Okay, I have looked back at my first post in the thread. The next one, directly after mine, was from mr cheesy and if you think that was a polite, interested response to a polite, interested post of mine, then I wonder why?
I guess you mean this one from the third page (incidentally not your first post, but never mind)
I would say much the same again. You've not got any better at all - allbeit apparently your typing software is functioning a bit more reliably.
That understanding of the nature of historical ‘facts’ seems basic to me, and I believe the resurrection to have been a historical fact. In the light of that understanding, your call for ‘one fact’ seems to me to be either almost incredibly naive, or alternatively disingenuous.
Okay, but I wonder why you would accept the beliefs of people two thousand years ago more than the objective * evidence we have today?
*If |I could do tiny fonts to show I was whispering the word, I would have put this word in such a font!
Because, as people have been trying to get you to understand since whenever, faith is not the same as fact. Science is not the same as poetry. Stories can be uplifting and useful even when the details are unproven by science.
Ideas from religion and philosophy (and even history) cannot be interrogated with the blunt instrument of science particularly when you are not even competent at welding it.
You are like a whining child, constantly thinking that you are clever - because you ask questions nobody can answer in the way you insist they must be answered.
Some of us like the questions. Some of us like the ambiguity. Some of us take meaning from theological concepts that cannot be tested with a Bunsen burner.
I get it that you don't. I understand that you think the world can be divided into "truth" that is can be measured by science and "guff" that is everything else.
~And do you really think you are telling me something here that I don't know?
And, on reflection, I suppose you do! Best of luck!
Many a true word is spoken in jest. Best of luck trying to tell SusanDoris something she doesn't know. Ai't gon' happen.
That is an interesting thought to bear in mind. I'd just like to mention that I haven't lived my life in assort of bubble. No easy ride anywhere, but, like most others, hard work and effort, while being lucky to havehad good friends all the way.
Susan, you were so successful in getting the thread to lie down and be quiet by not responding and here came Le Roc to kick the hornets nest.
I was really hoping that you had learned at least this much from the experience: that you don't have to respond to every post and in hell you don't have to answer every jab.
I was hoping that you had learned that sometimes people just have to blow off steam, and that's OK.
This is a social skill. Pick your battles, learn what's important and what just needs to be disregarded.
It was, and still apparently is, your main foible that you seem to need to correct people's perceptions. On just about everything. And you can't see how very irritating this is to others.
Your Quixotic persistence and insistence on the nobility of this quest is why you appear so very ill adjusted to reality and the life of the board.
If you conduct yourself in real life like you do on the board it would not surprise me very much that you have not one friend in the world. And that would make me sad because I don't think you are ill-intentioned, I just think that this is a way of getting attention. It's like the two year old who, when they can't get attention from something positive, they do something naughty because any attention is better than no attention.
I really hope you might have a think about this attention deficit you seem to be trying to balance, because I don't think the issue is really atheism at all.
I appreciate you, and I like the questions you ask and the stimulus you bring - in the right place at the right time. I appreciate you. And I just wish you better social success here.
"Susan that may be an interesting question* but it's not what this thread is about. Start a new one if you want to talk about how science explains everything."
To be repeated ad infinitum along with extraordinary self-discipline in ignoring all attempts at going off on a tangent. Is it worth trying?
*I'm surely not alone in finding this the most boring tangent EVAR but a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down and all that
~And do you really think you are telling me something here that I don't know?
And, on reflection, I suppose you do! Best of luck!
Many a true word is spoken in jest. Best of luck trying to tell SusanDoris something she doesn't know. Ai't gon' happen.
That is an interesting thought to bear in mind. I'd just like to mention that I haven't lived my life in assort of bubble. No easy ride anywhere, but, like most others, hard work and effort, while being lucky to have had good friends all the way.
What a delightful non-sequitur. I said nothing at all about how easy your life was, nor does it appertain to what I did say.
Okay, I have looked back at my first post in the thread. The next one, directly after mine, was from mr cheesy and if you think that was a polite, interested response to a polite, interested post of mine, then I wonder why?
I guess you mean this one from the third page (incidentally not your first post, but never mind.
since you do not quote the post, I do not know which one you are referring to. My first post in the Evangelism thread began with the words,'May I present...' and I thought it was on the first page. Please clarify.
SusanDoris, I wonder if I can simplify this mess. Most of us here are regulars (a community, as Alan notes) and are already pretty familiar with each others' stances.
In this thread you claim we don't know what you've read, or who you are, or what you know. You make this claim because what you're hearing about yourself doesn't square with how you understand yourself; fair enough. You feel attacked (most of us, in the same situation, probably would); you're sure we're wrong or mistaken or being unfair, and that your own self-understanding is the "true" one.
But SusanDoris, we do know you. It's high time you acknowledged that fact and accepted it as unshakeably, profoundly true. That's not to say we all agree with you; we can understand each other while still holding different opinions, beliefs, and values. Neither is it the same as you simply accepting others' judgments concerning you; it's just relieving you of the constant burden of re-stating your stances. Try to trust us. We know what those stances are, whether or not we agree with them. We know you.
We know you through your posts -- posts you wrote, in your own words, expressed as you presumably wish (given that you're working through a couple of extra communication steps). We've known you for many years. We know you're an atheist. We know you think that science disproves the existence of God.
Because we know these things, there's no need to remind us of them. There's no need to repeat them. Neither is there any need to keep defending your positions, and no need to dismiss or deny the positions of others. It's only necessary to comment on the core question(s) at the hearts of threads.
When people bring up their faith positions while discussing other matters -- for example, was Chau a holy fool, a martyr, or an imperialist? -- just pass over the poster's faith position and focus on the other question. What do you think Chau was up to? Don't remind us about your atheism; we already know it's there.
I can't pretend to speak for this community, but I personally take no issue with your stance (except as it relates to "objective facts," because my own view of the universe doesn't happen to include any), but I'm not prepared to argue with anybody about that: that's an unresolvable tomayto-tomahto question as far as I'm concerned, though for others it may be of vital significance.
Okay, I have looked back at my first post in the thread. The next one, directly after mine, was from mr cheesy and if you think that was a polite, interested response to a polite, interested post of mine, then I wonder why?
I guess you mean this one from the third page (incidentally not your first post, but never mind.
since you do not quote the post, I do not know which one you are referring to. My first post in the Evangelism thread began with the words,'May I present...' and I thought it was on the first page. Please clarify.
I'm thought you were talking about your first post on this thread. Which was on the first page and which I did not reply to.
I did reply to your post on the first page of the evangelism thread.
I was trying to establish how you thought atheism would be spread - which I thought was highly relevant to a discussion of the spread of ideas and evangelism.
I'm still none the wiser. You apparently think everyone will simply wake up one day and realise independently the truth of atheism without anyone needing to explain or argue anything to anyone.
Susan, you were so successful in getting the thread to lie down and be quiet by not responding and here came Le Roc to kick the hornets nest.
I was really hoping that you had learned at least this much from the experience: that you don't have to respond to every post and in hell you don't have to answer every jab.
Yes, but I can if I choose to!!
I was hoping that you had learned that sometimes people just have to blow off steam, and that's OK.
Yes, after long years on the Ship, ;I know!!
This is a social skill. Pick your battles, learn what's important and what just needs to be disregarded.
It was, and still apparently is, your main foible that you seem to need to correct people's perceptions. On just about everything. And you can't see how very irritating this is to others.
If other people see my posts as corrections, then the simple way to countr that is with a counter correction.
Your Quixotic persistence and insistence on the nobility of this quest is why you appear so very ill adjusted to reality and the life of the board.
If you conduct yourself in real life like you do on the board it would not surprise me very much that you have not one friend in the world. And that would make me sad because I don't think you are ill-intentioned, I just think that this is a way of getting attention. It's like the two year old who, when they can't get attention from something positive, they do something naughty because any attention is better than no attention.
I really hope you might have a think about this attention deficit you seem to be trying to balance, because I don't think the issue is really atheism at all.
I appreciate you, and I like the questions you ask and the stimulus you bring - in the right place at the right time. I appreciate you. And I just wish you better social success here.
]well, I'm sorry to say that I don't think you could have got that more wrong if you'd tried. You might like to remember the huge number of things I cannot do and how very much I appreciate my membership of the few internet forums I go to. It is always interesting to read others' posts whether agreeing, disagreeing, calling me to Hell or whatever.
Susan, yes, you can if you choose to. If you choose, in Hell, you can continue doing what is annoying many people, and continue with your repeated corrections and counter-corrections, which people are finding patronising/alienating/annoying - you can continue this ad infinitum, or until a Hell host chooses to close the thread. I personally don't see the point of you doing this, as discussion normally works best when people are trying to understand each other and relate to each other, rather than alienate people, but this is Hell and you are free to get up people's noses if that is your thing.
When people are advising you, I think it is mainly because you seemed to be wondering why people were annoyed and you seemed to be wanting communication to go more smoothly. But if this is not the case, then feel free to disregard my previous posts.
SusanDoris, I wonder if I can simplify this mess. Most of us here are regulars (a community, as Alan notes) and are already pretty familiar with each others' stances.
In this thread you claim we don't know what you've read, or who you are, or what you know.
Just coming back here from further down the post, I see that you say you do know me. Yes, I agree, but you know the me that is on the forum. This is
the only place I talk about or discuss beliefs in such interesting company. (One of the other forums is mostly non-believers, and another is just about moribund.)
Do you, however, agree, ththat you do not know what I know, have read, orhow my life runs when I'm not here?
Yes, I have noticed over the 13 years or so that I've been a member, that most members know each other well. I have often gone for a long time without posting because I had nothing to add or offer, but have started one or two threads which have proved interesting.
You make this claim because what you're hearing about yourself doesn't square with how you understand yourself;
No, a I have said above, I make this claim because it is mostly correct.
fair enough. You feel attacked
The minute I start feeling attacked, or in any way disconcerted about posts, is the day I leave.
(most of us, in the same situation, probably would); you're sure we're wrong or mistaken or being unfair, and that your own self-understanding is the "true" one.
No, I guarantee that as soon as someone shows me where I have said something, or claimed something that is false or wrong, I'll change my thinking and apologise immediately.
But SusanDoris, we do know you. It's high time you acknowledged that fact and accepted it as unshakeably, profoundly true. That's not to say we all agree with you; we can understand each other while still holding different opinions, beliefs, and values. Neither is it the same as you simply accepting others' judgments concerning you; it's just relieving you of the constant burden of re-stating your stances. Try to trust us. We know what those stances are, whether or not we agree with them. We know you.
I thank you for that an am much enjoying reading this post of yours. Do you think, then, that I should just sort of meekly accept some of the comments made by, for example, mr cheesy? (*smiley*)
We know you through your posts -- posts you wrote, in your own words, expressed as you presumably wish (given that you're working through a couple of extra communication steps). We've known you for many years. We know you're an atheist. We know you think that science disproves the existence of God.
No. I have never said that and most certainly do not believe it.
Because we know these things, there's no need to remind us of them. There's no need to repeat them. Neither is there any need to keep defending your positions, and no need to dismiss or deny the positions of others. It's only necessary to comment on the core question(s) at the hearts of threads.
Do you think that I should have stayed out of the evangelism thread? How do you think I should have expressed by non-believer's point of view?
When people bring up their faith positions while discussing other matters -- for example, was Chau a holy fool, a martyr, or an imperialist? -- just pass over the poster's faith position and focus on the other question. What do you think Chau was up to?
Please note that I did not join the topic about Chau.
Don't remind us about your atheism; we already know it's there.
I can't pretend to speak for this community, but I personally take no issue with your stance (except as it relates to "objective facts," because my own view of the universe doesn't happen to include any), but I'm not prepared to argue with anybody about that: that's an unresolvable tomayto-tomahto question as far as I'm concerned, though for others it may be of vital significance.
I think you will find it very hard indeed to find a place where I have said that there are objective facts, i.e. the 100% sort. I add the proviso that nothing can ever be proved absolutely fairly regularly.
Reading and posting involve concentration, thinking, doing something active and
interesting, rather than passively listening to things. ]
P.S. I'm going to post without previewing- finges crossed it comes out right.
I did reply to your post on the first page of the evangelism thread.
I was trying to establish how you thought atheism would be spread - which I thought was highly relevant to a discussion of the spread of ideas and evangelism.
In that case, why didn't you say that, instead of snapping out a few sharp words in contrast to my thoughtfully written post?
I'm still none the wiser. You apparently think everyone will simply wake up one day and realise independently the truth of atheism without anyone needing to explain or argue anything to anyone.
well, I'm sorry to say that I don't think you could have got that more wrong if you'd tried. You might like to remember the huge number of things I cannot do and how very much I appreciate my membership of the few internet forums I go to. It is always interesting to read others' posts whether agreeing, disagreeing, calling me to Hell or whatever.
And here.
As much as I appreciate you I do not remember the huge number of things you can't do. In fact I'm not aware of any at all, and I would be willing to wager most others aren't either. Mostly because I have been on shore leave for ten years, and others for their own reasons, most of which probably include the fact that they are more interested in their own lives than other people's.
OK. Enough said. I still appreciate you, and wish you the very best, and look forward to entertaining you with interesting posts elsewhere.
A ‘God hypothesis’ is part of the world view of many of the participants on these boards. It is not usually framed in a way which is capable of being disproved scientifically (indeed it is rarely, if ever, capable of being so framed). Ergo it is not amenable to scientific testing. It is not ‘objective fact’, but except at the most trivial level many important things in life are not ‘objective fact’. Just because something is not ‘objective fact’ does not mean it is not true.
In a discussion about the merits or otherwise of evangelism it is obvious (to everyone, I would think) that if the beliefs a person is trying to convey to others are untrue, then the enterprise is at least a waste of time, if not worse.
Once that is stated there is nothing more to be said about the rights or wrongs from the POV that the underlying beliefs are untrue,
There is, however, further discussion to be had about when and whether and in what manner the conveying of beliefs to others might be a good thing or not.
LeRoc, AFAICT, was not arguing from the premise that religious belief is false or a delusion. I am guessing, but I imagine LeRoc’s strictures about Christian evangelism of uncontacted peoples would be just the same if the person evangelising them were trying to convince them of ‘scientific atheism’.
In that context, continuing to go on about ‘scientific atheism’ and the suggestion that all beliefs should be based on ‘objective fact’ is a derailment of the thread.
So what's the answer then? How is atheism to be spread?
As far as I am aware, a lack of belief is not spreadable. Those who find themselves lacking belief in one less god than those who believ in gods might choose to call themselves atheists, but that's up to them. Do you have any idea about this yourself?
I wonder whether you and others think there are many advantages in evangelising, for instance, Christianity and Christian beliefs?I am inclined to think so, but wait to be shown to be wrong in that.
Well I think the reality of God and of God’s love for human beings is a good thing for people to know about, and therefore, sharing that reality with others in a way that enables them to receive it is an advantage to them.
A ‘God hypothesis’ is part of the world view of many of the participants on these boards. It is not usually framed in a way which is capable of being disproved scientifically (indeed it is rarely, if ever, capable of being so framed). Ergo it is not amenable to scientific testing. It is not ‘objective fact’, but except at the most trivial level many important things in life are not ‘objective fact’. Just because something is not ‘objective fact’ does not mean it is not true.
No argument there from me.
In a discussion about the merits or otherwise of evangelism it is obvious (to everyone, I would think) that if the beliefs a person is trying to convey to others are untrue, then the enterprise is at least a waste of time, if not worse.
Once that is stated there is nothing more to be said about the rights or wrongs from the POV that the underlying beliefs are untrue,
There is, however, further discussion to be had about when and whether and in what manner the conveying of beliefs to others might be a good thing or not.
You did not include the adjective 'faith' before 'beliefs' - was that intended?
LeRoc, AFAICT, was not arguing from the premise that religious belief is false or a delusion. I am guessing, but I imagine LeRoc’s strictures about Christian evangelism of uncontacted peoples would be just the same if the person evangelising them were trying to convince them of ‘scientific atheism’.
Please tell me what scientific atheism is!
In that context, continuing to go on about ‘scientific atheism’ and the suggestion that all beliefs should be based on ‘objective fact’ is a derailment of the thread.
I entirely agree. If you think anyone was going on about 'scientific atheism', I think it needs defining.
SusanDoris, I wonder if I can simplify this mess. Most of us here are regulars (a community, as Alan notes) and are already pretty familiar with each others' stances.
In this thread you claim we don't know what you've read, or who you are, or what you know.
Just coming back here from further down the post, I see that you say you do know me. Yes, I agree, but you know the me that is on the forum.
I don't mean to be flip, SD, but exactly how many of you are there? Considering RooK's "troll" suggestion, are you claiming that the "me" who posts here is other than the authentic SusanDoris? Does that render you somehow different from other posters here? Again, I speak only for myself, but I have never "met" another Shipmate face-to-face; I ONLY know Shipmates from this forum.
This is
the only place I talk about or discuss beliefs in such interesting company.
Really? You find the people here "interesting?" Maybe I need your definition of that term. The impression I get, pretty consistently, from your posts is that you find people here naive, gullible, and foolish to swallow all that faith guff. While I personally am more agnostic than atheistic (and I waffle a lot), and am not all that comfortable with many expressions of faith, I respect those here who seem knowledgeable and thoughtful and reflective, whether or not I buy into their faith positions. (And I don't say that enough.)
Do you, however, agree, ththat you do not know what I know, have read, orhow my life runs when I'm not here?
SusanDoris, you do sometimes post about these things. Assuming you tell the truth, I know what you tell us, though my memory doesn't necessarily hold all these facts out before me when I'm reading what you've written.
No, a I have said above, I make this claim because it is mostly correct.
Not sure I understand you; are you claiming that the posters here who are expressing annoyance are all wrong to be annoyed, and that you have not annoyed anybody? I beg to differ. While I sympathize with this reaction (having had it from time to time myself when I've posted something others "jumped" on), the fact is all of us occasionally miss the mark when trying to express an idea, and none of us has much control over how others "receive" us / our expressions. That said, when those others begin reacting negatively, and in similar negative ways to those expressions, it behooves most of us to sit up and take notice, and consider whether we need to modify our conduct -- at least, if we wish to become and/or remain part of that community.
No, I guarantee that as soon as someone shows me where I have said something, or claimed something that is false or wrong, I'll change my thinking and apologise immediately.
Good grief. This is not about being right or wrong, SusanDoris. This whole thread, people have been pointing out what gets up their noses about how and what you post. And, to be fair, you're within your rights to annoy people, if that's what you genuinely wish to do. But that does teeter dangerously close to being a troll.
Do you think, then, that I should just sort of meekly accept some of the comments made by, for example, mr cheesy? (*smiley*)
You and mr cheesy can fight your own battles without my help. You don't want to accept his remarks? Don't. That said, responding to them does rather imply there's something there to squabble about, when you're also claiming it's all hogwash. You can't have it both ways, SusanDoris.
Do you think that I should have stayed out of the evangelism thread? How do you think I should have expressed by non-believer's point of view?
What I think, SD, is that you should be more honest about your own desire to evangelize on behalf of atheism, and then get on with that in an upfront way. First, though, recognize the vast difference between messaging FOR atheism and messaging AGAINST Christianity / religion. And keep in mind who makes up most of your audience here.
Testing the hypothesis:
Find posts where she isn't narcissistically poking people in the eye.
Hypothesis yet to be disproven.
Agreed. In fact, I think that this thread, in which she has systematically (and lengthily) responded to virtually every criticism, could constitute proof of your hypothesis.
If you think anyone was going on about 'scientific atheism', I think it needs defining.
My rough and ready definition would be that kind of atheism which looks for what it calls ‘objective facts’, and whose standard for an ‘objective fact’ is that it is testable/verifiable by the scientific method.
Testing the hypothesis:
Find posts where she isn't narcissistically poking people in the eye.
Hypothesis yet to be disproven.
Agreed. In fact, I think that this thread, in which she has systematically (and lengthily) responded to virtually every criticism, could constitute proof of your hypothesis.
Well, except that according to a strict alignment with Popper there isn't experimental proof. There is disproving hypotheses, and supporting hypotheses.
My hope is not to prove that @SusanDoris is a troll, but rather to demonstrate to her how her posts are functionally indistinguishable from trolling - such that she might choose to post differently.
Even if a person sees they have a social problem, they may not easily be able to do something about it. Plenty of people know they have a problem with, say, interrupting because of timing difficulties, or tone/speed of voice because of multitasking difficulties, or wandering off topic because of a difficulty filtering/focusing, or remaining too long on topic because of perseveration. You can know it, you can express awareness of it (though that can be difficult too, as it requires more multitasking) but it still happens, and still can come across as rude or annoying. If a person doesn't change, or makes changes big to them but too imperceptible for others to notice, that doesn't make them a bad person, or a person to be sneered at. Part of gracious social communication is allowing for difference in social ability.
Even if a person sees they have a social problem, they may not easily be able to do something about it. Plenty of people know they have a problem with, say, interrupting because of timing difficulties, or tone/speed of voice because of multitasking difficulties, or wandering off topic because of a difficulty filtering/focusing, or remaining too long on topic because of perseveration. You can know it, you can express awareness of it (though that can be difficult too, as it requires more multitasking) but it still happens, and still can come across as rude or annoying. If a person doesn't change, or makes changes big to them but too imperceptible for others to notice, that doesn't make them a bad person, or a person to be sneered at. Part of gracious social communication is allowing for difference in social ability.
I know this from long personal experience. I have ADHD and ‘controlled’ conversation is always hard work.
But it’s not the same in print. When writing we always have time to consider and edit what we say, how we say it and why we are saying it.
That’s why I come online for a rest.
(I’m not sure if ‘controlled’ is the right word. Maybe ‘polite’. Some people (usually other neuro-diverse people ‘get’ me straight away and we can chat easily. But with a group of neurotypical folks it can be utterly exhausting.)
I agree, RooK, but I'm not sure she's really capable of posting differently. (I would be charmed to be proven wrong in that.)
This.
@SusanDoris just doesn’t see the problem. If we can’t see a problem we can’t do anything about it.
Basically whatever the subject under discussion @SusanDoris will turn up to tell you atheism is the answer and your beliefs are rubbish. Then she wonders why the responses are often less than polite.
If you think anyone was going on about 'scientific atheism', I think it needs defining.
My rough and ready definition would be that kind of atheism which looks for what it calls ‘objective facts’, and whose standard for an ‘objective fact’ is that it is testable/verifiable by the scientific method.
Thank you. Hmmm, there are a few buts there, but I hope we can leave it there for the moment”___________________
Ohher
I am writing a longish, un-hell-ish response so will send it as a pm.
I agree, RooK, but I'm not sure she's really capable of posting differently. (I would be charmed to be proven wrong in that.)
This.
@SusanDoris just doesn’t see the problem. If we can’t see a problem we can’t do anything about it.
Basically whatever the subject under discussion @SusanDoris will turn up to tell you atheism is the answer and your beliefs are rubbish. Then she wonders why the responses are often less than polite.
I do not think I have used the word 'rubbish' - but please quote me if I have, and I will re-write the post. And no, atheism is not 'the answer', although I suggest it is morelikely to stand the tests of time - I'm talking of extended time here.
Even if a person sees they have a social problem, they may not easily be able to do something about it. Plenty of people know they have a problem with, say, interrupting because of timing difficulties, or tone/speed of voice because of multitasking difficulties, or wandering off topic because of a difficulty filtering/focusing, or remaining too long on topic because of perseveration. You can know it, you can express awareness of it (though that can be difficult too, as it requires more multitasking) but it still happens, and still can come across as rude or annoying. If a person doesn't change, or makes changes big to them but too imperceptible for others to notice, that doesn't make them a bad person, or a person to be sneered at. Part of gracious social communication is allowing for difference in social ability.
I know this from long personal experience. I have ADHD and ‘controlled’ conversation is always hard work.
But it’s not the same in print. When writing we always have time to consider and edit what we say, how we say it and why we are saying it.
That’s why I come online for a rest.
(I’m not sure if ‘controlled’ is the right word. Maybe ‘polite’. Some people (usually other neuro-diverse people ‘get’ me straight away and we can chat easily. But with a group of neurotypical folks it can be utterly exhausting.)
Yes, ADHD difficulties of real time conversation can be easier in writing. But writing doesn't eliminate all social difficulties - not all difficulties are about timing. I gave ADHD examples so that you could relate, but there are obviously many other sorts of difficulties a person can have. And they can take many years to become aware of, and many more years to learn to control a little, and for a lot of neurodiverse people, the attempt to conform to 'normality' can be so totally exhausting and so suppressing of who they are, that when they try and are still met with mockery or disapproval, they just give up on social interaction. Thing is, constantly commenting in frustration that they just don't get it, that they are stupid, and making sneering comments about them never changing, doesn't, in my observations, make a person find it easier to adapt. It tends to make things worse - either makes them get more rigidly defensive and argumentative, or just makes them give up and go away.
This, again, is an example of what you do. Tubbs indicates what the problem is - that you think our beliefs are rubbish - and because you've not actually used the word 'rubbish' (as above when I said 'demanded' when you did indeed demand but didn't use the word 'demand'), answering the substantive point is simply dodged.
Language is not scientific. It conveys meaning. Currently you are conveying contempt. That is why you've been brought to Hell. Not for using specific words, but for freighting everything with contempt.
I do not think I have used the word 'rubbish' . . . .
No, but you have used the word "superstitions," as where you said
evangelising - a word I have never heard used in association with the expounding of any other new ideas except those associated with faith religious beliefs - is replacing one set of superstitions with another.
(Original post here.) I don't see much substantive difference between "superstitions" and "rubbish"; both convey dismissiveness and contempt.
And I don't see any indication that you've understood a whit of what has been said repeatedly in this thread about your manner of posting.
I do not think I have used the word 'rubbish' . . . .
No, but you have used the word "superstitions," as where you said
evangelising - a word I have never heard used in association with the expounding of any other new ideas except those associated with faith religious beliefs - is replacing one set of superstitions with another.
(Original post here.) I don't see much substantive difference between "superstitions" and "rubbish"; both convey dismissiveness and contempt.
And I don't see any indication that you've understood a whit of what has been said repeatedly in this thread about your manner of posting.
And in @SusanDoris’ head there’s the most fantastic narrative going on about the poor little atheist fearlessly defending her beliefs against those mean old Christians who keep picking on her …
I agree, RooK, but I'm not sure she's really capable of posting differently. (I would be charmed to be proven wrong in that.)
This.
@SusanDoris just doesn’t see the problem. If we can’t see a problem we can’t do anything about it.
Basically whatever the subject under discussion @SusanDoris will turn up to tell you atheism is the answer and your beliefs are rubbish. Then she wonders why the responses are often less than polite.
I do not think I have used the word 'rubbish' - but please quote me if I have, and I will re-write the post. And no, atheism is not 'the answer', although I suggest it is morelikely to stand the tests of time - I'm talking of extended time here.
..... And no, atheism is not 'the answer', although I suggest it is morelikely to stand the tests of time - I'm talking of extended time here.
I disagree. Atheism certainly is 'the answer' for some people just as Christianity is the answer for others.
And what do you base your premise on that atheism will be around longer than other beliefs? So far as I know religious belief has been around from the beginning of recorded history.
Even if a person sees they have a social problem, they may not easily be able to do something about it. Plenty of people know they have a problem with, say, interrupting because of timing difficulties, or tone/speed of voice because of multitasking difficulties, or wandering off topic because of a difficulty filtering/focusing, or remaining too long on topic because of perseveration. You can know it, you can express awareness of it (though that can be difficult too, as it requires more multitasking) but it still happens, and still can come across as rude or annoying. If a person doesn't change, or makes changes big to them but too imperceptible for others to notice, that doesn't make them a bad person, or a person to be sneered at. Part of gracious social communication is allowing for difference in social ability.
I know this from long personal experience. I have ADHD and ‘controlled’ conversation is always hard work.
But it’s not the same in print. When writing we always have time to consider and edit what we say, how we say it and why we are saying it.
That’s why I come online for a rest.
(I’m not sure if ‘controlled’ is the right word. Maybe ‘polite’. Some people (usually other neuro-diverse people ‘get’ me straight away and we can chat easily. But with a group of neurotypical folks it can be utterly exhausting.)
Yes, ADHD difficulties of real time conversation can be easier in writing. But writing doesn't eliminate all social difficulties - not all difficulties are about timing. I gave ADHD examples so that you could relate, but there are obviously many other sorts of difficulties a person can have. And they can take many years to become aware of, and many more years to learn to control a little, and for a lot of neurodiverse people, the attempt to conform to 'normality' can be so totally exhausting and so suppressing of who they are, that when they try and are still met with mockery or disapproval, they just give up on social interaction. Thing is, constantly commenting in frustration that they just don't get it, that they are stupid, and making sneering comments about them never changing, doesn't, in my observations, make a person find it easier to adapt. It tends to make things worse - either makes them get more rigidly defensive and argumentative, or just makes them give up and go away.
Well, as you know, I’m not commenting in such a way. I don’t mock, in writing or in RL.
I’m saying that @SusanDoris probably can’t see she has a problem. If she did she’d admit it and start to deal with it - or ask how to deal with it.
I realised you were deliberately giving me ADHD examples. But I don’t see that ‘normality’ is what folks are asking for here. I find it a very welcoming place for the neurodiverse. In fact we may be a majority!
I think folks are asking @SusanDoris to change her tune and address the thread topics instead of dragging them all back to her pet subject. If she can’t see that then I’m confused as to what could be causing her to not see it. It’s not rocket surgery
No, it's not rocket surgery but as has been said aboard Ship many, many times and no doubt will be said again, 'If the only tool in your toolkit is a hammer, then everything is going to look like a nail.'
SusanDoris only has a hammer.
End of.
And seeing how words and meanings are causing so much difficulty here, I will close my comment with a non-verbal exclamation.
Ohher
Firstly, thank you very much for writing your long post which has given
me a chance to write a longer response on a document and not get lost in tags and drafts etc.
It was too long at first, but I’ve gone away and come back to it several times today to trim it, and have decided to post it. Do you think I should then hide behind the sofa?!!
I don't mean to be flip, SD, but exactly how many of you are there? Considering RooK's "troll" suggestion, are you claiming that the "me" who posts here is other than the authentic SusanDoris? Does that render you somehow different from other posters here?
No! My ideas remain the same off the board as well as on, the difference being that , in all the other hours of my life, discussions like this do not occur. My next-door neighbour and friend and I are pleased that we can talk on such things together, but since we agree, there is very little difference of opinion! A troll I am not, but obviously I cannot stop people thinking that if they choose. It does not stop me from enjoying reading here. If it stops other people’s enjoyment, then - well, scroll past!
[
Really? You find the people here "interesting?" Maybe I need your definition of that term. The impression I get, pretty consistently, from your posts is that you find people here naive, gullible, and foolish to swallow all that faith guff.
If I thought that, I wouldn’t be here. I read the words in a post and respond to them – a general rule which seems to apply on message boards, especially on a part of a site called Purgatory. There are times when I wish people would not misquote me, nbut that’s what happens on message boards and part of what makes them, and the people who post interesting.
While I personally am more agnostic than atheistic (and I waffle a lot), and am not all that comfortable with many expressions of faith, I respect those here who seem knowledgeable and thoughtful and reflective, whether or not I buy into their faith positions. (And I don't say that enough.)
Well, I certainly agree there. And I hope that they are imterested in what I have to say too, even if only now and then!! Presenting and defending points of view, particularly in Purgatory I think, is what is the interesting thing. There have been one or two comments about my posts not being a challenge, and well, maybe that is technically correct, but if I present what I think is valid, then just to say it is not is perhaps a bit of a cop-out.
are you claiming that the posters here who are expressing annoyance are all wrong to be annoyed, and that you have not annoyed anybody? I beg to differ.
Of course not. . I suppose I might be annoying people a bit more often since the new ship because it is much easier for me to access!
However, I never think to myself, ‘Now what can I say today that will annoy so-and-so?’ That would be daft – and I’m not daft’
While I sympathize with this reaction (having had it from time to time myself when I've posted something others "jumped" on), the fact is all of us occasionally miss the mark when trying to express an idea, and none of us has much control over how others "receive" us / our expressions. That said, when those others begin reacting negatively, and in similar negative ways to those expressions, it behooves most of us to sit up and take notice, and consider whether we need to modify our conduct -- at least, if we wish to become and/or remain part of that community.
Point taken, but that applies to all. And I say that with a bit of a shrug – since there is life outside Sof F.
Good grief. This is not about being right or wrong, SusanDoris.
I understand that, but I am talking about times where what I have said is misquoted and then a poster will tell me I think something A, when that is evidently not so, since I thinkB. By all means think I am incorrect, but I would prefer to hear why, not have to refute a statement I did not make.
This whole thread, people have been pointing out what gets up their noses about how and what you post. And, to be fair, you're within your rights to annoy people, if that's what you genuinely wish to do.
No, certainly not, I’m always hoping to be provided with more accurate information
But that does teeter dangerously close to being a troll.
However, it would be silly to meekly and wishy-washily say, ‘Oh, wel, I suppose you must be right.’ If people think I’m a troll, that is their problem. I am not.
What I think, SD, is that you should be more honest about your own desire to evangelize on behalf of atheism, and then get on with that in an upfront way.
No, I am not here to evangelise for atheism. I am here for the discussion for its own sake. I am more interested in the subject of belief and not, for instance, politics.
I subscribe to the NSS because they work for fairness for all in a secular society.
There's one small typo -but if I trhy to find it, I mightaccidentally delete the post
Oh, did I hear anyone say they wish I had""
..... And no, atheism is not 'the answer', although I suggest it is morelikely to stand the tests of time - I'm talking of extended time here.
I disagree. Atheism certainly is 'the answer' for some people just as Christianity is the answer for others.
And what do you base your premise on that atheism will be around longer than other beliefs? So far as I know religious belief has been around from the beginning of recorded history.
I did not, as you must be aware, say that atheism would be around for longer than religious beliefs. I cannot see an end ever to religious beliefs. I think that atheism will probably become the more widely acknowledged, but I don't think any of us will be around to see even a strong change.
You do atheism no credit with your evangelism.
I think atheism will quite happily carry on in spite of my few words here and there!
Even if a person sees they have a social problem, they may not easily be able to do something about it. Plenty of people know they have a problem with, say, interrupting because of timing difficulties, or tone/speed of voice because of multitasking difficulties, or wandering off topic because of a difficulty filtering/focusing, or remaining too long on topic because of perseveration. You can know it, you can express awareness of it (though that can be difficult too, as it requires more multitasking) but it still happens, and still can come across as rude or annoying. If a person doesn't change, or makes changes big to them but too imperceptible for others to notice, that doesn't make them a bad person, or a person to be sneered at. Part of gracious social communication is allowing for difference in social ability.
I know this from long personal experience. I have ADHD and ‘controlled’ conversation is always hard work.
But it’s not the same in print. When writing we always have time to consider and edit what we say, how we say it and why we are saying it.
That’s why I come online for a rest.
(I’m not sure if ‘controlled’ is the right word. Maybe ‘polite’. Some people (usually other neuro-diverse people ‘get’ me straight away and we can chat easily. But with a group of neurotypical folks it can be utterly exhausting.)
Yes, ADHD difficulties of real time conversation can be easier in writing. But writing doesn't eliminate all social difficulties - not all difficulties are about timing. I gave ADHD examples so that you could relate, but there are obviously many other sorts of difficulties a person can have. And they can take many years to become aware of, and many more years to learn to control a little, and for a lot of neurodiverse people, the attempt to conform to 'normality' can be so totally exhausting and so suppressing of who they are, that when they try and are still met with mockery or disapproval, they just give up on social interaction. Thing is, constantly commenting in frustration that they just don't get it, that they are stupid, and making sneering comments about them never changing, doesn't, in my observations, make a person find it easier to adapt. It tends to make things worse - either makes them get more rigidly defensive and argumentative, or just makes them give up and go away.
Well, as you know, I’m not commenting in such a way. I don’t mock, in writing or in RL.
I’m saying that @SusanDoris probably can’t see she has a problem. If she did she’d admit it and start to deal with it - or ask how to deal with it.
I realised you were deliberately giving me ADHD examples. But I don’t see that ‘normality’ is what folks are asking for here. I find it a very welcoming place for the neurodiverse. In fact we may be a majority!
I think folks are asking @SusanDoris to change her tune and address the thread topics instead of dragging them all back to her pet subject. If she can’t see that then I’m confused as to what could be causing her to not see it. It’s not rocket surgery
It's confusing to you because it's not a problem you experience. In the same way someone might say curbing one of your ADHD traits isn't rocket science, because to them it's very easy, and they don't see your struggle.
I know quite a few people who have topics they constantly return back to, not realising they're doing it, and thinking they are saying somethig new and different each time, because there is a tiny variation which they see as very significant. They think they are addressing the topic at hand, because they see every topic in terms of their pet topic - it's the lens through which they see the world. This is very common in autistic people, for instance, who will often have one particular interest dominating their whole thoughts. It's something I've done myself in the past too. Actually, in terms of functioning, I need a topic of focus through which I see other things, otherwise my brain becomes too confused.
And I've talked to people in 'real life' who keep derailing conversations with their own favourite topics, when I am in a role to help them, and I explain what they are doing, even drawing a diagram for one guy who found it hard to understand, and even when they understand what they are doing, and acknowledge they find it annoying too when others do it, and they decide to change, they still keep doing it, because it's a whole way the brain works and doesn't just change with awarenesss. And it depends too on being able to adapt to context and realise when/why it's seen as okay for some people to be off-topic sometimes and what are the boundaries - this adaptation to context never comes naturally for some people. Each situation is brand new, because of difficulty generalising. Some of us are continally never quite sure whether what we've said is okay or has crossed a line.
I don't know what SusanDoris's particular reasons are, and I suspect she doesn't either, but it's a behaviour certainly not unique to her. And as I said to her, I have noticed she has been trying to change and not do it since the last thread, but people don't always see the small changes.
I agree it's annoying when SusanDoris does this, but there are other shipmates who have things they repeatedly do that I find annoying too. I suspect with SusanDoris it's easier and more effective to simply ignore her when she does it, or politely suggest she start her own thread, because we've gone through this whole hell call before, with pages and pages of explanations, and she never seems to understand. She simply becomes more hesitant to post anything. Which I think is a shame.
However, it would be silly to meekly and wishy-washily say, ‘Oh, wel, I suppose you must be right.’
Nobody is suggesting that you do that. The request is for you to stop being annoying about inserting your assertions, or blithely arguing about requests to cease being quite so annoying.
If people think I’m a troll, that is their problem. I am not.
Hear this: the Admins do not care about how you conceptualize yourself. If you post like a troll, you will be treated like a troll. Your posts are indistinguishable from trolling; I suggest you correct that. That is your responsibility, and nobody else's.
I still can't get my head around why someone who thinks that they can't persuade others about the wisdom of atheism and who thinks the practices of attempting to get others to change their minds is undesirable nethertheless seeks to make the same basic point on these boards on thousands of occasions.
If it isn't about changing minds, and if an atheist "evangelist" is as bad as a Christian "evangelist" then why on earth would you then think it worthwhile to waste time saying the same thing over and over again?
If that person is not being an evangelist and says that they're not being at troll - even though they regularly tend to derail conversations on topics which are at best tangential to atheism - then what is the point?
I mean, it can't now be the case that many here are unaware of what Susan thinks, can it?
@fineline - I won’t click ‘quote’ as both our replies are long, but thank you for such a detailed explanation - it makes complete sense. I know and have known plenty of autistic people and children who have pet topics and struggle not to bring the conversation round to them all the time.
I really hadn’t considered that this might spill over into written ‘conversations’ too. But, when I think about it - why not?
I still can't get my head around why someone who thinks that they can't persuade others about the wisdom of atheism and who thinks the practices of attempting to get others to change their minds is undesirable nethertheless seeks to make the same basic point on these boards on thousands of occasions.
If it isn't about changing minds, and if an atheist "evangelist" is as bad as a Christian "evangelist" then why on earth would you then think it worthwhile to waste time saying the same thing over and over again?
If that person is not being an evangelist and says that they're not being at troll - even though they regularly tend to derail conversations on topics which are at best tangential to atheism - then what is the point?
I mean, it can't now be the case that many here are unaware of what Susan thinks, can it?
See @fineline ‘s analysis, above. It makes sense to me. Maybe we are doing a bit of ‘keyboard diagnosis’ here. But, even so, it would be a good reason to be kinder to @SusanDoris and more inclusive towards her and her quirks.
..... And no, atheism is not 'the answer', although I suggest it is morelikely to stand the tests of time - I'm talking of extended time here.
I disagree. Atheism certainly is 'the answer' for some people just as Christianity is the answer for others.
And what do you base your premise on that atheism will be around longer than other beliefs? So far as I know religious belief has been around from the beginning of recorded history.
I did not, as you must be aware, say that atheism would be around for longer than religious beliefs. I cannot see an end ever to religious beliefs. I think that atheism will probably become the more widely acknowledged, but I don't think any of us will be around to see even a strong change.
You do atheism no credit with your evangelism.
I think atheism will quite happily carry on in spite of my few words here and there!
One: what, then, did you mean by 'more likely'; that's what I took to mean atheism is likely to be around after faith-based lifestyles.
Two: if you think atheism will quite happily carry on in spite of you, why do you keep evangelising?
You see, the problem I have with your posts is that you constantly wriggle, denying stuff that people say they understand you to be saying.
You needn't bother to reply to me, you will only twist again (Oh, my, back to the 60's).
I agree, Doc Tor. I want to make clear I was not attempting to diagnose, and to apologise if it reads this way. I was hoping to avoid that, and wanting to give examples of people I know who derail conversations in this way and what the reasons can be (as Boogie had expressed confusion as to why a person might act this way), while making clear that I don't know SD's reasons. This behaviour, and even the very specific types of difficulty that can lie behind it I was describing, are definitely not purely an autistic thing. There are many different sorts of brain difference, often with no diagnosis necessary, just seen as personality trait, that can make a person have different ways of thinking and communication.
If SusanDoris is deliberately winding people up, that is another matter. However, if she is genuinely trying to join in what she sees as interesting conversations and not realising when she oversteps into unwelcome behaviour, then whatever reasons there are for this lack of realisation are immaterial. If a person genuinely can't do something, they don't need a diagnosis to make it not their fault, or to engender some compassion. We can't know for certain what is going on here. But there surely reaches a point where continually scolding someone, expressing frustration at someone, etc., is pointless, and blaming them for something we don't know if they can control is kind of cruel.
Whether the behaviour itself is deemed harmful enough to the community to have the person removed is of course another matter, regardless of intention. I personally have not seen it as so serious as this, but maybe others have.
Comments
I guess you mean this one from the third page (incidentally not your first post, but never mind)
I would say much the same again. You've not got any better at all - allbeit apparently your typing software is functioning a bit more reliably.
Susan, you were so successful in getting the thread to lie down and be quiet by not responding and here came Le Roc to kick the hornets nest.
I was really hoping that you had learned at least this much from the experience: that you don't have to respond to every post and in hell you don't have to answer every jab.
I was hoping that you had learned that sometimes people just have to blow off steam, and that's OK.
This is a social skill. Pick your battles, learn what's important and what just needs to be disregarded.
It was, and still apparently is, your main foible that you seem to need to correct people's perceptions. On just about everything. And you can't see how very irritating this is to others.
Your Quixotic persistence and insistence on the nobility of this quest is why you appear so very ill adjusted to reality and the life of the board.
If you conduct yourself in real life like you do on the board it would not surprise me very much that you have not one friend in the world. And that would make me sad because I don't think you are ill-intentioned, I just think that this is a way of getting attention. It's like the two year old who, when they can't get attention from something positive, they do something naughty because any attention is better than no attention.
I really hope you might have a think about this attention deficit you seem to be trying to balance, because I don't think the issue is really atheism at all.
I appreciate you, and I like the questions you ask and the stimulus you bring - in the right place at the right time. I appreciate you. And I just wish you better social success here.
AFF
To be repeated ad infinitum along with extraordinary self-discipline in ignoring all attempts at going off on a tangent. Is it worth trying?
*I'm surely not alone in finding this the most boring tangent EVAR but a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down and all that
What a delightful non-sequitur. I said nothing at all about how easy your life was, nor does it appertain to what I did say.
In this thread you claim we don't know what you've read, or who you are, or what you know. You make this claim because what you're hearing about yourself doesn't square with how you understand yourself; fair enough. You feel attacked (most of us, in the same situation, probably would); you're sure we're wrong or mistaken or being unfair, and that your own self-understanding is the "true" one.
But SusanDoris, we do know you. It's high time you acknowledged that fact and accepted it as unshakeably, profoundly true. That's not to say we all agree with you; we can understand each other while still holding different opinions, beliefs, and values. Neither is it the same as you simply accepting others' judgments concerning you; it's just relieving you of the constant burden of re-stating your stances. Try to trust us. We know what those stances are, whether or not we agree with them. We know you.
We know you through your posts -- posts you wrote, in your own words, expressed as you presumably wish (given that you're working through a couple of extra communication steps). We've known you for many years. We know you're an atheist. We know you think that science disproves the existence of God.
Because we know these things, there's no need to remind us of them. There's no need to repeat them. Neither is there any need to keep defending your positions, and no need to dismiss or deny the positions of others. It's only necessary to comment on the core question(s) at the hearts of threads.
When people bring up their faith positions while discussing other matters -- for example, was Chau a holy fool, a martyr, or an imperialist? -- just pass over the poster's faith position and focus on the other question. What do you think Chau was up to? Don't remind us about your atheism; we already know it's there.
I can't pretend to speak for this community, but I personally take no issue with your stance (except as it relates to "objective facts," because my own view of the universe doesn't happen to include any), but I'm not prepared to argue with anybody about that: that's an unresolvable tomayto-tomahto question as far as I'm concerned, though for others it may be of vital significance.
I'm thought you were talking about your first post on this thread. Which was on the first page and which I did not reply to.
I was trying to establish how you thought atheism would be spread - which I thought was highly relevant to a discussion of the spread of ideas and evangelism.
I'm still none the wiser. You apparently think everyone will simply wake up one day and realise independently the truth of atheism without anyone needing to explain or argue anything to anyone.
Or, as I said, magic.
When people are advising you, I think it is mainly because you seemed to be wondering why people were annoyed and you seemed to be wanting communication to go more smoothly. But if this is not the case, then feel free to disregard my previous posts.
the only place I talk about or discuss beliefs in such interesting company. (One of the other forums is mostly non-believers, and another is just about moribund.)
Do you, however, agree, ththat you do not know what I know, have read, orhow my life runs when I'm not here?
Yes, I have noticed over the 13 years or so that I've been a member, that most members know each other well. I have often gone for a long time without posting because I had nothing to add or offer, but have started one or two threads which have proved interesting. No, a I have said above, I make this claim because it is mostly correct. The minute I start feeling attacked, or in any way disconcerted about posts, is the day I leave. No, I guarantee that as soon as someone shows me where I have said something, or claimed something that is false or wrong, I'll change my thinking and apologise immediately. I thank you for that an am much enjoying reading this post of yours. Do you think, then, that I should just sort of meekly accept some of the comments made by, for example, mr cheesy? (*smiley*) No. I have never said that and most certainly do not believe it. Do you think that I should have stayed out of the evangelism thread? How do you think I should have expressed by non-believer's point of view? Please note that I did not join the topic about Chau. I think you will find it very hard indeed to find a place where I have said that there are objective facts, i.e. the 100% sort. I add the proviso that nothing can ever be proved absolutely fairly regularly.
Reading and posting involve concentration, thinking, doing something active and
interesting, rather than passively listening to things. ]
P.S. I'm going to post without previewing- finges crossed it comes out right.
@SusanDoris is a troll.
Testing the hypothesis:
Find posts where she isn't narcissistically poking people in the eye.
Hypothesis yet to be disproven.
You're doing it here.
And here.
As much as I appreciate you I do not remember the huge number of things you can't do. In fact I'm not aware of any at all, and I would be willing to wager most others aren't either. Mostly because I have been on shore leave for ten years, and others for their own reasons, most of which probably include the fact that they are more interested in their own lives than other people's.
OK. Enough said. I still appreciate you, and wish you the very best, and look forward to entertaining you with interesting posts elsewhere.
AFF
In a discussion about the merits or otherwise of evangelism it is obvious (to everyone, I would think) that if the beliefs a person is trying to convey to others are untrue, then the enterprise is at least a waste of time, if not worse.
Once that is stated there is nothing more to be said about the rights or wrongs from the POV that the underlying beliefs are untrue,
There is, however, further discussion to be had about when and whether and in what manner the conveying of beliefs to others might be a good thing or not.
LeRoc, AFAICT, was not arguing from the premise that religious belief is false or a delusion. I am guessing, but I imagine LeRoc’s strictures about Christian evangelism of uncontacted peoples would be just the same if the person evangelising them were trying to convince them of ‘scientific atheism’.
In that context, continuing to go on about ‘scientific atheism’ and the suggestion that all beliefs should be based on ‘objective fact’ is a derailment of the thread.
I wonder whether you and others think there are many advantages in evangelising, for instance, Christianity and Christian beliefs?I am inclined to think so, but wait to be shown to be wrong in that.
I don't mean to be flip, SD, but exactly how many of you are there? Considering RooK's "troll" suggestion, are you claiming that the "me" who posts here is other than the authentic SusanDoris? Does that render you somehow different from other posters here? Again, I speak only for myself, but I have never "met" another Shipmate face-to-face; I ONLY know Shipmates from this forum.
Really? You find the people here "interesting?" Maybe I need your definition of that term. The impression I get, pretty consistently, from your posts is that you find people here naive, gullible, and foolish to swallow all that faith guff. While I personally am more agnostic than atheistic (and I waffle a lot), and am not all that comfortable with many expressions of faith, I respect those here who seem knowledgeable and thoughtful and reflective, whether or not I buy into their faith positions. (And I don't say that enough.)
SusanDoris, you do sometimes post about these things. Assuming you tell the truth, I know what you tell us, though my memory doesn't necessarily hold all these facts out before me when I'm reading what you've written.
Not sure I understand you; are you claiming that the posters here who are expressing annoyance are all wrong to be annoyed, and that you have not annoyed anybody? I beg to differ. While I sympathize with this reaction (having had it from time to time myself when I've posted something others "jumped" on), the fact is all of us occasionally miss the mark when trying to express an idea, and none of us has much control over how others "receive" us / our expressions. That said, when those others begin reacting negatively, and in similar negative ways to those expressions, it behooves most of us to sit up and take notice, and consider whether we need to modify our conduct -- at least, if we wish to become and/or remain part of that community.
Good grief. This is not about being right or wrong, SusanDoris. This whole thread, people have been pointing out what gets up their noses about how and what you post. And, to be fair, you're within your rights to annoy people, if that's what you genuinely wish to do. But that does teeter dangerously close to being a troll.
You and mr cheesy can fight your own battles without my help. You don't want to accept his remarks? Don't. That said, responding to them does rather imply there's something there to squabble about, when you're also claiming it's all hogwash. You can't have it both ways, SusanDoris.
What I think, SD, is that you should be more honest about your own desire to evangelize on behalf of atheism, and then get on with that in an upfront way. First, though, recognize the vast difference between messaging FOR atheism and messaging AGAINST Christianity / religion. And keep in mind who makes up most of your audience here.
I do know that. It's called an example, you ninny, drawn from somewhat more neutral territory precisely because you did not post there.
Well, except that according to a strict alignment with Popper there isn't experimental proof. There is disproving hypotheses, and supporting hypotheses.
My hope is not to prove that @SusanDoris is a troll, but rather to demonstrate to her how her posts are functionally indistinguishable from trolling - such that she might choose to post differently.
This.
@SusanDoris just doesn’t see the problem. If we can’t see a problem we can’t do anything about it.
I know this from long personal experience. I have ADHD and ‘controlled’ conversation is always hard work.
But it’s not the same in print. When writing we always have time to consider and edit what we say, how we say it and why we are saying it.
That’s why I come online for a rest.
(I’m not sure if ‘controlled’ is the right word. Maybe ‘polite’. Some people (usually other neuro-diverse people ‘get’ me straight away and we can chat easily. But with a group of neurotypical folks it can be utterly exhausting.)
Basically whatever the subject under discussion @SusanDoris will turn up to tell you atheism is the answer and your beliefs are rubbish. Then she wonders why the responses are often less than polite.
Ohher
I am writing a longish, un-hell-ish response so will send it as a pm.
Yes, ADHD difficulties of real time conversation can be easier in writing. But writing doesn't eliminate all social difficulties - not all difficulties are about timing. I gave ADHD examples so that you could relate, but there are obviously many other sorts of difficulties a person can have. And they can take many years to become aware of, and many more years to learn to control a little, and for a lot of neurodiverse people, the attempt to conform to 'normality' can be so totally exhausting and so suppressing of who they are, that when they try and are still met with mockery or disapproval, they just give up on social interaction. Thing is, constantly commenting in frustration that they just don't get it, that they are stupid, and making sneering comments about them never changing, doesn't, in my observations, make a person find it easier to adapt. It tends to make things worse - either makes them get more rigidly defensive and argumentative, or just makes them give up and go away.
Language is not scientific. It conveys meaning. Currently you are conveying contempt. That is why you've been brought to Hell. Not for using specific words, but for freighting everything with contempt.
And I don't see any indication that you've understood a whit of what has been said repeatedly in this thread about your manner of posting.
And in @SusanDoris’ head there’s the most fantastic narrative going on about the poor little atheist fearlessly defending her beliefs against those mean old Christians who keep picking on her …
Couldn't have made my point better if I'd tried
I disagree. Atheism certainly is 'the answer' for some people just as Christianity is the answer for others.
And what do you base your premise on that atheism will be around longer than other beliefs? So far as I know religious belief has been around from the beginning of recorded history.
You do atheism no credit with your evangelism.
Well, as you know, I’m not commenting in such a way. I don’t mock, in writing or in RL.
I’m saying that @SusanDoris probably can’t see she has a problem. If she did she’d admit it and start to deal with it - or ask how to deal with it.
I realised you were deliberately giving me ADHD examples. But I don’t see that ‘normality’ is what folks are asking for here. I find it a very welcoming place for the neurodiverse. In fact we may be a majority!
I think folks are asking @SusanDoris to change her tune and address the thread topics instead of dragging them all back to her pet subject. If she can’t see that then I’m confused as to what could be causing her to not see it. It’s not rocket surgery
SusanDoris only has a hammer.
End of.
And seeing how words and meanings are causing so much difficulty here, I will close my comment with a non-verbal exclamation.
Aaaarrrggghhhhhh!!!!
Ohher
Firstly, thank you very much for writing your long post which has given
me a chance to write a longer response on a document and not get lost in tags and drafts etc.
It was too long at first, but I’ve gone away and come back to it several times today to trim it, and have decided to post it. Do you think I should then hide behind the sofa?!! No! My ideas remain the same off the board as well as on, the difference being that , in all the other hours of my life, discussions like this do not occur. My next-door neighbour and friend and I are pleased that we can talk on such things together, but since we agree, there is very little difference of opinion! A troll I am not, but obviously I cannot stop people thinking that if they choose. It does not stop me from enjoying reading here. If it stops other people’s enjoyment, then - well, scroll past!
[ If I thought that, I wouldn’t be here. I read the words in a post and respond to them – a general rule which seems to apply on message boards, especially on a part of a site called Purgatory. There are times when I wish people would not misquote me, nbut that’s what happens on message boards and part of what makes them, and the people who post interesting. Well, I certainly agree there. And I hope that they are imterested in what I have to say too, even if only now and then!! Presenting and defending points of view, particularly in Purgatory I think, is what is the interesting thing. There have been one or two comments about my posts not being a challenge, and well, maybe that is technically correct, but if I present what I think is valid, then just to say it is not is perhaps a bit of a cop-out. Of course not. . I suppose I might be annoying people a bit more often since the new ship because it is much easier for me to access!
However, I never think to myself, ‘Now what can I say today that will annoy so-and-so?’ That would be daft – and I’m not daft’ Point taken, but that applies to all. And I say that with a bit of a shrug – since there is life outside Sof F. I understand that, but I am talking about times where what I have said is misquoted and then a poster will tell me I think something A, when that is evidently not so, since I thinkB. By all means think I am incorrect, but I would prefer to hear why, not have to refute a statement I did not make. No, certainly not, I’m always hoping to be provided with more accurate information However, it would be silly to meekly and wishy-washily say, ‘Oh, wel, I suppose you must be right.’ If people think I’m a troll, that is their problem. I am not. No, I am not here to evangelise for atheism. I am here for the discussion for its own sake. I am more interested in the subject of belief and not, for instance, politics.
I subscribe to the NSS because they work for fairness for all in a secular society.
There's one small typo -but if I trhy to find it, I mightaccidentally delete the post
Oh, did I hear anyone say they wish I had""
It's confusing to you because it's not a problem you experience. In the same way someone might say curbing one of your ADHD traits isn't rocket science, because to them it's very easy, and they don't see your struggle.
I know quite a few people who have topics they constantly return back to, not realising they're doing it, and thinking they are saying somethig new and different each time, because there is a tiny variation which they see as very significant. They think they are addressing the topic at hand, because they see every topic in terms of their pet topic - it's the lens through which they see the world. This is very common in autistic people, for instance, who will often have one particular interest dominating their whole thoughts. It's something I've done myself in the past too. Actually, in terms of functioning, I need a topic of focus through which I see other things, otherwise my brain becomes too confused.
And I've talked to people in 'real life' who keep derailing conversations with their own favourite topics, when I am in a role to help them, and I explain what they are doing, even drawing a diagram for one guy who found it hard to understand, and even when they understand what they are doing, and acknowledge they find it annoying too when others do it, and they decide to change, they still keep doing it, because it's a whole way the brain works and doesn't just change with awarenesss. And it depends too on being able to adapt to context and realise when/why it's seen as okay for some people to be off-topic sometimes and what are the boundaries - this adaptation to context never comes naturally for some people. Each situation is brand new, because of difficulty generalising. Some of us are continally never quite sure whether what we've said is okay or has crossed a line.
I don't know what SusanDoris's particular reasons are, and I suspect she doesn't either, but it's a behaviour certainly not unique to her. And as I said to her, I have noticed she has been trying to change and not do it since the last thread, but people don't always see the small changes.
I agree it's annoying when SusanDoris does this, but there are other shipmates who have things they repeatedly do that I find annoying too. I suspect with SusanDoris it's easier and more effective to simply ignore her when she does it, or politely suggest she start her own thread, because we've gone through this whole hell call before, with pages and pages of explanations, and she never seems to understand. She simply becomes more hesitant to post anything. Which I think is a shame.
Hear this: the Admins do not care about how you conceptualize yourself. If you post like a troll, you will be treated like a troll. Your posts are indistinguishable from trolling; I suggest you correct that. That is your responsibility, and nobody else's.
If it isn't about changing minds, and if an atheist "evangelist" is as bad as a Christian "evangelist" then why on earth would you then think it worthwhile to waste time saying the same thing over and over again?
If that person is not being an evangelist and says that they're not being at troll - even though they regularly tend to derail conversations on topics which are at best tangential to atheism - then what is the point?
I mean, it can't now be the case that many here are unaware of what Susan thinks, can it?
I really hadn’t considered that this might spill over into written ‘conversations’ too. But, when I think about it - why not?
See @fineline ‘s analysis, above. It makes sense to me. Maybe we are doing a bit of ‘keyboard diagnosis’ here. But, even so, it would be a good reason to be kinder to @SusanDoris and more inclusive towards her and her quirks.
One: what, then, did you mean by 'more likely'; that's what I took to mean atheism is likely to be around after faith-based lifestyles.
Two: if you think atheism will quite happily carry on in spite of you, why do you keep evangelising?
You see, the problem I have with your posts is that you constantly wriggle, denying stuff that people say they understand you to be saying.
You needn't bother to reply to me, you will only twist again (Oh, my, back to the 60's).
DT
HH
If SusanDoris is deliberately winding people up, that is another matter. However, if she is genuinely trying to join in what she sees as interesting conversations and not realising when she oversteps into unwelcome behaviour, then whatever reasons there are for this lack of realisation are immaterial. If a person genuinely can't do something, they don't need a diagnosis to make it not their fault, or to engender some compassion. We can't know for certain what is going on here. But there surely reaches a point where continually scolding someone, expressing frustration at someone, etc., is pointless, and blaming them for something we don't know if they can control is kind of cruel.
Whether the behaviour itself is deemed harmful enough to the community to have the person removed is of course another matter, regardless of intention. I personally have not seen it as so serious as this, but maybe others have.