made on every. single. thread. ever. None of them. Not a one. None.

    Your point is made, for good or ill. You need a new point, or to do the other thing.

    Well, yes, but I just can't see how this is generating a Hell call. Just scroll by. Fuck me, is your life so free of hassles that one person with a bee in their bonnet causes such an issue, because we can happily swap lives if so.

    Because she snarls up every single thread she touches with crap that is irrelevant to it.

    All discussion starts from axioms, i.e. from points that are not part of the dicussion, which have to be accepted before the discussion starts. By its very nature, theological discussion which is not debating the existence of God starts from the axiom that God exists. Therefore, if you want to discuss that question, by all means start a thread that discusses it, but keep that discussion off threads where this is axiomatic. This is an essential discipline if the Ship is to work. It is complete, abject failure to do this that has generated this hell call. I can't scroll past because she prevents the discussion which is the real point of threads, so there is nothing to see other than the damage she causes.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    I wonder if the difficulty is that for SusanDoris personally to believe in God, she would feel she was being unreasonable. For SusanDoris personally, atheism is the only reasonable way. And maybe she is having difficulty expressing that thought process in a way that indicates it is about herself, and that she can't actually speak for anyone else.

    A further difficulty may be that, although SusanDoris can't speak for anyone else, she speculates about others' reasoning or lack thereof sometimes, in a bit of an assuming way. For instance, when discussing with me my faith, she seemed to conclude that my faith was because I have a sensitive nature whereas she has an ability to stand back and analyse objectively. Which could be interpreted as rather rude, particularly as she doesn't know me - suggesting that I am not able to analyse objectively. As it was, I found it funny, because in my life I've far more often been told I'm analytical and objective (often with the qualifier 'too'!) than that I'm sensitive. I pointed this out, but there was no acknowledgement from SD, other than 'thank you for your reply.'

    So, SusanDoris, I'm thinking that perhaps this disconnect with other posters could be partly remedied if you sometimes acknowledged what people said about themselves - something along the lines of 'Yes, you're right, a person can be both objective and sensitive - sorry if I sounded presumptuous.' Maybe inviting people to interpret their own experiences rather than putting your own interpretation on someone else's personality - or if you speculate, you could acknlowledge it's speculation by saying 'This is just speculation and I may be wrong.' And maybe also sometimes look for things in common, rather than always set up a dichotomy between yourself and the other poster. I'm just thinking things like this can bridge gaps, and it's something I personally have had to consciously learn to do, because it is easy for me to think someone is being stupid or irrational if their thought pattern is not following the logic of my thought pattern!
  • I can't scroll past because she prevents the discussion which is the real point of threads, so there is nothing to see other than the damage she causes.
    There is a poster who I generally scroll past because I do not believe his engagement to be genuine. There are posts/posters I scroll past at various times for various reasons. Yes, it can occasionally make parsing a thread difficult. But the Ship isn't a debating society, it is more a party with a relatively open door policy. And though Purg is meant for discussion, it necessarily has a loose framework. Like anything else, care should be exercised when calling form more exclusionary policy. We don't always wind up on the side of the door we think we should.
  • fineline wrote: »
    For SusanDoris personally, atheism is the only reasonable way.
    Pedantically, agnosticism is the most reasonable outlook. And I do think that pretty much every religion steps into the unknown in a way that more empirical modalities do not. However, that is not to say that religious/philosophical approaches have to be completely without reason or that agnosticism and atheism are always accepted because of reason. But there is that point where the faith must bridge the gap into the unknowable. And, despite there being unknowns in every way of looking at the universe, science makes progress* where faith remains fairly close to where it started. So, it is easy to see why some atheists look at it in an non-nuanced way. Especially if they are not particularity science minded.

    *Take STEVE, for example. We don't know what he is, but we know more about what he isn't.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    For SusanDoris personally, atheism is the only reasonable way.
    Pedantically, agnosticism is the most reasonable outlook.

    I wouldn't argue with that. I was speculating about SusanDoris's thought process, not suggesting it actually is the most reasonable outlook.

  • There are worse things in life than irrationality.

    If the worst that can be said of my faith in the One in whom we have our being is that it's irrational, to that I say "and so?"

    Anyone's hypothetical extrapolations that arise from their fear/judgment/disapproval of my irrational tenets are also irrational.

    And so we are irrational together, and yet - we exist! Let's dance!

    AFF

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Pedantically, agnosticism is the most reasonable outlook.
    Absolutely. Yet it remains possible to be either theistic or atheistic in one's agnosticism.

    It's the gnostic - the one's who insist they know - who are filthy with unreason.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    RooK wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Pedantically, agnosticism is the most reasonable outlook.
    Absolutely. Yet it remains possible to be either theistic or atheistic in one's agnosticism.

    It's the gnostic - the one's who insist they know - who are filthy with unreason.
    But if one is a theistic or atheistic agnostic, then one knows which one they don't know about. Better to be unsure what one is unsure of...
  • balaambalaam Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    @SusanDoris
    when the subject of agnosticism for instance comes up, is the apparent assumption by believers that the probability of God (any god) existing as against the probability of its not existing is a sort of 50-50 case. Whereas it can only be a 1-99 - keeping the probabilities as for and against the same as the previous 50-50 above.
    I have never seen any believers arguing from the position of the probability of God if I tried it would not be 50 -50. as for 1 - 99, can you tell me where you got this statistic. I hope it is not MADE UP.

    You claim that belief is not from reason. I put it to you that MAKING UP statistics is not arguing from reason.

    Please show me that your figures are reasonable, I understand the mathematics of statistics. Over to you.
  • Chorister wrote: »
    Somebody upthread asserted that SusanDoris doesn't engage. Which made me laugh, because for 5 pages here she has been engaging rather well!
    I'd say the "rather well" part is a matter of opinion. If you mean she's been actually engaging with people's points, well, I'm afraid we're going to part company.
This discussion has been closed.