When I used the word 'countering', I meant that the explanations given by the various experts, or presenters, or those examining a topic from a non-religious point of view and trying to present the best evidence available, do not conclude that any of it was done by or ordered by a god, whether they believe in one or not, but if religious faith leaders or 'experts' believe that God said this should be done , then that is where they need the 'better' and more objective evidence.
And that, of course, probably makes for more confusion and misunderstanding!! If I think of a better way of saying that, I will do so.
This just makes me think that despite being on these boards for years, you haven't seemed to appreciate a fairly obvious thing. The diversity of Christian opinion.
Every time some Christian group is in the media saying something, there is another Christian opinion standing against it. There is literally nothing that a Christian could say that another can't disagree with.
And another thing; if a Christian is talking about their objections to abortion or IVF or whatever, how exactly are you thinking "objective evidence" is going to counter it? What does that mean?
Any position on abortion is fairly obviously a moral position.
If I was to say that I was against abortion because God says so, it is not a counter to say that science can keep alive more and more premature babies.
One can only counter with "objective evidence" if the point being made is claiming to be based on evidence: so if someone is claiming that needles cause cancer, then a counter-claim is that there is no evidence for that.
The best that one can do with a "God says" argument is to say that "loads of other people don't believe that" and "society is damaged by you believing that".
Nick Tamen
I have copied a few lines from one of your posts above.
Me:…stone circles, about archaeology in other countries, about buildings connected with many religions, about new discoveries in medicine, etc.
You: ,,, somehow threaten or undermine the beliefs of believers. That’s a false assumption.[/quote]
I agree that this does not directly affect beliefs, but I would say that continuing increase in and consistency of factual knowledge will change the amount of, or need for, faith beliefs.
I agree that this does not directly affect beliefs, but I would say that continuing increase in and consistency of factual knowledge will change the amount of, or need for, faith beliefs.
Near as I can tell what reduces amount of, or need for, faith beliefs is secure prosperity. Places in Europe where the common people can eat and sleep indoors and don't have to worry about losing those things are where Christianity is fading the quickest. Scandinavia is the prime example here. Show me a fat and happy middle class, and I'll show you religion on the siding to irrelevancy.
Well yes, I think that was apparent well before page 17 ...
It was. But by page 17 she was saying she understood where others were coming from and what they were saying, and that her future posts would reflect that understanding. Would that had proven to be true.
Hang on a minute! Is Hell supposed to be the place for that?!
Yes. Yes it is. It is one of the express purposes of Hell, that Shipmates work out their differences, resolve them to mutual satisfaction, then resume normal posting elsewhere on the boards, leaving me the fuck alone.
This must be the longest-running hell call ever, and surely now everything that could be said has been said, by multiple people and in multiple ways.
Ooooh!! Am I, or rather, is ThunderBunk who started it, creating a record?!
Only if you want a record of "deepest cesspit", or "most mind-numbingly obdurate Shipmate".
SD - you've had plenty of swipes around the head with the cluebat. Has any of it sunk in yet, or are you simply going to continue to plough your own tedious and tendentious furrow, oblivious of the damage you cause to other people's conversations and enjoyment of the Ship?
This must be the longest-running hell call ever, and surely now everything that could be said has been said, by multiple people and in multiple ways.
Ooooh!! Am I, or rather, is ThunderBunk who started it, creating a record?!
I’m sure there are much longer threads on the Old Ship.
I had a dig around there this morning looking for long threads. As providence would have it I found the Proof od God’s Existence there!
(You can all thank me later)
Ha, yes, I had a feeling there would probably be longer ones on the old ship. I was more making a point about how this was a very long thread, and the same things had been said multiple times, and it seemed (to me) to be getting a bit pointless.
By the way, I totally agree with Ohher’s point. Disability/age don’t generally render change impossible. And besides, having a low intellect can equally be a disability if it reaches a certain point. But the brain is plastic - people with all sorts of disabilities and brain injuries can and do change. (I’m talking generally - not suggesting any of this applies to SD, other than the ability to change.) But equally we all, whether we have disabilities or not, do have individual and human limitations. Positive change generally takes time, and is not, in my experience, hastened by repeating the same criticism or repeating insults.
So I was questioning the wisdom of continually and/or forcefully making the same point, even though it’s being made in different ways. Not that people aren’t free to continue to do so, but I am wondering if it’s reached a point where it’s a bit of a waste of energy.
And my point about ‘idiot’ or ‘stupid’ is it’s an insult made in frustration, showing a person is trying to interact with you, trying to goad you into proving you’re not stupid, rather than a dismissive ‘Oh well, bless him, he’s not very intelligent, he can’t help it.’ So not really very literal, but more an attempt to engage. But equally it won’t work if a person is refusing to engage with insults, or feels no desire to prove their intelligence. It’s about knowing your audience - or trying to get to know them.
Well yes, I think that was apparent well before page 17 ...
It was. But by page 17 she was saying she understood where others were coming from and what they were saying, and that her future posts would reflect that understanding. Would that had proven to be true.
Hang on a minute! Is Hell supposed to be the place for that?!
Yes. Yes it is. It is one of the express purposes of Hell, that Shipmates work out their differences, resolve them to mutual satisfaction, then resume normal posting elsewhere on the boards, leaving me the fuck alone.
It is very hard to say something with the right amount of <smiley> inflexion here, but I see I shall have to state: yes, I have heard what people say, yes, I am sorry to have caused so much annoyance, although not to all all the time I hope! I had hoped that how I have been responding would have indicated my acknowledgement of all that, but I think I have noticed that in fact that this has not been noticed here in Hell! Did you expect me to grovel andbeg or something? If so, for what?
Only if you want a record of "deepest cesspit", or "most mind-numbingly obdurate Shipmate".
SD - you've had plenty of swipes around the head with the cluebat. Has any of it sunk iyet, or are you simply going to continue to plough your own tedious and tendentious furrow, oblivious of the damage you cause to other people's conversations and enjoyment of the Ship?
I think that is perhaps just a fraction OTT, but , well, we'll see.
When I used the word 'countering', I meant that the explanations given by the various experts, or presenters, or those examining a topic from a non-religious point of view and trying to present the best evidence available, do not conclude that any of it was done by or ordered by a god, whether they believe in one or not, but if religious faith leaders or 'experts' believe that God said this should be done , then that is where they need the 'better' and more objective evidence.
And that, of course, probably makes for more confusion and misunderstanding!! If I think of a better way of saying that, I will do so.
This just makes me think that despite being on these boards for years, you haven't seemed to appreciate a fairly obvious thing. The diversity of Christian opinion.
Incorrect. Of course I realise the diversity - I do not read only on the Ship, nor did I start thinking about belief in recent years.
Every time some Christian group is in the media saying something, there is another Christian opinion standing against it. There is literally nothing that a Christian could say that another can't disagree with.
Fortunatelyk in my opinion, there are groups like the NSS which do some good counter-argument stuff.
And another thing; if a Christian is talking about their objections to abortion or IVF or whatever, how exactly are you thinking "objective evidence" is going to counter it? What does that mean?
I could go off at a tangent here with my strong, personal views, and the reasons for them, but choose not to do so.
I agree that this does not directly affect beliefs, but I would say that continuing increase in and consistency of factual knowledge will change the amount of, or need for, faith beliefs.
Why would you think that?
For a start, history shows us that scientific knowledge has replaced ppreviously held Goddidit beliefs about natural phenomena for instance..
'Not injurious, no, but perhaps pointing out more often that many things which were said to be 'done by' or 'the work of' God were not and objective evidence has taken their place.'
Such as?
I could understand your posting this if all the believers aboard the Ship were fundamentalist literalists who believed in a Six-Day Creation and so forth - but most of us here aren't.
That's partly what I meant when I observed - probably patronisingly - that you seemed to be referring to how things were, rather than how they are.
It's not as if the CofE, for instance, didn't adjust it's take on things in the light of Darwin's writings. Sure, there was opposition but it's interesting to observe how much adjustment there was comparatively early on.
As you well know, none of the faith positions you're encountering here are by any means monolithic.
Yet you post as if they are and that we all need some kind of lesson in scientific theory, objective evidence and much more besides.
That's what is annoying and frustrating people here.
It would be less annoying and irritating if you actually had some idea of the scientific method but you clearly have no more idea than I have - and I don't purport to, either, being one of the least scientifically inclined people I know.
Something like a simple apology, a statement that you'll try not be such a dick in future, and a withdrawing from the thread? That goes down well. It may even allow you time to post back in Purg.
If you ever did say 'sorry', you did it in such an obscure and elliptical way that pretty much everyone has missed it. Clarity is a virtue.
I am not sure that your assertion that "history shows us that scientific knowledge has replaced previously held Goddidit beliefs about natural phenomena" means quite what you think it does. The development of scientific understanding of natural phenomena has been developing for millenia. Young Earth Creationism appeared in response to many of the scientific understandings as to how the planet formed, ie after. Early geological observations were made by Aristotle and Theophrastus (4th century BC), Origen (~200CE) and Augustine (354-430) did not believe that the creation myth was anything more than a myth.
We do not know, and cannot know, if the Orkney stone circles are celebrating the same God that we do. We cannot know if the burnt ox bones were a sacrifice or a clean up operation after filling a large export order. We can only speculate from the extremely patchy evidence we do have.
It feels as if you are arguing against a faith and God that many here do not believe in, and you are not listening to anyone telling you that what you are posting in response to others does not answer their questions.
I am not sure that your assertion that "history shows us that scientific knowledge has replaced previously held Goddidit beliefs about natural phenomena" means quite what you think it does. The development of scientific understanding of natural phenomena has been developing for millenia. Young Earth Creationism appeared in response to many of the scientific understandings as to how the planet formed, ie after. Early geological observations were made by Aristotle and Theophrastus (4th century BC), Origen (~200CE) and Augustine (354-430) did not believe that the creation myth was anything more than a myth.
We do not know, and cannot know, if the Orkney stone circles are celebrating the same God that we do. We cannot know if the burnt ox bones were a sacrifice or a clean up operation after filling a large export order. We can only speculate from the extremely patchy evidence we do have.
It feels as if you are arguing against a faith and God that many here do not believe in, and you are not listening to anyone telling you that what you are posting in response to others does not answer their questions.
Do you think it is just possible that some may be misreading my answers?
And to have been more precise I should have specified that knowledge has replaced some/quite a few of Goddidit beliefs.
I could go off at a tangent here with my strong, personal views, and the reasons for them, but choose not to do so.
You could, but your views on IVF would clearly be moral not based on "objective evidence".
Because there is no "objective" view on IVF and a whole load of moral positions.
Agreed, but there are plenty of people saying (on radio, TV, in newspapers, on the internet) that this or that should or should not be allowed/take place because it says so in the Bible, or that's not what God wants (or words to that effect.
I was going to bow out of this thread too, but a tiny core of optimism in me keeps hoping that something someone says will get through, and some kind of connection will happen.
Do you think it is just possible that some may be misreading my answers?
SusanDoris, yes, it's entirely possible that most of us, maybe all of us, are not reading in your posts what you intended us to read.
In which case, do you think it's possible that your wording may be a little unclear, and maybe it would help to write in a clearer way, where you think more specifically about the meanings of the words you are using?
And maybe, to show people you are not misunderstanding them, try writing what you understand them to be saying, so they can correct you if necessary, or confirm that you have understood. Like I do with you - I say 'I may be misunderstanding, but I think you are saying...' This sort of feedback helps people realise if they are being understood, helps them clarify if they are not, and breaks down the sorts of barriers happening here, because CK's point here is exactly what I was feeling too, and it seems like it's what quite a lot of people are feeling:
It feels as if you are arguing against a faith and God that many here do not believe in, and you are not listening to anyone telling you that what you are posting in response to others does not answer their questions.
I could go off at a tangent here with my strong, personal views, and the reasons for them, but choose not to do so.
You could, but your views on IVF would clearly be moral not based on "objective evidence".
Because there is no "objective" view on IVF and a whole load of moral positions.
Agreed, but there are plenty of people saying (on radio, TV, in newspapers, on the internet) that this or that should or should not be allowed/take place because it says so in the Bible, or that's not what God wants (or words to that effect.
Yes, as Gamma says, of course there are. There are many people who say all kinds of sweeping things under the name of religion. And, as you will see if you read the boards in general, they do not represent all Christians, and plenty of us challenge their views. Just like how you don't represent all atheists, and plenty of atheists would take issue with some of your statements.
A thought - SD, if you want to discuss how people can abuse religion to have power over people, that might be an interesting Purgatory topic, though would probably need a more focused question/theme, as I'm pretty sure most everyone here would agree with you that this is a bad thing, so there wouldn't be much to discuss. But maybe you might want to speculate whether banning religion would obliterate this kind of behaviour, or whether it would simply resurface in other ways. Whether the power impulse some have is really about religion, or if they simply use religion to give them some semblance of authority.
Not injurious, no, but perhaps pointing out more often that many things which were said to be 'done by' or 'the work of' God were not and objective evidence has taken their place.
LambChopped, just an aside, as you keep doing this, and so your posts are giving the wrong shipmates' names for some quotes (near the beginning of the thread you made it look like I'd said lilbuddha's words, for instance): for each quote you need the quote tag with the person's name right before it, and the end quote tag after it. You have two beginning quotes here, as if you are quoting yourself, as well as SD, and only one end tag. You need one beginning and one ending for just one quote. Not sure if that makes sense, but it's very logical when you get the hang of it.
Challenges, from the NSS for instance, are more strongly voiced, and rightly so, in my opinion.
Perhaps this says it all. SD is a signed up follower of the NSS and so-called 'humanist' organisations and so she has her views that Christians are ..... or Christians believe..... reinforced by their constant messages, which are intended not only to get Christianity or mention of it off of our streets and away from children, but to consign them to history forever.
Challenges, from the NSS for instance, are more strongly voiced, and rightly so, in my opinion.
Perhaps this says it all. SD is a signed up follower of the NSS and so-called 'humanist' organisations and so she has her views that Christians are ..... or Christians believe..... reinforced by their constant messages, which are intended not only to get Christianity or mention of it off of our streets and away from children, but to consign them to history forever.
I suppose it is understandable that if your head is in your arse, getting your knickers in a twist would cut off the circulation to your brain.
That isn’t their stated goal. There stated goal is to get religion out of the state. That is very different to to twaddle you posted.
I’m afraid, SusanDoris, that your asking this question makes me think that, despite your assurances to the contrary, you really have not understood what many people in this thread have been trying to tell you about faith and objective evidence. It also makes me wonder if you are working from a limited or even caricatured framework concerning those whom you call “faith believers.”
No, you are not correct on either of those points.
Perhaps I'm not correct, but your posts, including your most recent ones, really give no evidence to support a claim otherwise.
I suppose it is understandable that if your head is in your arse, getting your knickers in a twist would cut off the circulation to your brain.
That isn’t their stated goal. There stated goal is to get religion out of the state. That is very different to to twaddle you posted.
In RE's possible defense, there are Atheist groups who do have the stated aim of ridding the world of religion. Some of their rhetoric even has a violent tinge to it.
I suppose it is understandable that if your head is in your arse, getting your knickers in a twist would cut off the circulation to your brain.
That isn’t their stated goal. There stated goal is to get religion out of the state. That is very different to to twaddle you posted.
In RE's possible defense, there are Atheist groups who do have the stated aim of ridding the world of religion. Some of their rhetoric even has a violent tinge to it.
Yes, there are crazies in every movement. But SD hasn't, to my knowledge, mentioned any connection to them. So that isn't different to saying all Muslims want to kill infidels. And, given RE's postings, I don't think any defence of his post is a reasonable interpretation.
Thing is, Raptor Eye, if you're going to criticise the National Secular Society for wanting to exclude religion from education and the public square, as it were - then you may as well accuse the Vatican as having plans for world domination or accuse evangelicals of wanting to take over the world as they seek to spread the Gospel ...
I don't see anything sinister in SD's posts. Irritating, yes. Sinister, no.
She's already made it clear that she doesn't believe that school kids should be taught or exposed to religious viewpoints without counter-balancing material.
She's not alone in that. Plenty of people feel the same way. You or I may not agree with them but there's nothing 'sinister' about SD's views on these and other issues.
Saying, 'Aha! Sorted! SD is a fully paid up member of the NSS, that explains it all and puts it in a nice neat box ...' doesn't get us very far.
Not that this thread is getting any of us very far in the first place ...
Thing is, Raptor Eye, if you're going to criticise the National Secular Society for wanting to exclude religion from education and the public square, as it were - then you may as well accuse the Vatican as having plans for world domination or accuse evangelicals of wanting to take over the world as they seek to spread the Gospel ...
I don't see anything sinister in SD's posts. Irritating, yes. Sinister, no.
She's already made it clear that she doesn't believe that school kids should be taught or exposed to religious viewpoints without counter-balancing material.
Hmmmmm, I'd like to modify that just slightly. I do not think that 'counterbalancing material' is the important thing, it is more important for children to learnabout all beliefs with the comment that this is what many people believe to be true, or similar This may be what you were thinking though.
She's not alone in that. Plenty of people feel the same way. You or I may not agree with them but there's nothing 'sinister' about SD's views on these and other issues.
Saying, 'Aha! Sorted! SD is a fully paid up member of the NSS, that explains it all and puts it in a nice neat box ...' doesn't get us very far.
Not that this thread is getting any of us very far in the first place ...
I hope you don't mind if I say, thank you, I like your post!
I was gone for just a few days, and came back to 300 new posts of the same fucking idiotic merry-go-round. All of it like a slow-motion car-accident of all the things that I hate most about most of you and usually try to ignore.
Fuck everybody who posted suggestions that somehow science and religion are competing concepts. Especially all you thimble-brained delusion-gargling knowledge-burners who tried prying shitty analogies out of their clenched asses with fucking bridges. The only people who fear the systematic process for improving knowledge are the ones who secretly suspect that their beliefs are full of shit.
But especially fuck you, @SusanDoris, for trying to fellate a whole forest of clue bats. Surprise: YES, you are not doing anything useful with your annoyingly persistent poking people in their stupid. Want to know why? Because faith has a function. It's not even a difficult function to grasp. Faith lets us move forward. If humans had to know everything absolutely before doing anything, life would be impossible. You think you are challenging people's beliefs, but what you are really doing is asking people whom you do not understand to jump off their personal bridges mid-span because of fear of doubt. It's a shitty fucking thing to do, and even shittier when you plaster a blithe smile on it.
Because faith has a function. It's not even a difficult function to grasp. Faith lets us move forward. If humans had to know everything absolutely before doing anything, life would be impossible.
Of course faith has a very important function and I have never said otherwise, but with hindsight perhaps one might say it has been the confidence and faith in things factual that increase our knowledge base that have done it - rather than faith beliefs. The knowledge of the latter of course has increased our understanding of ourselves as humans.
I have of course read your post several times and apologise for writing just an ordinary sort of answer, but, as I have mentioned somewhere up thread, I am no good at witty comments. So I refrain from putting any or here.
I have of course read your post several times and apologise for writing just an ordinary sort of answer
Amusingly, your post was ordinary only for you - in that it was an extraordinary avoidance of the substance of my post. You plucked out the one painfully obvious part of my post and argued that you grasped it, despite the incandescent irony of how doing so demonstrates your continued obliviousness.
RooK's post reminds me of something my dad said years ago, after my grandmother's funeral. We'd all gone out for a meal and my uncle, who is an atheist and also not very subtle in thought or understanding of human interaction, declared that death is the end, that there is no God, no afterlife, and that when someone dies, that's it. Most of my family isn't religious anyway, and I just took it as my uncle being his tactless self, imposing his views at a time when not really appropriate, but my dad (who is not religious and calls himself agnostic) was furious. He didn't say anything to my uncle, but afterwards said to me that my uncle shouldn't have said that, that it was really a wrong thing to say in front of my grandad, to tear apart any shred of hope he might have. I hadn't thought of it in those terms, as my grandad had never said anything to suggest he might be religious, but it's something my dad felt very strongly about and even refers to now, when talking about religion, as something people shouldn't do.
And it has made me think, in general, that regardless of whether or not we believe in God, we probably all have some kind of fictions and/or denials in our lives that keep us going - ways of looking at things, making sense of things, whether it be eternal positive thinking, or seeing ourselves as the enlightened ones, somehow superior in some way, etc. Because life is vast and complex, even if you don't believe in God, and our minds must reduce it in some way, frame it in some way, in order to make sense of our lives and ourselves and keep going. This, I think, happens, regardless of belief in God. God (if you accept his existence) is one more concept we reduce with our limited minds.
I am reminded of a conversation years ago with a colleague. Her adult son had died and she talked to me about it sometimes. Because she knew I was religious, she said to me one day 'Do you think God chooses certain people to experience this sort of loss, because they're strong enough, and other people aren't?' I paused, because no, I don't think this in the slightest, but she had a sort of hope in her voice, and I didn't want to crush that. So I said something non-committal, and she went on to tell me that she felt she'd been chosen by God, because she was strong enough, and there was some purpose in it. And I listened, and I didn't tell her that actually, I think shit just happens, to anyone, and that plenty aren't strong enough. Because this odd idea she had was giving her a glimmer of hope, and helping her find some kind of meaning in her grief, and it was harmless enough, and why should I destroy it? Maybe this relates to the thread about honesty. Just because you believe someone's beliefs are deluded doesn't automatically mean that the best thing to do is tell them this every single time, and to every single person.
Just because you believe someone's beliefs are deluded doesn't automatically mean that the best thing to do is tell them this every single time, and to every single person.
O if only SusanDoris could read this, say thank you nicely, and then stop doing it.....
(Is Hell closed for business? There've been no new posts on this thread for four hours!)
Yes, and wasn't it nice? Wait, didn't you say you were getting off at the next exit?
Yes, I did say that, but I just had to carry on rubbernecking..........
It was worth it, though, for RooK's blistering post, and the typically bland response thereto....
IJ
And just think - you'd have missed all that exciting stuff if you had not dropped in again!
Do you know, I think I detect a tinge of irony - or even sarcasm! - in that remark. I wonder if the AI is continuing to pick up human emotions and responses?
As typical of you, that was a thoughtful and considered post. Though, I think, not quite on the mark. Because SD's posts are on particular boards on the Ship of Fools; a site where challenge is encouraged and, except for 1 or 2 boards, it is the working ethic.
I was relating my post to the point I thought RooK was making. Not suggesting God’s existence shouldn’t be debated on the Ship. But talking more generally about SD’s tendency to question individuals she doesn’t know about their personal faith journey, without displaying any interest or empathy in hearing their personal details and feelings, but just suggesting they need to consider they might be wrong. I was picking up what I understood (perhaps wrongly) RooK to be saying when he said she was asking people she did not understand.
Comments
I’m sure there are much longer threads on the Old Ship.
I had a dig around there this morning looking for long threads. As providence would have it I found the Proof od God’s Existence there!
(You can all thank me later)
This just makes me think that despite being on these boards for years, you haven't seemed to appreciate a fairly obvious thing. The diversity of Christian opinion.
Every time some Christian group is in the media saying something, there is another Christian opinion standing against it. There is literally nothing that a Christian could say that another can't disagree with.
And another thing; if a Christian is talking about their objections to abortion or IVF or whatever, how exactly are you thinking "objective evidence" is going to counter it? What does that mean?
Any position on abortion is fairly obviously a moral position.
If I was to say that I was against abortion because God says so, it is not a counter to say that science can keep alive more and more premature babies.
One can only counter with "objective evidence" if the point being made is claiming to be based on evidence: so if someone is claiming that needles cause cancer, then a counter-claim is that there is no evidence for that.
The best that one can do with a "God says" argument is to say that "loads of other people don't believe that" and "society is damaged by you believing that".
Which both just deserve a shrug.
I have copied a few lines from one of your posts above.
Me:…stone circles, about archaeology in other countries, about buildings connected with many religions, about new discoveries in medicine, etc.
You: ,,, somehow threaten or undermine the beliefs of believers. That’s a false assumption.[/quote]
I agree that this does not directly affect beliefs, but I would say that continuing increase in and consistency of factual knowledge will change the amount of, or need for, faith beliefs.
Nope, the Russ Hell thread from 2015 was 38 pages.
Why would you think that?
Only if you want a record of "deepest cesspit", or "most mind-numbingly obdurate Shipmate".
SD - you've had plenty of swipes around the head with the cluebat. Has any of it sunk in yet, or are you simply going to continue to plough your own tedious and tendentious furrow, oblivious of the damage you cause to other people's conversations and enjoyment of the Ship?
______________
* whom I have a beliefy belief in, quite unrelated to my faith in other people or my faith in science.
Ha, yes, I had a feeling there would probably be longer ones on the old ship. I was more making a point about how this was a very long thread, and the same things had been said multiple times, and it seemed (to me) to be getting a bit pointless.
By the way, I totally agree with Ohher’s point. Disability/age don’t generally render change impossible. And besides, having a low intellect can equally be a disability if it reaches a certain point. But the brain is plastic - people with all sorts of disabilities and brain injuries can and do change. (I’m talking generally - not suggesting any of this applies to SD, other than the ability to change.) But equally we all, whether we have disabilities or not, do have individual and human limitations. Positive change generally takes time, and is not, in my experience, hastened by repeating the same criticism or repeating insults.
So I was questioning the wisdom of continually and/or forcefully making the same point, even though it’s being made in different ways. Not that people aren’t free to continue to do so, but I am wondering if it’s reached a point where it’s a bit of a waste of energy.
And my point about ‘idiot’ or ‘stupid’ is it’s an insult made in frustration, showing a person is trying to interact with you, trying to goad you into proving you’re not stupid, rather than a dismissive ‘Oh well, bless him, he’s not very intelligent, he can’t help it.’ So not really very literal, but more an attempt to engage. But equally it won’t work if a person is refusing to engage with insults, or feels no desire to prove their intelligence. It’s about knowing your audience - or trying to get to know them.
'Not injurious, no, but perhaps pointing out more often that many things which were said to be 'done by' or 'the work of' God were not and objective evidence has taken their place.'
Such as?
I could understand your posting this if all the believers aboard the Ship were fundamentalist literalists who believed in a Six-Day Creation and so forth - but most of us here aren't.
That's partly what I meant when I observed - probably patronisingly - that you seemed to be referring to how things were, rather than how they are.
It's not as if the CofE, for instance, didn't adjust it's take on things in the light of Darwin's writings. Sure, there was opposition but it's interesting to observe how much adjustment there was comparatively early on.
As you well know, none of the faith positions you're encountering here are by any means monolithic.
Yet you post as if they are and that we all need some kind of lesson in scientific theory, objective evidence and much more besides.
That's what is annoying and frustrating people here.
You could, but your views on IVF would clearly be moral not based on "objective evidence".
Because there is no "objective" view on IVF and a whole load of moral positions.
Something like a simple apology, a statement that you'll try not be such a dick in future, and a withdrawing from the thread? That goes down well. It may even allow you time to post back in Purg.
If you ever did say 'sorry', you did it in such an obscure and elliptical way that pretty much everyone has missed it. Clarity is a virtue.
We do not know, and cannot know, if the Orkney stone circles are celebrating the same God that we do. We cannot know if the burnt ox bones were a sacrifice or a clean up operation after filling a large export order. We can only speculate from the extremely patchy evidence we do have.
It feels as if you are arguing against a faith and God that many here do not believe in, and you are not listening to anyone telling you that what you are posting in response to others does not answer their questions.
This
And on that note, I’m out. I won’t be visiting this thread again. All has been said.
And to have been more precise I should have specified that knowledge has replaced some/quite a few of Goddidit beliefs.
There are plenty of people saying stuff I don't agree with on the radio, TV, in newspapers, on the internet and so on. So what?
Should I expect everyone in the world to agree with me?
Am I going to stop them believing whatever it is they believe in by going on an internet bulletin board and telling them otherwise?
SusanDoris, yes, it's entirely possible that most of us, maybe all of us, are not reading in your posts what you intended us to read.
In which case, do you think it's possible that your wording may be a little unclear, and maybe it would help to write in a clearer way, where you think more specifically about the meanings of the words you are using?
And maybe, to show people you are not misunderstanding them, try writing what you understand them to be saying, so they can correct you if necessary, or confirm that you have understood. Like I do with you - I say 'I may be misunderstanding, but I think you are saying...' This sort of feedback helps people realise if they are being understood, helps them clarify if they are not, and breaks down the sorts of barriers happening here, because CK's point here is exactly what I was feeling too, and it seems like it's what quite a lot of people are feeling:
Yes, as Gamma says, of course there are. There are many people who say all kinds of sweeping things under the name of religion. And, as you will see if you read the boards in general, they do not represent all Christians, and plenty of us challenge their views. Just like how you don't represent all atheists, and plenty of atheists would take issue with some of your statements.
Perhaps this says it all. SD is a signed up follower of the NSS and so-called 'humanist' organisations and so she has her views that Christians are ..... or Christians believe..... reinforced by their constant messages, which are intended not only to get Christianity or mention of it off of our streets and away from children, but to consign them to history forever.
That isn’t their stated goal. There stated goal is to get religion out of the state. That is very different to to twaddle you posted.
I’m done.
Visiting it (60+ posts since last time!) is rather like rubber-necking a nasty road accident...again, and again, and again....
I'll get off at the next exit.
Honest.
IJ
I don't see anything sinister in SD's posts. Irritating, yes. Sinister, no.
She's already made it clear that she doesn't believe that school kids should be taught or exposed to religious viewpoints without counter-balancing material.
She's not alone in that. Plenty of people feel the same way. You or I may not agree with them but there's nothing 'sinister' about SD's views on these and other issues.
Saying, 'Aha! Sorted! SD is a fully paid up member of the NSS, that explains it all and puts it in a nice neat box ...' doesn't get us very far.
Not that this thread is getting any of us very far in the first place ...
IJ
I was gone for just a few days, and came back to 300 new posts of the same fucking idiotic merry-go-round. All of it like a slow-motion car-accident of all the things that I hate most about most of you and usually try to ignore.
Fuck everybody who posted suggestions that somehow science and religion are competing concepts. Especially all you thimble-brained delusion-gargling knowledge-burners who tried prying shitty analogies out of their clenched asses with fucking bridges. The only people who fear the systematic process for improving knowledge are the ones who secretly suspect that their beliefs are full of shit.
But especially fuck you, @SusanDoris, for trying to fellate a whole forest of clue bats. Surprise: YES, you are not doing anything useful with your annoyingly persistent poking people in their stupid. Want to know why? Because faith has a function. It's not even a difficult function to grasp. Faith lets us move forward. If humans had to know everything absolutely before doing anything, life would be impossible. You think you are challenging people's beliefs, but what you are really doing is asking people whom you do not understand to jump off their personal bridges mid-span because of fear of doubt. It's a shitty fucking thing to do, and even shittier when you plaster a blithe smile on it.
I have of course read your post several times and apologise for writing just an ordinary sort of answer, but, as I have mentioned somewhere up thread, I am no good at witty comments. So I refrain from putting any
Yes, I did say that, but I just had to carry on rubbernecking..........
It was worth it, though, for RooK's blistering post, and the typically bland response thereto....
IJ
And it has made me think, in general, that regardless of whether or not we believe in God, we probably all have some kind of fictions and/or denials in our lives that keep us going - ways of looking at things, making sense of things, whether it be eternal positive thinking, or seeing ourselves as the enlightened ones, somehow superior in some way, etc. Because life is vast and complex, even if you don't believe in God, and our minds must reduce it in some way, frame it in some way, in order to make sense of our lives and ourselves and keep going. This, I think, happens, regardless of belief in God. God (if you accept his existence) is one more concept we reduce with our limited minds.
I am reminded of a conversation years ago with a colleague. Her adult son had died and she talked to me about it sometimes. Because she knew I was religious, she said to me one day 'Do you think God chooses certain people to experience this sort of loss, because they're strong enough, and other people aren't?' I paused, because no, I don't think this in the slightest, but she had a sort of hope in her voice, and I didn't want to crush that. So I said something non-committal, and she went on to tell me that she felt she'd been chosen by God, because she was strong enough, and there was some purpose in it. And I listened, and I didn't tell her that actually, I think shit just happens, to anyone, and that plenty aren't strong enough. Because this odd idea she had was giving her a glimmer of hope, and helping her find some kind of meaning in her grief, and it was harmless enough, and why should I destroy it? Maybe this relates to the thread about honesty. Just because you believe someone's beliefs are deluded doesn't automatically mean that the best thing to do is tell them this every single time, and to every single person.
O if only SusanDoris could read this, say thank you nicely, and then stop doing it.....
Do you know, I think I detect a tinge of irony - or even sarcasm! - in that remark. I wonder if the AI is continuing to pick up human emotions and responses?
IJ
As typical of you, that was a thoughtful and considered post. Though, I think, not quite on the mark. Because SD's posts are on particular boards on the Ship of Fools; a site where challenge is encouraged and, except for 1 or 2 boards, it is the working ethic.