You said that the reasons for belief are clear, obvious and historical.
Do the reasons you are speaking of include one which acknowledges the existence of God?
I will respond tomorrow.
It's just as well I didn't hold my breath.
My apologies - I'd put it on a doc to go back to, then my software did what it has been doing recently and would not read the doc titles. Mind you, I'm still not sure how to respond. I do not see how there can be any reason* for or acknowledgement of the existence of God, there can only be an acknowledgement that there is belief of that.
What people believed, the gods they worshipped, the rules they made about how this should be done, the social structures based on the beliefs, the conflicts based on a god's apparent authority, the rituals and ceremonies associated, all of these are clear and part of our knowledge and understanding of history.
Hmmmm.
*perhaps 'reason' was the wrong word to start with.
She is under no obligation to engage on others’ terms. Her issues are really quite clear. She recognises no reality but the empirical. Her expectation is that any spiritual world or reality should be explicable by means of material evidence. Because it is not she disavows it.
Others may wish her to consider the consequences of being mistaken about this but this obviously holds no fear for her.
My father in law thought exactly the same way and died an atheist.
She is under no obligation to engage on others’ terms. Her issues are really quite clear. She recognises no reality but the empirical. Her expectation is that any spiritual world or reality should be explicable by means of material evidence. Because it is not she disavows it.
Others may wish her to consider the consequences of being mistaken about this but this obviously holds no fear for her.
That is certainly true.
My father in law thought exactly the same way and died an atheist.
Had he been a believer at any stage? If so, do you know how much or how little he believed? Was he interested, as I am, in the sort of discussions here and the points raised? i.e. the discussions themselves and not a vote at the end on whether the views are right or wrong?
(Will have to edit ... I think I've done it.. )`
@MPaul actually, on the Ship, we do have an "obligation to engage on others’ terms." We have an obligation to follow the Guidelines as given by each board and by the hosts and admins. And we have an obligation to allow discussion to take place. What is being objected to here with SusanDoris, is that I, and I suspect others, are objecting to is that she is not following Purgatory Guidelines:
Where from the introduction:
where theological, ethical, political, social and cultural issues are discussed from a Christian perspective.
and from
3. Stick to the point!
Please do not wander off into unrelated issues ...
So many of SusanDoris' posts are unrelated to the issue being discussed, they are taking the discussion back to her first principles as to whether God/gods exist and can be proved and whether belief is a human construct, when the discussion is starting with the assumptions that those first principles are in place.
and from
6. No preaching!
Purgatory is not the place to impose your particular view on others
I started by showing how SusanDoris' interventions on the Let old churches die and start some new ones derailed the thread with the drip, drip of questions as to whether faith should be included in services to build new churches.
This is a magazine of Christian 'unrest', isn't it? Where do you think the unrest comes in? Could you define it? To start with an assumption that something exists, it would need to be a closed forum or something,, wouldn't it, and I must say I have never had that impression.
I absolutely understand that if I joined in everytopic started in Purgatory ... ... ...well, I don't and wouldn't!!!
Yes, but 1) the Purgatory Guidelines state that the arguments are from a Christian view point, not an atheistic viewpoint, and 2) it's a digression on many threads to ask people to define from first principles. Particularly the thread that triggered this Hell thread.
(And I am arguing this because I am not a 100% theist by any definition, but I keep my doubts out of most threads on the Ship. Because that conversation is not appropriate on most threads.)
I don't see that it is off-topic exactly, but it is tough to have a discussion when someone constantly wants to talk about first principles.
It's like having a botanical discussion of plant pheromones where most want to talk about the effects on the growing plant, someone else wants to talk about the structure of the chemicals and someone else wants to talk about particle physics.
The latter position is so far from the level of discussion that everyone else is having that it quickly becomes annoying.
You said that the reasons for belief are clear, obvious and historical.
Do the reasons you are speaking of include one which acknowledges the existence of God?
I will respond tomorrow.
It's just as well I didn't hold my breath.
My apologies - I'd put it on a doc to go back to, then my software did what it has been doing recently and would not read the doc titles. Mind you, I'm still not sure how to respond. I do not see how there can be any reason* for or acknowledgement of the existence of God, there can only be an acknowledgement that there is belief of that.
What people believed, the gods they worshipped, the rules they made about how this should be done, the social structures based on the beliefs, the conflicts based on a god's apparent authority, the rituals and ceremonies associated, all of these are clear and part of our knowledge and understanding of history.
Hmmmm.
*perhaps 'reason' was the wrong word to start with.
Thank you.
I'm not convinced that anything to do with history is clear or obvious, as history is usually written with a bias, and as there is a tendency for people to use what they want to pick out to back up their own position, and to disregard the rest.
Mind you, I'm still not sure how to respond. I do not see how there can be any reason* for or acknowledgement of the existence of God, there can only be an acknowledgement that there is belief of that.
SusanDoris, people who post on these boards all get that. We all, believers or not, fully grasp and appreciate that Christianity and other religions or cults or what-have-you are belief systems. Posters here have by and large settled into belief or non-belief. Those who haven't "settled" sometimes start threads about their questions and struggles with this issue -- that's one kind of thread where an argument for non-belief might belong.
However, when people post threads about issues within a belief system -- about the nature of the Trinity, or the role of churches, or what Christian "salvation" actually means, etc., and you interject your beef about "Where's the material evidence for a god?" that's disruptive. The interjection is just not relevant to a discussion about salvation or churches or the Trinity, because only posters who've actually settled their personal debates, if any, about believing in God are likely to have such discussions.
The second problem is that you, yourself, have a belief system, and I, at least, see no evidence that you've examined your own beliefs. In our little tangent about street-crossing, you bring up "evidence" about numbers of people who have crossed the street previously. Aside from the fact that I'm pretty sure there's NO database of pedestrian crossing and accidents which occurred at this particular site over the years, and therefore no available data to consult, it must be obvious on a moment's reflection that every single crossing of this street at this particular site is unique, and that therefore, previous successful street-crossings at this site cannot reliably predict future successful crossings. Yet your materialism seems, at least in part, based upon the premise that such events ARE predictive. So I call bullshit; your "materialism" is also a belief system, and I challenge its apparent premises. You also believe something which cannot be demonstrated.
Mind you, I'm still not sure how to respond. I do not see how there can be any reason* for or acknowledgement of the existence of God, there can only be an acknowledgement that there is belief of that.
SusanDoris, people who post on these boards all get that. We all, believers or not, fully grasp and appreciate that Christianity and other religions or cults or what-have-you are belief systems. Posters here have by and large settled into belief or non-belief. Those who haven't "settled" sometimes start threads about their questions and struggles with this issue -- that's one kind of thread where an argument for non-belief might belong.
However, when people post threads about issues within a belief system -- about the nature of the Trinity, or the role of churches, or what Christian "salvation" actually means, etc., and you interject your beef about "Where's the material evidence for a god?" that's disruptive. The interjection is just not relevant to a discussion about salvation or churches or the Trinity, because only posters who've actually settled their personal debates, if any, about believing in God are likely to have such discussions.
I have, actually, got the message!!!
The second problem is that you, yourself, have a belief system, and I, at least, see no evidence that you've examined your own beliefs. In our little tangent about street-crossing, you bring up "evidence" about numbers of people who have crossed the street previously. Aside from the fact that I'm pretty sure there's NO database of pedestrian crossing and accidents which occurred at this particular site over the years, and therefore no available data to consult, it must be obvious on a moment's reflection that every single crossing of this street at this particular site is unique, and that therefore, previous successful street-crossings at this site cannot reliably predict future successful crossings. Yet your materialism seems, at least in part, based upon the premise that such events ARE predictive. So I call bullshit; your "materialism" is also a belief system, and I challenge its apparent premises. You also believe something which cannot be demonstrated.
Of course things like predictability of being knocked down on street crossings can only be on the balance of probability - as I know only two well myself, having, as you may remember been knocked down by a car four-and-a-half-years ago and was lucky to be alive after it.
But we do many things, do we not, on the balance of probability. We take risks, but we hope they are few.
However, when people post threads about issues within a belief system -- about the nature of the Trinity, or the role of churches, or what Christian "salvation" actually means, etc., and you interject your beef about "Where's the material evidence for a god?" that's disruptive. The interjection is just not relevant to a discussion about salvation or churches or the Trinity, because only posters who've actually settled their personal debates, if any, about believing in God are likely to have such discussions.
I have, actually, got the message!!!
Oh, good! Can we look for a change in behavior then?
Oh, good! Can we look for a change in behavior then?
Despite numerous SOF posters acknowledging their weaknesses, and even willingness to change, it does not often happen. Significant, at least noticeable, change typically seems to be abrupt, disruptive and followed by a flounce; voluntary and/or involuntary.
Not saying nobody changes, but it typically takes a significant effort over time.
Oh, good! Can we look for a change in behavior then?
Despite numerous SOF posters acknowledging their weaknesses, and even willingness to change, it does not often happen. Significant, at least noticeable, change typically seems to be abrupt, disruptive and followed by a flounce; voluntary and/or involuntary.
Not saying nobody changes, but it typically takes a significant effort over time.
I am pleased to say that I am definitely not a flouncer!
I thought that physicalist systems are probabilistic, oops I think Susan has mentioned this. So crossing the road may be assessed in that way. I thought that materialism is dying as a term, in any case.
OK so can we be helpful in the process of change and simply remind the party who wishes to change of their behaviour when they lapse?
Hasn't worked really effectively so far, IME/O.
It seems to me to be the Christian thing to do - to correct with love.
Here at SOF, we tend to correct with Hell threads.
Actually, that is not quite fair. I've noticed several posters who very much do try to bring awareness gently. With variable rates of success. I've mentioned before that the human brain reacts to challenges to perceptions/POV in the same way it does to physical threat. Add to that the tendency to walk familiar pathways and we are not hard-wired for easy change.
OK so can we be helpful in the process of change and simply remind the party who wishes to change of their behaviour when they lapse?
Hasn't worked really effectively so far, IME/O.
It seems to me to be the Christian thing to do - to correct with love.
Here at SOF, we tend to correct with Hell threads.
Actually, that is not quite fair. I've noticed several posters who very much do try to bring awareness gently. With variable rates of success. I've mentioned before that the human brain reacts to challenges to perceptions/POV in the same way it does to physical threat. Add to that the tendency to walk familiar pathways and we are not hard-wired for easy change.
I wonder what you think the difference is between a Christian correcting with love and an atheist or a follower of a different belief ssystem correcting with love. that is, if you think there is such a difference.
Curiosity Killed
I have just been looking again at your post up thread a bit. You talk of Purgatory guidelines and mention about views being 'imposed' on others. I do not think there are many here who would agree to having views imposed on them! I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to do that either, but I may be wrong of course.
I didn't say imposed - that word is only used in your post directly above mine. I said we had an obligation to follow the rules of the Ship and/or the Purgatory Board. The word "obligation" was quoting @MPaul directly, in disagreement with this post:
I didn't say imposed - that word is only used in your post directly above mine. I said we had an obligation to follow the rules of the Ship and/or the Purgatory Board. The word "obligation" was quoting @MPaul directly, in disagreement with this post:
It does happen that people try to impose their views on others. They usually end up in Hell at some point.
I would argue that asking about belief in God/gods and or suggesting that faith is a human construct on so many threads is imposing that viewpoint on threads where a belief in God has already been taken as read, so disrupting those threads.
The second problem is that you, yourself, have a belief system, and I, at least, see no evidence that you've examined your own beliefs. In our little tangent about street-crossing, you bring up "evidence" about numbers of people who have crossed the street previously. Aside from the fact that I'm pretty sure there's NO database of pedestrian crossing and accidents which occurred at this particular site over the years, and therefore no available data to consult, it must be obvious on a moment's reflection that every single crossing of this street at this particular site is unique, and that therefore, previous successful street-crossings at this site cannot reliably predict future successful crossings. Yet your materialism seems, at least in part, based upon the premise that such events ARE predictive. So I call bullshit; your "materialism" is also a belief system, and I challenge its apparent premises. You also believe something which cannot be demonstrated.
Of course things like predictability of being knocked down on street crossings can only be on the balance of probability - as I know only two well myself, having, as you may remember been knocked down by a car four-and-a-half-years ago and was lucky to be alive after it.
But we do many things, do we not, on the balance of probability. We take risks, but we hope they are few.
I apologize, SusanDoris; I had not realized I was referencing a traumatic event from your own history. I hope I have not caused you further pain.
That said, your response rather misses the point. I've acknowledged earlier that yes, a great deal of human activity is predicated on such flimsy probabilities. What I really want to know is whether you understand that your scientism or materialism or whatever label you prefer is ALSO a belief system. Like the theistic systems you object to, ordinary mortals like ourselves often (A) misunderstand and/or misrepresent its premises and psossibilities; (B) cannot demonstrate effectively that this system actually has its own first causes which are no more observable or measurable or demonstrable (except through theoretical computer models) than the theistic systems you object to. That was the point I was trying to make, and you have ignored it.
I wonder what you think the difference is between a Christian correcting with love and an atheist or a follower of a different belief ssystem correcting with love. that is, if you think there is such a difference.
COULD YOU PLEASE STOP? Just fucking STOP. Stop making everything about atheism. FFS.
Curiosity Killed: actually, on the Ship, we do have an "obligation to engage on others’ terms." We have an obligation to follow the Guidelines as given by each board and by the hosts and admins
You have said two things here. The second is certainly true. The first is not.
Susan Doris has absolutely no obligation to respond to others’ problems with her posting style or to answer their questions. SOF is not a Christian forum rather, it is more and opportunity to engage in debate where the issues may touch on the theological. No shipmate in my memory has been censured for the content of their posts and SD always shows respect personally. The fact that she is blind to spiritual things is sad but not an issue for anyone but her good self. Like many, here I normally scroll past but in this case, I admire her refusal to be intimidated.
where theological, ethical, political, social and cultural issues are discussed from a Christian perspective.
But this has never been exactly true in my years of posting here. ISTM, it is more a heads up about the nature of the boards than an actual directive. As worded, only Christians could post as a non-Christian might try to discuss within the parameters of what Christianity says, they still would not be speaking from a Christian perspective. The former is polite, the latter is exclusionary; something SOF* hasn't really been in my experience.
@lilbuddha - that is a direct quotation from the introduction to the Purgatory Guidelines. It is not something I invented. I reread the guidelines when we got into this discussion and realised that they do describe that board as discussing things from a Christian perspective.
@MPaul - I will reiterate, that quotation about Christian perspective, and all the other quotations, are direct quotations from the Purgatory Guidelines.
I am still on this thread because I am definitely not 100% theistic - wobbling between different levels of belief - but I keep those doubts and questions to threads where they are appropriate. On a thread discussing whether to close churches and build new ones, which had moved into a discussion about how to develop churches and services in a way to allow seekers to attend, it was taken as read that churches were promoting Christianity and/or introducing it to people who were interested. It was very disruptive to have someone questioning whether atheists were welcome and if they could include questions that allowed them to debunk the Bible. It gave me the impression that SusanDoris was pushing an atheist agenda. And an atheist agenda is not what the Purgatory Boards are about if you read their guidelines.
Curiosity Killed : It was very disruptive to have someone questioning whether atheists were welcome and if they could include questions that allowed them to debunk the Bible. It gave me the impression that SusanDoris was pushing an atheist agenda
The judgement of what agenda, if any, is being pushed by a shipmate is for hosts to judge and SD has not particularly raised their ire, in that regard, that I can see.
And a role of Hell is for Shipmates to discuss issues with other Shipmates. If there was nothing in this Hell thread it would have either had other Shipmates post against @ThunderBunk for starting the thread, or sunk without trace after a page. The fact that we're still discussing this on page 9, with a number of Shipmates involved, including some who surprised me for engaging, suggests there is quite a strong feeling among Shipmates that SusanDoris is pushing an agenda.
And quite a few of those who are asking SusanDoris to stop disrupting threads are also saying that they are not certain about belief and theism.
The second problem is that you, yourself, have a belief system, and I, at least, see no evidence that you've examined your own beliefs.
In our little tangent about street-crossing, you bring up "evidence" about numbers of people who have crossed the street previously. Aside from the fact that I'm pretty sure there's NO database of pedestrian crossing and accidents which occurred at this particular site over the years, and therefore no available data to consult, it must be obvious on a moment's reflection that every single crossing of this street at this particular site is unique, and that therefore, previous successful street-crossings at this site cannot reliably predict future successful crossings. Yet your materialism seems, at least in part, based upon the premise that such events ARE predictive. So I call bullshit; your "materialism" is also a belief system, and I challenge its apparent premises. You also believe something which cannot be demonstrated.
Of course things like predictability of being knocked down on street crossings can only be on the balance of probability - as I know only two well myself, having, as you may remember been knocked down by a car four-and-a-half-years ago and was lucky to be alive after it.
But we do many things, do we not, on the balance of probability. We take risks, but we hope they are few.
I apologize, SusanDoris; I had not realized I was referencing a traumatic event from your own history. I hope I have not caused you further pain.
Thank you for saying, and no, you did not cause any further pain.
That said, your response rather misses the point. I've acknowledged earlier that yes, a great deal of human activity is predicated on such flimsy probabilities. What I really want to know is whether you understand that your scientism or materialism or whatever label you prefer is ALSO a belief system. Like the theistic systems you object to, ordinary mortals like ourselves often (A) misunderstand and/or misrepresent its premises and psossibilities; (B) cannot demonstrate effectively that this system actually has its own first causes which are no more observable or measurable or demonstrable (except through theoretical computer models) than the theistic systems you object to. That was the point I was trying to make, and you have ignored it.
I think the difference between a religious belief system and, e.g., 'my' belief system is that the religious one is based all on faith; and the atheist one is based on faith in things backed up by facts and where these are not available, or only partly so, then that part of the belief system comes under the heading of 'don't know'. I've seen various definitions of scientism, but as far as I know it is a word generally used by the religious 'against' non-believers, but I avoid it myself.
And a role of Hell is for Shipmates to discuss issues with other Shipmates. If there was nothing in this Hell thread it would have either had other Shipmates post against @ThunderBunk for starting the thread, or sunk without trace after a page. The fact that we're still discussing this on page 9, with a number of Shipmates involved, including some who surprised me for engaging, suggests there is quite a strong feeling among Shipmates that SusanDoris is pushing an agenda.
And quite a few of those who are asking SusanDoris to stop disrupting threads are also saying that they are not certain about belief and theism.
And, well, I must say this has been a most interesting thread to read and take part in. I think a thank you is appropriate!
Do you think faith based belief systems don’t have a ‘don’t know’ option?
Most of my answers, to myself and others, are ‘I don’t know’.
I can't think of any area of life which doesn't have a 'don't know' option! I think, however, that the don't-knows of religious beliefs are far less likely to join the body of factual knowledge than the don't-knows of the physical world and the universe. I'm always prepared to be wrong though!
An interesting point that the don't knows about the supernatural seem to be the same as the knows. Well, I can't see a difference, for example, whether there are naiads or not. Except to them.
I don't think it's an 'agenda' so much as a default position. It's a bit like the old kids' toy, The Weeble. Remember the ads?
'Weebles wobble but they don't fall down.'
SD isn't the only one with a default position which she reverts to whatever the topic in hand.
One can imagine a thread about growing cacti.
'Interesting thread. We know that cacti are green and spikey by observation. We don't have the same level of observable data when it comes to religious belief ...'
Or what we had for breakfast.
'A bowl of muesli or toast and marmalade or a full English is tangible. Not like religious belief ...'
And on and on it goes.
On a thread about faith, evidence and historicity of scriptural stories, fine.
On a thread about Barnum and Bailey, orangutans, the EU, ways of slicing a banana, obscure 1930s film stars or what someone preached about a week last Sunday, less so.
'You preached on the feeding of the five thousand? I hope you told people it may never have taken place ...'
'A new church meeting in a scout hut down the road? I hope they're telling people it might all be a myth ...'
'You're becoming the next Archbishop of Canterbury? I hope you use your position to tell people that there is no evidence for faith ...'
'You are being elevated to the Papacy? Congratulations. I hope you realise that it is all in your mind ...'
It seems to me to be a crusade more than just a default position. She said she'd learnt but she still goes on and on (as mousethief aptly stated), always reverting to the atheist position.
I speak as a non-theist .... some of her observations make no sense to me.
It seems to me to be a crusade more than just a default position. She said she'd learnt but she still goes on and on (as mousethief aptly stated), always reverting to the atheist position.
I speak as a non-theist .... some of her observations make no sense to me.
I'm not quite sure what you mean- this is the only thread I'm on at the moment! Do you think I should sort of back out gracefully?
What I mean is that your posting, here and elsewhere, suggests that you are on some sort of atheistic crusade which ISTM is out-of-place on most SofFools' topics.
I suppose, since you ask, that some here would be pleased if you would back out of this style of posting.
Speaking for myself, you do atheism no credit but you do confirm some stereotypes of what atheists are like.
@Curiosity killed
I’m not contesting your quotation, but your interpretation of it.
————-
Regarding the crusading accusation, given that people have been called on that and SD hasn’t, one can conclude that the PTB don’t agree she’s doing it
And, holy motherfuck if some of you fools cannot hear that her tune is no different to that caused by those thumping their bibles when condemning homosexuality, etc.
Yes, she is repetitive and lacks nuance. But Raptor Eye, on this very thread, was far more rude and dismissive than anything I remember reading by Susan Doris.
And he is far from the only one who does that.
Yes, this thread has continued in part because SD’s posting style legitimately can irritate. But it has also done so because several disparate posters see the irritation as going beyond style.
Oh @lilbuddha I don't disagree that some of the theist posters on the Ship can be rude, dismissive and insist that not only are they are right but they have God on their side in their righteousness. Which is frustrating. There is nothing to stop you or anyone else calling anyone to Hell if you feel that they are that disruptive to threads, even yet a Hell thread. However, none of the Shipmates you keep naming as irritating have got up my nose enough for me to start a Hell thread, so tough, no, if you want them called to Hell, you're going to have to do it.
I didn't start this thread, but joined in because SusanDoris had just irritated me on the Let old churches die and start some new ones thread, which was the trigger for this thread. I was annoyed that I had to justify a Christian input into service type events put on by churches. Those church activities were run on a Christian basis to educate people in the Christian faith, so having to discuss why this should be was irrelevant and disruptive to the thread.
To say that it's a 'crusade' is to imply that there's some kind of strategy behind it. I don't detect any evidence of that.
Hence my suggestion that it's more like an inbuilt bias. We all have them. Most of us have sufficient self-awareness to realise that.
Others don't.
Well, of course it's a bias, and I'm well aware of what a bias is. But it is a bias acquired, not just inbuilt. I have been reading, learning, looking and acquiring the understanding I now have for a very long time. I will also be watching out for the rest of my life for new facts and ideas which will change or add to that understanding.
Comments
What people believed, the gods they worshipped, the rules they made about how this should be done, the social structures based on the beliefs, the conflicts based on a god's apparent authority, the rituals and ceremonies associated, all of these are clear and part of our knowledge and understanding of history.
Hmmmm.
*perhaps 'reason' was the wrong word to start with.
Others may wish her to consider the consequences of being mistaken about this but this obviously holds no fear for her.
My father in law thought exactly the same way and died an atheist.
(Will have to edit ... I think I've done it.. )`
Thank you - interesting post.
Where from the introduction: and from So many of SusanDoris' posts are unrelated to the issue being discussed, they are taking the discussion back to her first principles as to whether God/gods exist and can be proved and whether belief is a human construct, when the discussion is starting with the assumptions that those first principles are in place.
and from I started by showing how SusanDoris' interventions on the Let old churches die and start some new ones derailed the thread with the drip, drip of questions as to whether faith should be included in services to build new churches.
I absolutely understand that if I joined in everytopic started in Purgatory ... ... ...well, I don't and wouldn't!!!
(And I am arguing this because I am not a 100% theist by any definition, but I keep my doubts out of most threads on the Ship. Because that conversation is not appropriate on most threads.)
It's like having a botanical discussion of plant pheromones where most want to talk about the effects on the growing plant, someone else wants to talk about the structure of the chemicals and someone else wants to talk about particle physics.
The latter position is so far from the level of discussion that everyone else is having that it quickly becomes annoying.
Thank you.
I'm not convinced that anything to do with history is clear or obvious, as history is usually written with a bias, and as there is a tendency for people to use what they want to pick out to back up their own position, and to disregard the rest.
SusanDoris, people who post on these boards all get that. We all, believers or not, fully grasp and appreciate that Christianity and other religions or cults or what-have-you are belief systems. Posters here have by and large settled into belief or non-belief. Those who haven't "settled" sometimes start threads about their questions and struggles with this issue -- that's one kind of thread where an argument for non-belief might belong.
However, when people post threads about issues within a belief system -- about the nature of the Trinity, or the role of churches, or what Christian "salvation" actually means, etc., and you interject your beef about "Where's the material evidence for a god?" that's disruptive. The interjection is just not relevant to a discussion about salvation or churches or the Trinity, because only posters who've actually settled their personal debates, if any, about believing in God are likely to have such discussions.
The second problem is that you, yourself, have a belief system, and I, at least, see no evidence that you've examined your own beliefs. In our little tangent about street-crossing, you bring up "evidence" about numbers of people who have crossed the street previously. Aside from the fact that I'm pretty sure there's NO database of pedestrian crossing and accidents which occurred at this particular site over the years, and therefore no available data to consult, it must be obvious on a moment's reflection that every single crossing of this street at this particular site is unique, and that therefore, previous successful street-crossings at this site cannot reliably predict future successful crossings. Yet your materialism seems, at least in part, based upon the premise that such events ARE predictive. So I call bullshit; your "materialism" is also a belief system, and I challenge its apparent premises. You also believe something which cannot be demonstrated.
But we do many things, do we not, on the balance of probability. We take risks, but we hope they are few.
Not saying nobody changes, but it typically takes a significant effort over time.
It seems to me to be the Christian thing to do - to correct with love.
AFF
Actually, that is not quite fair. I've noticed several posters who very much do try to bring awareness gently. With variable rates of success. I've mentioned before that the human brain reacts to challenges to perceptions/POV in the same way it does to physical threat. Add to that the tendency to walk familiar pathways and we are not hard-wired for easy change.
I have just been looking again at your post up thread a bit. You talk of Purgatory guidelines and mention about views being 'imposed' on others. I do not think there are many here who would agree to having views imposed on them! I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to do that either, but I may be wrong of course.
'6 No Preaching
Purgatory is not the place to impose your particular view on other (s?)
so that is from where I took the verb impose.
I would argue that asking about belief in God/gods and or suggesting that faith is a human construct on so many threads is imposing that viewpoint on threads where a belief in God has already been taken as read, so disrupting those threads.
Susan Doris has absolutely no obligation to respond to others’ problems with her posting style or to answer their questions. SOF is not a Christian forum rather, it is more and opportunity to engage in debate where the issues may touch on the theological. No shipmate in my memory has been censured for the content of their posts and SD always shows respect personally. The fact that she is blind to spiritual things is sad but not an issue for anyone but her good self. Like many, here I normally scroll past but in this case, I admire her refusal to be intimidated.
@MPaul - I will reiterate, that quotation about Christian perspective, and all the other quotations, are direct quotations from the Purgatory Guidelines.
I am still on this thread because I am definitely not 100% theistic - wobbling between different levels of belief - but I keep those doubts and questions to threads where they are appropriate. On a thread discussing whether to close churches and build new ones, which had moved into a discussion about how to develop churches and services in a way to allow seekers to attend, it was taken as read that churches were promoting Christianity and/or introducing it to people who were interested. It was very disruptive to have someone questioning whether atheists were welcome and if they could include questions that allowed them to debunk the Bible. It gave me the impression that SusanDoris was pushing an atheist agenda. And an atheist agenda is not what the Purgatory Boards are about if you read their guidelines.
And quite a few of those who are asking SusanDoris to stop disrupting threads are also saying that they are not certain about belief and theism.
Most of my answers, to myself and others, are ‘I don’t know’.
'Weebles wobble but they don't fall down.'
SD isn't the only one with a default position which she reverts to whatever the topic in hand.
One can imagine a thread about growing cacti.
'Interesting thread. We know that cacti are green and spikey by observation. We don't have the same level of observable data when it comes to religious belief ...'
Or what we had for breakfast.
'A bowl of muesli or toast and marmalade or a full English is tangible. Not like religious belief ...'
And on and on it goes.
On a thread about faith, evidence and historicity of scriptural stories, fine.
On a thread about Barnum and Bailey, orangutans, the EU, ways of slicing a banana, obscure 1930s film stars or what someone preached about a week last Sunday, less so.
'You preached on the feeding of the five thousand? I hope you told people it may never have taken place ...'
'A new church meeting in a scout hut down the road? I hope they're telling people it might all be a myth ...'
'You're becoming the next Archbishop of Canterbury? I hope you use your position to tell people that there is no evidence for faith ...'
'You are being elevated to the Papacy? Congratulations. I hope you realise that it is all in your mind ...'
I speak as a non-theist .... some of her observations make no sense to me.
I suppose, since you ask, that some here would be pleased if you would back out of this style of posting.
Speaking for myself, you do atheism no credit but you do confirm some stereotypes of what atheists are like.
Hence my suggestion that it's more like an inbuilt bias. We all have them. Most of us have sufficient self-awareness to realise that.
Others don't.
The strategy seems to me to be repetition of a 'bee in the bonnet'.
Don't Ship name changes make the Baby Jesus cry?
I’m not contesting your quotation, but your interpretation of it.
————-
Regarding the crusading accusation, given that people have been called on that and SD hasn’t, one can conclude that the PTB don’t agree she’s doing it
And, holy motherfuck if some of you fools cannot hear that her tune is no different to that caused by those thumping their bibles when condemning homosexuality, etc.
Yes, she is repetitive and lacks nuance. But Raptor Eye, on this very thread, was far more rude and dismissive than anything I remember reading by Susan Doris.
And he is far from the only one who does that.
Yes, this thread has continued in part because SD’s posting style legitimately can irritate. But it has also done so because several disparate posters see the irritation as going beyond style.
I didn't start this thread, but joined in because SusanDoris had just irritated me on the Let old churches die and start some new ones thread, which was the trigger for this thread. I was annoyed that I had to justify a Christian input into service type events put on by churches. Those church activities were run on a Christian basis to educate people in the Christian faith, so having to discuss why this should be was irrelevant and disruptive to the thread.