Are Atheistic Fundamentalists Any More Desirable Than The Jim Jones University Brand?

[currentchristian]

I had forgotten about PV's illness. I am beginning to suspect that Vigile is right. Maybe PV has had a rough couple of days.

 

I don't know.

 

Seems to me that his original post, while perhaps vitriolic and immoderate on some points, had other very interesting views. It did, however, provoke many here. PV tried to clear that up in starting another topic in which he explained what he was trying to say. At this point, I need to read them both again to remember, as this has been a wild ride, but his attempts to clarify his points were not given due consideration, seemed to me.

 

No matter, I echo Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"

 

-CC in MA

[Legion]

No matter, I echo Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"

Now where would be the drama in that? You've said yourself CC that you enjoy passionate debate.

[Dave]

He mentioned an illness. Does anyone know what that was?

http://permscape.blogspot.com/2006/11/jacc...onal-story.html

That explains more than he would admit to.

[currentchristian]

I just reread the original post. Yes, some statements could be rephrased here and there, but that's always the case. I do not see that this is an attack on anyone. It's a warning about intolerance in all its guises.

 

Notice the first poster agrees with PV.

 

The second poster agrees, too, that "fundamentalist atheism" is a problem.

 

Not until the third poster does the battle begin. In my view, the third poster derailed the entire topic.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

No matter, I echo Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"

Now where would be the drama in that? You've said yourself CC that you enjoy passionate debate.

 

Yes, you are right. But debating points/issues/facts/data is one thing. The other thing is that this can only be done in a way that is conducive to growth and learning, when all parties are able from time to time to "agree to disagree" in order to maintain civility and some measure of unifying peace among the participants. Most here, happily, are indeed very good at that.

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

The Germans of 1933 were quite educated....

And still religious. Their belief in a god did not stop them from what they did, in fact, they did it because they felt it was what their god wanted them to do.

 

"Gott mit uns!" was on the belt buckle of every German soldier.

 

Again, religions, especially the christian one, claims to make people better, or at least provide them with some morals. It is that claim that opens them up to debate. History has proven their claim to be an empty one.

[currentchristian]

Not until the third poster does the battle begin. In my view, the third poster derailed the entire topic.

 

-CC in MA

 

Clarification: The third poster did not derail the discussion by disagreeing, but as a result of the manner in which he disagreed. Seems to me.

 

-CC in MA

[Legion]

I just reread the original post. Yes, some statements could be rephrased here and there, but that's always the case. I do not see that this is an attack on anyone. It's a warning about intolerance in all its guises.

 

Notice the first poster agrees with PV.

 

The second poster agrees, too, that "fundamentalist atheism" is a problem.

 

Not until the third poster does the battle begin. In my view, the third poster derailed the entire topic.

The third poster happens to be your old nemesis CC... Dave. Do you think that Dave is a radical atheist? Do you suspect that he is intolerant?

 

Where are you Dave? Are you intolerant?

[Dave]

Seems to me that his original post, while perhaps vitriolic and immoderate on some points, had other very interesting views....

Only because you agreed with his strawman arguments and his attacks.

[Dave]

Where are you Dave? Are you intolerant?

That depends on how you define "intolerant." I disagree with the extremely broad brush that the OP painted Atheists with. I disagree with his rather strange reasons for not accepting evolution. I may disagree with someone, but intolerance would have to include me telling them not to post or reply to my posts.

[currentchristian]

The third poster happens to be your old nemesis CC... Dave. Do you think that Dave is a radical atheist? Do you suspect that he is intolerant?

 

Where are you Dave? Are you intolerant?

 

Oh, want pointed questions you ask, you little devil!

 

I do not know "The Third Poster" (TTP). I have no idea. He does come across, from my perspective, from time to time, as one radicalized in his views and intolerant of views not his own. I may be wrong, of course. It's just the way I see it.

 

What I am not wrong about is disliking very much when I ask TTP to cease responding to my particular posts and he won't. I do feel harassed by him (and even stalked to a point) when he just won't lay off for a couple of days and challenge me on another topic down the road. No means no.

 

I may be wrong about TTP, but this is how he comes across to me. Even so, I look forward to hearing from him down the road on another topic. Often, he is quite good and his views are quite clear and well stated.

 

-CC in MA

[Legion]

Oh, want pointed questions you ask, you little devil!

Muahahaha I just wanted to try and clear the air a bit, that's all. There is nothing like unspoken accusation for fouling things up in my estimation.

[Ouroboros]

Radicalism (extremism, militancy) brings pain upon oneself and upon those around one. We all have to be on guard (innoculated) against the virus of radicalism. And we need booster shots now and then.

Yup. And even though I'm an atheist, agnostic, non-theistic natural ontologist (no, not oncologist dummy), non-conformist and non-cognitivist (besides ignosticist and what not) any other label you'd like to slap on me, I still know that I'm an idiot at many times and I can *gasp* be complete wrong and not even know about it myself. So I have decided to take a stand in life that I have to learn (even though so frigging hard sometimes) to take criticism and listen to opposite argument (even when they infuriates me). To me, this is to keep an open mind. Labels have no meaning but to give a hint, other than that, it's up to each one of us to figure out our own path.

[Ouroboros]

I just reread the original post. Yes, some statements could be rephrased here and there, but that's always the case. I do not see that this is an attack on anyone. It's a warning about intolerance in all its guises.

I think the problem was more about a huge misunderstanding of what PV intented to say, rather what he actually happened to say. FIMS gets us all at times.

[Ouroboros]

That depends on how you define "intolerant." I disagree with the extremely broad brush that the OP painted Atheists with. I disagree with his rather strange reasons for not accepting evolution. I may disagree with someone, but intolerance would have to include me telling them not to post or reply to my posts.

I can recognize that feeling. I don't like to be painted in broad brushes either (especially if the brush got wet paint on it ), but seriously sometimes I do the same thing, make generalized statements against other groups and it gets me into trouble. If PV was at fault in any way it was probably more of not being able to clarify his standpoint or being able to hold his ground and not just give up when he faced opposition. Debate demands opposition and it gets ugly. That's just how it is, and one has to accept the rules of the game to play the game.

[currentchristian]

FIMS gets us all at times.

 

Foundation Information Management System? You got me on that one??

 

-CC in MA

[Jella]

I don't know but I took it as Foot In Mouth Syndrome

 

FIMS

[Ouroboros]

HAHAHAHA!!! Yes, it's Foot-in-mouth-syndrome.

[Dave]

I do not know "The Third Poster" (TTP). I have no idea. He does come across, from my perspective, from time to time, as one radicalized in his views and intolerant of views not his own. I may be wrong, of course. It's just the way I see it.

That's the way you pretend to see it. You claim to not have "radicalized" views, but you do.

What I am not wrong about is disliking very much when I ask TTP to cease responding to my particular posts and he won't....

That is not something you get to ask and it just shows your intolerance of views that are not your own. I am not in the best of favor with several of the mods around here. I am sure that if I crossed any line they would come down on me harder than they would anyone else.

I may be wrong about TTP...

you are. You just like playing the victim that you accused others of playing.

[Dave]

I can recognize that feeling. I don't like to be painted in broad brushes either (especially if the brush got wet paint on it ), but seriously sometimes I do the same thing, make generalized statements against other groups and it gets me into trouble.

Of course, no one here, that I've seen, claims to be perfect. I've made generalized statements, been called on it, and rephrased my original position.

If PV was at fault in any way it was probably more of not being able to clarify his standpoint or being able to hold his ground and not just give up when he faced opposition. Debate demands opposition and it gets ugly. That's just how it is, and one has to accept the rules of the game to play the game.

It doesn't have to get ugly, but this one started out ugly. By complaining about fundamentalism, he lapsed into a fundamentalism himself. Like another person here he became emotional, instead of rational, when faced with opposition. He came back with more emotional tirades and even refused to acknowledge that someone else might know more about a certain topic than he did.

 

Also, had I known he had a severe mental disorder I would have approached him differently, not at a lower lever, but differently. NO! I am not saying his disorder makes him stupid or anything like that.... just a different approach.

[Jubilant]

I feel bad too as I did not know that PV had a mental disorder...now I feel like a shitass.

[Pegasus_Voyager]

I go along with MLK Jr. in that what matters is content of character. Give me an upstanding, trustworthy atheist to be my senator any day over a lying, cheating theist! Character counts, not beliefs.

Yet you claimed earlier that Atheists were trying to take away religion and that you wouldn't want them ruling?

 

Dave, I have never seen such flat-out delusion in my life. currentchristian never said anything of the sort, and neither did I. You are either a liar, can't read, or just too damn arrogant and pig-headed to admit you're wrong. Why don't you stop wearing your feelings on your sleeve an act like a grown-up? Ultimately, you're not helping atheisms case with either your inability to comprehend the English language or your problem with pathological lying.

[Pegasus_Voyager]

I feel bad too as I did not know that PV had a mental disorder...now I feel like a shitass.

 

 

There is no need to feel like a "shit-ass" Jubilant. I don't need pity. First of all, the disorder no longer exists. I am not symptomatic and I function in society, and I'm not going to tolerate the "whack-job" card being played here.

[Pegasus_Voyager]

I can recognize that feeling. I don't like to be painted in broad brushes either (especially if the brush got wet paint on it ), but seriously sometimes I do the same thing, make generalized statements against other groups and it gets me into trouble.

Of course, no one here, that I've seen, claims to be perfect. I've made generalized statements, been called on it, and rephrased my original position.

If PV was at fault in any way it was probably more of not being able to clarify his standpoint or being able to hold his ground and not just give up when he faced opposition. Debate demands opposition and it gets ugly. That's just how it is, and one has to accept the rules of the game to play the game.

It doesn't have to get ugly, but this one started out ugly. By complaining about fundamentalism, he lapsed into a fundamentalism himself. Like another person here he became emotional, instead of rational, when faced with opposition. He came back with more emotional tirades and even refused to acknowledge that someone else might know more about a certain topic than he did.

 

Also, had I known he had a severe mental disorder I would have approached him differently, not at a lower lever, but differently. NO! I am not saying his disorder makes him stupid or anything

like that.... just a different approach.

 

 

First of all, I'm going to tell you what I told Jubilant. I do not require pity, nor do I wish to be treated like one of "Jerry's Kids". Also, I do not have a "severe mental disorder" as it has gone into complete remission. Being eccentric doesn't make me a "whack-job", dave. If you know anything about schizophrenia, which I doubt you do, a schizophrenic who is severely symptomatic cannot organize his thoughts or conversations. And I did not regress into fundamentalism, I simply got sick and tired of being misunderstood and eviscerated.

[Pegasus_Voyager]

It was a slam on atheists. You can pose a view without coming off in attack mode. He came off like many hardcore Christians on this site...telling us what is wrong with us. Learning implies that he presented something that we didn't already know...how is that teaching anything?

It was a slam on all Atheists. I seriously doubt he was an agnostic or any other non believer. All of his arguments were standard christian fare. I have no doubt he was a christian trying to pass himself off as a non believer.

 

You're delusional, dave, and I'm sick of your duplicity. Read my stuff, dave! Read "Is God A Sadistic Monster?" Do you honestly think a Christian posing as a skeptic would blaspheme God like that? Get real! What you are doing here is flat-out unethical, and it's ultimately rooted in fanatical intolerance of any viewpoint other than your own.