There's No Nailing Ordinaryclay (Jello) To The Wall

[duderonomy]

Vigile,

I was just talking about this Monty Python scene with my sister who has never seen it. I was wishing I could remember the movie it came from, so I could Youtube it and send a link. Lucky for me I didn't pray to find it!

I don't know what that means other than God moves in mysterious ways, or sometimes there are happy coincidences!

 

 

 

[Vigile]

He's a master logician. He's supremely intelligent.

 

Nah, respectfully, the guy doesn't have the first clue how to use logic. He proved that in the other thread when he just threw out random logical phrases demonstrating he didn't even know what they meant or how to use them properly. The guy just grabs a few tidbits from Craig's site to make himself appear smarter than he is and once rebuffed and left without a canned Craig response, he falls flat on his face. Though, like the Black Knight, he claims victory anyway.

 

Ok Vigile.

 

With equal respect, if you think you can take him down - he's all yours.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

You can't take down the dark knight. Not if he's the one judging victory. By a more objective measure, I believe I already took him down on the issue of faith. That he continued to equivocate its definition even after I warned him not to is not on me. I have no interest in battling it out with a dimwit who is intellectually dishonest.

[WMDKitty]

The man is the classic Black Knight. He isn't jello, he just refuses to acknowledge he's been beaten.

 

 

Someone had to do it.

[bornagainathiest]

He's a master logician. He's supremely intelligent.

 

Nah, respectfully, the guy doesn't have the first clue how to use logic. He proved that in the other thread when he just threw out random logical phrases demonstrating he didn't even know what they meant or how to use them properly. The guy just grabs a few tidbits from Craig's site to make himself appear smarter than he is and once rebuffed and left without a canned Craig response, he falls flat on his face. Though, like the Black Knight, he claims victory anyway.

 

Ok Vigile.

 

With equal respect, if you think you can take him down - he's all yours.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

What do you mean? Clay has already been taken down. He went down in flames when he started quoting the dictionary. He then when into this pathetic game of pretending he won. Once his argument falls apart he has lost. We don't have to wait for Clay to grow up and admit he has lost. That might never happen.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hello MyMistake.

 

What do I mean?

Well, if you're asking me that question, perhaps you and I are talking at cross-purposes? I mean no disrespect here and I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone (except OrdinaryJello, perhaps ) but, I'm now going to live up to the Lunatic Heathen's description of me. I'm going to be pedantic about this.

 

(Sorry if my pedantry is annoying, but it's a character trait/flaw/strength that I'm forced to live with. Some people have to deal with excess cellulite or a fear of spiders or an allergy to peanuts. I have to deal with how my pedantry rubs less-pedantic people up the wrong way. )

 

Anyway!

If you're willing MM, would you please be so kind as to make good on your claims?

 

Can you please show me where OJ was taken down? (Cutting & pasting and using italics and/or emboldening, please.)

 

Can you please show me why you think his quoting from the dictionary constitutes, 'going down in flames'?

(Asserting that it is so doesn't cut it for me. I'd like to know why you think it is so and I'd also like to comprehend the process, whereby you arrived at that conclusion. Please be as thorough as is neccessary.)

 

Can you please demonstrate to me exactly where his argument fell apart, so that I can see why you think he lost at that point?

(Same requirements as above please. Take me thru it please, sparing no detail.)

 

Finally...

I agree. We don't have to wait for OJ to do anything. Instead, why don't we take the initiative by discovering for ourselves just where, when, how and why he lost? That way we learn and improve and can use what we've discovered again. A useful goal, wouldn't you say?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

He's a master logician. He's supremely intelligent.

 

Nah, respectfully, the guy doesn't have the first clue how to use logic. He proved that in the other thread when he just threw out random logical phrases demonstrating he didn't even know what they meant or how to use them properly. The guy just grabs a few tidbits from Craig's site to make himself appear smarter than he is and once rebuffed and left without a canned Craig response, he falls flat on his face. Though, like the Black Knight, he claims victory anyway.

 

Ok Vigile.

 

With equal respect, if you think you can take him down - he's all yours.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

You can't take down the dark knight. Not if he's the one judging victory. By a more objective measure, I believe I already took him down on the issue of faith. That he continued to equivocate its definition even after I warned him not to is not on me. I have no interest in battling it out with a dimwit who is intellectually dishonest.

 

Vigile, in the same spirit of mutual respect as before...

 

Perhaps we do agree on this?

I began this thread by saying that we couldn't nail OrdinaryJello to the wall and you've written that the dark knight (OJ) can't be taken down. Don't these two statements amount to the same thing?

 

It's impossible to constrain, force, coerce, persuade, negotiate, bargain or even reason with him.

Therefore, he'll never abide by any definition of victory or defeat, anyone wants to impose upon him. As you succinctly put it, "Not if he's the one judging victory."

 

So we're agreed?

The Black Knight can't be taken down unless he chooses to accept defeat - which he'll never do.

Or, putting it my way... OrdinaryJello can't be nailed to the wall, because it takes his agreement to do so - an agreement he'll never give.

 

Moving on...

What is this objective measure that you talk about? If you could elaborate, I'd appreciate it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[mymistake]

*puts on Ordinaryclay mask*

 

The statement " Faith, by it's very definition is irrational. I'll never understand why belief without evidence is considered by so many to be a desirable value." is irrational, is self-refuting, is without evidence and is based on faith.

 

Allow me to prove it!!!1!

 

The dictionary (evidence) says faith is " . . . based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

 

Ta-dah!

 

*takes off Ordinaryclay mask*

 

 

epic fail

 

Now at what point is somebody "taken down"? Should we allow proven criminals to go free as long as they maintain their innocence? Should we allow politicians to remain in office after their term expires as long as they say it hasn't expired? Should we believe that internet trolls have not lost as long as they lack the character to admit when they are wrong? Anybody can lie. A four-year-old child can lie. To me a person went down in flames when they reach the point where they have nothing legitimate to support their claims. Clay's tap dancing and misdirection are very much irrelevant.

[Vigile]

I began this thread by saying that we couldn't nail OrdinaryJello to the wall and you've written that the dark knight (OJ) can't be taken down. Don't these two statements amount to the same thing?

 

To appease your pedantry I'll spell this out. If he were mere jello, it implies he is slimy and refuses to take a position he can be nailed down on. He did take a position however, when he challenged the idea that faith is by definition irrational. His attempts to prove it is not failed miserably as he 1) misused and showed a complete lack of understanding of logic and logical rules, and 2) as he built his entire case on equivocation even though I addressed the double meaning of the word prior to his attempts.

 

I suggest that OC's carcass is nailed to the wall and there it hangs as he claims victory for himself and as the rest of us just shake our heads and wander away.

 

What is this objective measure that you talk about?

 

See 1 and 2 above.

[bornagainathiest]

*puts on Ordinaryclay mask*

 

The statement " Faith, by it's very definition is irrational. I'll never understand why belief without evidence is considered by so many to be a desirable value." is irrational, is self-refuting, is without evidence and is based on faith.

 

Allow me to prove it!!!1!

 

The dictionary (evidence) says faith is " . . . based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

 

Ta-dah!

 

*takes off Ordinaryclay mask*

 

 

epic fail

 

Now at what point is somebody "taken down"? Should we allow proven criminals to go free as long as they maintain their innocence? Should we allow politicians to remain in office after their term expires as long as they say it hasn't expired? Should we believe that internet trolls have not lost as long as they lack the character to admit when they are wrong? Anybody can lie. A four-year-old child can lie. To me a person went down in flames when they reach the point where they have nothing legitimate to support their claims. Clay's tap dancing and misdirection are very much irrelevant.

 

Hi MM!

 

Thanks for indulging me.

 

For the record, I know all too well just how annoying, frustrating and exasperating my persistent pedantry can be. I know this because people tell me so! If my request was at all irritating... I apologize unreservedly.

 

On the plus side, you'll notice that in this forum, I've been able to turn this character trait into a strength. Rather than just dismissing the antics of certain Christian trolls apologists or giving up in disgust, I've found that I can happily take them on and persist as long or longer than they can. I have no trouble at all in re-visiting the same points, the same issues and the same arguments, again and again and... You get the picture?

 

I call this a strength because it helps me fulfill the role of blocking the likes of OJ, Thumbelina, Rayskidude, etc.

I believe that 'relentless' Christians should always be opposed, whatever the cost. Simply ignoring them is handing them a licence to write whatever they like, for as long as they like. And if left to their own devices, they will continue forever, like the Bible-obsessed fanatics they really are. The British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once said this, "A fanatic is someone who will not shut up and who will not change the subject." I happen to agree with him.

 

Secondly, not replying to them gives the newbies, the lurkers, the waverers and the recently deconverted, entirely the wrong impression about us. They're left thinking that we Ex-Christians and Lions have no answer to the fanatics. They'll wrongly interpret our silence as meek submission. They'll wrongly construe that because we don't respond - we have no response. Then they'll get the wrong idea that because we have no response, Christianity and the Bible must therefore be true. That puts them at serious risk of being dragged back into the very quagmire they're trying to escape from. Imho, if these traumatized and vulnerable people come away with that erroneous conclusion, then we've done them a dis-service. We owe it to them to oppose the woos, all the way down the line.

 

Anyway, on a lighter note, I'm told that I'm a dead ringer for this guy... http://kipkay.com/ ...so if you see someone of this description walking towards you... RUN like ****! You're either going to get pranked (if it's him) or get irritated (if it's me)!

 

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA

[bornagainathiest]

I began this thread by saying that we couldn't nail OrdinaryJello to the wall and you've written that the dark knight (OJ) can't be taken down. Don't these two statements amount to the same thing?

 

To appease your pedantry I'll spell this out. If he were mere jello, it implies he is slimy and refuses to take a position he can be nailed down on. He did take a position however, when he challenged the idea that faith is by definition irrational. His attempts to prove it is not failed miserably as he 1) misused and showed a complete lack of understanding of logic and logical rules, and 2) as he built his entire case on equivocation even though I addressed the double meaning of the word prior to his attempts.

 

I suggest that OC's carcass is nailed to the wall and there it hangs as he claims victory for himself and as the rest of us just shake our heads and wander away.

 

What is this objective measure that you talk about?

 

See 1 and 2 above.

 

Thanks Vigile!

 

The explanation I gave to MM is also for your eyes. It throws some light on my 'persistent' approach to these matters. That Kipkay warning applies too!

If you don't want to get pranked or irritated... run!

 

BAA

[mymistake]

Secondly, not replying to them gives the newbies, the lurkers, the waverers and the recently deconverted, entirely the wrong impression about us.

 

Half the active forum replies whenever a Chrisitan shows up for battle. Typically the Christian doesn't have time to respond to everybody. After a long while the ex-Cers get board. That comes from the Christian not having answers.

 

They're left thinking that we Ex-Christians and Lions have no answer to the fanatics.

 

The only way to reach that conclusion is to be delusional. I've seen Christians who are that delusional. They have made Youtube vids claiming that Bill Maher lost a debate to a Christian. When you run the vid it's a section of Religulous and Maher was trying not to laugh when the Christian hung himself on his own stupidity.

 

They'll wrongly interpret our silence as meek submission. They'll wrongly construe that because we don't respond - we have no response. Then they'll get the wrong idea that because we have no response, Christianity and the Bible must therefore be true. That puts them at serious risk of being dragged back into the very quagmire they're trying to escape from.

 

People who are that deluded are not trying to escape and are going to be just as deluded regardless of any response from us.

 

Imho, if these traumatized and vulnerable people come away with that erroneous conclusion, then we've done them a dis-service. We owe it to them to oppose the woos, all the way down the line.

 

You shouldn't take responsibility for the conclusions of another. That is almost as bad as taking responsibility for the action of others.

[bornagainathiest]

Secondly, not replying to them gives the newbies, the lurkers, the waverers and the recently deconverted, entirely the wrong impression about us.

 

Half the active forum replies whenever a Chrisitan shows up for battle. Typically the Christian doesn't have time to respond to everybody. After a long while the ex-Cers get board. That comes from the Christian not having answers.

 

They're left thinking that we Ex-Christians and Lions have no answer to the fanatics.

 

The only way to reach that conclusion is to be delusional. I've seen Christians who are that delusional. They have made Youtube vids claiming that Bill Maher lost a debate to a Christian. When you run the vid it's a section of Religulous and Maher was trying not to laugh when the Christian hung himself on his own stupidity.

 

They'll wrongly interpret our silence as meek submission. They'll wrongly construe that because we don't respond - we have no response. Then they'll get the wrong idea that because we have no response, Christianity and the Bible must therefore be true. That puts them at serious risk of being dragged back into the very quagmire they're trying to escape from.

 

People who are that deluded are not trying to escape and are going to be just as deluded regardless of any response from us.

 

Imho, if these traumatized and vulnerable people come away with that erroneous conclusion, then we've done them a dis-service. We owe it to them to oppose the woos, all the way down the line.

 

You shouldn't take responsibility for the conclusions of another. That is almost as bad as taking responsibility for the action of others.

 

MyMistake,

 

I'm going to reply directly and bluntly to your comments.

I hope we don't fall out over this, but there's some stuff you should know about.

 

MyMistake wrote...

"The only way to reach that conclusion is to be delusional."

 

"People who are that deluded are not trying to escape and are going to be just as deluded regardless of any response from us."

 

"You shouldn't take responsibility for the conclusions of another. That is almost as bad as taking responsibility for the action of others."

 

No. That's not correct, MM.

 

Calling hurt and traumatized people 'delusional' doesn't just insult them, it hurts them even more. It injures them because they (the weak) often look to us Lions (the strong) for help.

 

How do I know this?

 

I know this because I've been PM'ed by wavering Christians who've looked to me to help them escape from Christianity. And not just once. These conflicted people are fighting to rid themselves of guilt, shame, anger, self-loathing, fear and other harmful emotions. They're dealing with depression, suicidal thoughts, self-harm and other mental probelms. I'm not at liberty to tell you their identities, nor will I do so. They've taken me into their confidence and I'm not about to betray them.

 

You're also wrong about them not trying escape. They are.

 

If they draw the wrong conclusions from our arguments with aggressive Christians like OC or Thumbelina, then this is because they're confused - NOT because they're delusional. For years or decades they've been encouraged not to think critically and to ignore and deny the evidence against Christianity. So how can you expect them to instantly develop razor-sharp logic and to see things as clearly as you do? A bit of a tall order, wouldn't you say?

(Please note that I know nothing at all about you and your relationship with Christianity. Maybe you just 'clicked' one day and de-converted without any fuss or trauma? Not everyone can do that. I certainly didn't.)

 

You are right about my taking responsibility for the conclusions of others. We agree on that. But there is a caveat to that notion.

 

I WILL take responsibility for the care and wellbeing of the de-converting, IF they ask me to. And I HAVE been asked. Now you know as much as I'm going to tell you about this.

 

Lastly, for some questions for you that get right to the heart of the matter.

 

If you were in my shoes, what would you do?

You've just received a Private Message from a forum newbie who's struggling to leave Christianity. They're suffering from nightmares of eternal hellfire, anxiety attacks and they're being pressured by church and family to return to the fold - to the open arms of Jesus. They ask you to explain how certain scientific data disproves the Bible. They can't think clearly because they've been indoctrinated not to think critically. They ask for your help. They want to leave Christianity, but doing so is a terrible ordeal. Can you help?

 

So, what will you do, MM?

.

.

.

 

Call them delusional?

 

Tell them that they're not really trying to escape Christianity?

 

Tell them that they'll just carry on being delusional, regardless of any help you give them?

 

Tell them that they're not your responsibility, perhaps?

 

 

 

 

Think about it.

 

BAA

[mymistake]

I'm confused. Are you saying BAA that you got a PM from a number of people who were either "newbies, the lurkers, the waverers and the recently deconverted"? You said you don't want to give out names and I wouldn't want that anyway. How about a number? I would like to know how many people you are talking about. Now are you saying this response was because a Christian put a challenge in the Lion's Den and ex-Cers ignored it? I don't think that is what you actually mean, perhaps I don't understand what you mean. Please clarify and use numbers for the people who PMed you. If a Christian went unchallenged I would like to know which one and what was the thread title. Originally I thought you were talking about a generic audience. Now I think you are talking about a few specific individuals but I'm not sure.

 

Yes I do get that people hate being called delusional. This is especially true for the delusional. If you can recommend a word that means "believing ideas that are fantastic, harmful and FALSE" that is nicer than "delusional" then let me know and I will adapt it. I've been there with the "rid themselves of guilt, shame, anger, self-loathing, fear and other harmful emotions. They're dealing with depression, suicidal thoughts, self-harm and other mental probelms". In my case it was all caused by my delusions. Dispelling the delusions and adopting rational thought was the cure. If you have a better idea I am listening. How do you deal with somebody who has a false belief that is harming themselves and possibly others?

[raoul]

Actually MM and BAA,

You're both right in a way. BAA, I used to have the same encounter in an opposite way with atheists when I was doing the apologetic thing. On the public forums we would go after each others' throats. But privately, some of them would email me with very different thoughts and/or views or would explain more about themselves and other personal things. I never compromised anything we spoke about privately however that did not stop me from going after them publicly regarding their views.

 

So I believe MM is right to a certain extent. They are delusional and living a fantasy laden non-reality which has to be addressed. I know delusional people don't like being called that but sometimes the truth cannot be compromised no matter how uncomfortable it makes us.

[Ravenstar]

An analogy that works for me is finding an isolated tribe somewhere... and plunking them in the middle of New York City. It's like (is?) culture shock. They don't know the language...(or not well.. check out the xianese thread) they don't know the social rules... they don't know the technology, etc. It's a bewlidering and frightening place and everything they have based their reality on (including their mental matrices, or reality maps) has been turned on it's head.

 

You have to start small... and ease them into their new environment so that the shock is lessened... otherwise just for their own psychological survival (which feels like their physical survival as well) they will either run back to their familiar environment or have a nervous breakdown. They need to be acclimated to their new environment... and find out, through experience, that they are safe, and their needs can and will be met in this new environment.

 

It's about compassion. Some of those who came here are not interested in this reality... they just want to bring us to their tribal land... and some are. Sometimes it's hard to tell these two groups apart though.

 

I personally have little patience with self-imposed ignorance... but I guess i need to remind myself that not everybody else either has my motivation to discover truth, or they don't have the tools (yet), or really doesn't care, ...and act accordingly. I would hate to think i had harmed someone in pain because of my own impatience.

 

It's the whole "put yourself in another's shoes thing. Damned hard at the best of times.. harder when it's something that one is highly emotional about, or invested in.

[mymistake]

Actually MM and BAA,

You're both right in a way. BAA, I used to have the same encounter in an opposite way with atheists when I was doing the apologetic thing. On the public forums we would go after each others' throats. But privately, some of them would email me with very different thoughts and/or views or would explain more about themselves and other personal things. I never compromised anything we spoke about privately however that did not stop me from going after them publicly regarding their views.

 

So I believe MM is right to a certain extent. They are delusional and living a fantasy laden non-reality which has to be addressed. I know delusional people don't like being called that but sometimes the truth cannot be compromised no matter how uncomfortable it makes us.

 

Well I think I misunderstood BAA on certain questions so I hope he will clarify. Adam5 was our most recent Christian and I thought I was gentle with him. I gave him the standard greating I give Christians who show up here. Basically I tell them let's agree to disagree on religion. Don't preach at me and I won't tear apart your beliefs. We can talk about anything else and get along just fine. Some of them even take me up on it. Now I do fight in the Den with Christians who are looking for a fight. But if they start firing blanks like JayL or Clay then I lose interest. I can't stop them from being stubborn. If they want to become a living stereotype that is their business. On the other hand if somebody asks for help I try my best to help them.

[bornagainathiest]

Ok MM.

 

I'll make this as clear as I can.

 

There are two groups involved.

 

The fanatical, delusional Christians like OC and Thumbelina that I actively and openly oppose, everywhere I can. I have no other contact with them in any other way. They are hopeless cases. They don't PM me and I don't want to PM them. I leave them to their delusions.

 

The other group are those Christians who are nothing like OC and the Thumb. These are wavering, doubting Christians who are either partway thru de-converting or thinking seriously about it. They've come to Ex-Chr because they're trying to escape from Christianity.

 

Are they just as delusional as OC and the Thumb? Perhaps. But that's not the issue here, is it?

The real crux of the matter is that they are asking for help. If my input helps them overcome their fantastical and delusional take on reality, that's a step on the road to deconversion and sanity, wouldn't you agree? So it just doesn't help anyone if we (the people who can help them) tar these help-seeking Christian with the same brush as OC and the Thumb and call them ALL hopelessly delusional.

 

If it helps, think about alcoholism.

There's two groups. Which one do you help?

Those who are happy to drink themselves into oblivion every day or those who are trying to give the booze up? OC and company belong to the first group. They're hopeless cases. It's a waste of time doing anything for them. Agreed?

But the others ARE worth our time and our effort. There's hope for them. Not all of them will make it - but some will.

 

Guess what? I was one of the second group.

I joined a forum run by this guy... http://www.infidelguy.com/faq-3-About+InfidelGuy.com.html

when I was a doubting, wavering Christian. The atheists and agnostics there helped me, just as I'm now helping the wavering Christians who are PM'ing me for help.

 

You can see the pattern, can't you?

A reformed alcoholic is probably the best person to help a recovering alcoholic, because they know exactly what the other guy's been thru. That's all I'm doing here.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm confused. Are you saying BAA that you got a PM from a number of people who were either "newbies, the lurkers, the waverers and the recently deconverted"? You said you don't want to give out names and I wouldn't want that anyway. How about a number? I would like to know how many people you are talking about. Now are you saying this response was because a Christian put a challenge in the Lion's Den and ex-Cers ignored it? I don't think that is what you actually mean, perhaps I don't understand what you mean. Please clarify and use numbers for the people who PMed you. If a Christian went unchallenged I would like to know which one and what was the thread title. Originally I thought you were talking about a generic audience. Now I think you are talking about a few specific individuals but I'm not sure.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry MM, but I really don't want to get into any more detail than what I've given.

 

All I'd like you to do is to understand where I'm coming from on this and to think carefully before you hand out labels like, 'delusional'. If you wouldn't call a recovering alcoholic a hopeless case, why would you insist on calling a Christian who's thinking of deconverting, delusional?

 

A Christian isn't always going to tell you openly that they're thinking of deconverting, are they?

Some announce it, but others don't. If you can respect that fact, then please save the 'delusional' label for those who really deserve it - the OrdinaryClays, the Thumbelinas and the Rayskidudes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Yes I do get that people hate being called delusional. This is especially true for the delusional. If you can recommend a word that means "believing ideas that are fantastic, harmful and FALSE" that is nicer than "delusional" then let me know and I will adapt it. I've been there with the "rid themselves of guilt, shame, anger, self-loathing, fear and other harmful emotions. They're dealing with depression, suicidal thoughts, self-harm and other mental probelms". In my case it was all caused by my delusions. Dispelling the delusions and adopting rational thought was the cure. If you have a better idea I am listening. How do you deal with somebody who has a false belief that is harming themselves and possibly others?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MM, it's not my place to instruct you how to relate to the Christians in this forum.

All I can do is respectfully ask you to award the title of 'delusional' to those who really deserve it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[mymistake]

All I can do is respectfully ask you to award the title of 'delusional' to those who really deserve it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

Okay, in your opinion who did I call "delusional" who didn't deserve that? I'm not recalling the incident but perhaps I was in the wrong.

[bornagainathiest]

Here you go, MM.

 

Secondly, not replying to them gives the newbies, the lurkers, the waverers and the recently deconverted, entirely the wrong impression about us.

 

Who am I talking about? OC and the other fanatics? No! Read what I've emboldened. I was talking about the impression that the LURKERS, the NEWBIES, the WAVERERS and the recently DECONVERTED would be getting about us.

 

Half the active forum replies whenever a Chrisitan shows up for battle. Typically the Christian doesn't have time to respond to everybody. After a long while the ex-Cers get board. That comes from the Christian not having answers.

 

They're left thinking that we Ex-Christians and Lions have no answer to the fanatics.

 

The only way to reach that conclusion is to be delusional. I've seen Christians who are that delusional. They have made Youtube vids claiming that Bill Maher lost a debate to a Christian. When you run the vid it's a section of Religulous and Maher was trying not to laugh when the Christian hung himself on his own stupidity.

 

See the enboldened sentence you wrote, above?

You said that those trying to leave Christianity are delusional - because they came to the wrong conclusion about us Ex-Christians and Lions. You didn't say that they're delusional because they believe in talking snakes and walking dead people, like OC and the Thumb.

 

Anyone can reach a false conclusion, MM. Even you. Would you like it if someone misconstrues one of your conclusions and calls you delusional, for making a mistake? And how would you feel if this put down came from one of the people you thought was going to help you out?

 

They'll wrongly interpret our silence as meek submission. They'll wrongly construe that because we don't respond - we have no response. Then they'll get the wrong idea that because we have no response, Christianity and the Bible must therefore be true. That puts them at serious risk of being dragged back into the very quagmire they're trying to escape from.

 

People who are that deluded are not trying to escape and are going to be just as deluded regardless of any response from us.

 

Here you go into overdrive, MM!

You're doing exactly what fanatics like OC and the Thumb do to us - you're telling these people what they really think. You're saying that they're not really trying to escape from Christianity - they're just pretending to. You know their thoughts and actions better than they do.

 

Then you add insult to injury by saying that they're going to stay just as delusional as before, regardless of any help we give them. OC and company are beyond help, but you've just tarred ALL Christians with the same 'delusional' brush! Even those who are genuinely trying to deconvert!

 

Not accurate and not helpful!

 

Imho, if these traumatized and vulnerable people come away with that erroneous conclusion, then we've done them a dis-service. We owe it to them to oppose the woos, all the way down the line.

 

You shouldn't take responsibility for the conclusions of another. That is almost as bad as taking responsibility for the action of others.

 

At no point in this thread or anywhere else have I said that the fanatics need our help.

If you go back and re-read, you'll see that I made it clear that not ALL Christians are like them.

Some do want help and if they ask for it, I'm prepared to give it.

 

Their slow and painful progress out of Christianity isn't helped when they're treated unfairly like this.

 

Do you see what I'm getting at now, MM?

 

 

BAA

[mymistake]

You're doing exactly what fanatics like OC and the Thumb do to us - you're telling these people what they really think. You're saying that they're not really trying to escape from Christianity - they're just pretending to. You know their thoughts and actions better than they do.

 

Then you add insult to injury by saying that they're going to stay just as delusional as before, regardless of any help we give them. OC and company are beyond help, but you've just tarred ALL Christians with the same 'delusional' brush! Even those who are genuinely trying to deconvert!

 

Wrong. That didn't happen.

 

 

Not accurate and not helpful!

 

Those were your words, not mine.

 

 

Do you see what I'm getting at now, MM?

 

It's called a bait and switch. You baited me on one conversation and then switched context on me. Pick your conversation but don't change context on me and pretend what I say in one applies to the other.

 

Now how many people looked at all the people responding to Ordinaryclay in the Backsliding thread and then PMed you saying that nobody had a response to OC? Don't give me names but let's hear a number. You got 50 people who PMed you with this conclusion? 10? 2? 1? None?

 

If it is none then this is a non-issue. If there is at least one person who thought all those people responding to OC was "nobody could respond to OC" then how would you handle that?

[mymistake]

*puts on Ordinaryclay mask*

 

The statement " Faith, by it's very definition is irrational. I'll never understand why belief without evidence is considered by so many to be a desirable value." is irrational, is self-refuting, is without evidence and is based on faith.

 

Allow me to prove it!!!1!

 

The dictionary (evidence) says faith is " . . . based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

 

Ta-dah!

 

*takes off Ordinaryclay mask*

 

 

epic fail

 

Now at what point is somebody "taken down"? Should we allow proven criminals to go free as long as they maintain their innocence? Should we allow politicians to remain in office after their term expires as long as they say it hasn't expired? Should we believe that internet trolls have not lost as long as they lack the character to admit when they are wrong? Anybody can lie. A four-year-old child can lie. To me a person went down in flames when they reach the point where they have nothing legitimate to support their claims. Clay's tap dancing and misdirection are very much irrelevant.

 

Hi MM!

 

Thanks for indulging me.

 

For the record, I know all too well just how annoying, frustrating and exasperating my persistent pedantry can be. I know this because people tell me so! If my request was at all irritating... I apologize unreservedly.

 

On the plus side, you'll notice that in this forum, I've been able to turn this character trait into a strength. Rather than just dismissing the antics of certain Christian trolls apologists or giving up in disgust, I've found that I can happily take them on and persist as long or longer than they can. I have no trouble at all in re-visiting the same points, the same issues and the same arguments, again and again and... You get the picture?

 

I call this a strength because it helps me fulfill the role of blocking the likes of OJ, Thumbelina, Rayskidude, etc.

I believe that 'relentless' Christians should always be opposed, whatever the cost. Simply ignoring them is handing them a licence to write whatever they like, for as long as they like. And if left to their own devices, they will continue forever, like the Bible-obsessed fanatics they really are. The British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once said this, "A fanatic is someone who will not shut up and who will not change the subject." I happen to agree with him.

 

Secondly, not replying to them gives the newbies, the lurkers, the waverers and the recently deconverted, entirely the wrong impression about us. They're left thinking that we Ex-Christians and Lions have no answer to the fanatics. They'll wrongly interpret our silence as meek submission. They'll wrongly construe that because we don't respond - we have no response. Then they'll get the wrong idea that because we have no response, Christianity and the Bible must therefore be true. That puts them at serious risk of being dragged back into the very quagmire they're trying to escape from. Imho, if these traumatized and vulnerable people come away with that erroneous conclusion, then we've done them a dis-service. We owe it to them to oppose the woos, all the way down the line.

 

Anyway, on a lighter note, I'm told that I'm a dead ringer for this guy... http://kipkay.com/ ...so if you see someone of this description walking towards you... RUN like ****! You're either going to get pranked (if it's him) or get irritated (if it's me)!

 

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA

 

You did not state "Hey (number) people have PMed me saying that they read the entire Backsliding thread and they believe that the ex-C community has no response to Ordinaryclay. What do you think about that?". Since you didn't write this, I was not responding to it. I responded to what you actually wrote, rather than to what you didn't write. You were talking about a hypothetical. Do not take my response to your hypothetical and try to turn it into something else.

 

I would still like to know how many people read the entire Backsliding thread and PMed you that they thought ex-C had no response to Ordinaryclay. What reason did they give you for reaching that conclusion? It's a bit of a pain to have to work with your secret evidence. We only hear about it second hand through your description and you have not been very descriptive. Among other reasons, that's why courts don't accept hearsay evidence.

[mymistake]

Calling hurt and traumatized people 'delusional' doesn't just insult them, it hurts them even more.

 

Where did you get these "hurt and traumatized people" from? Are you talking about the author of the Youtube vid. I mentioned? If not then why do you apply my comments about that author of the Youtube vid to them? I don't know how you could be talking about that creator of that vid since I did not identify him or her. I would have to look it up to figure out which vid I was talking about.

 

 

I know this because I've been PM'ed by wavering Christians who've looked to me to help them escape from Christianity. And not just once. These conflicted people are fighting to rid themselves of guilt, shame, anger, self-loathing, fear and other harmful emotions. They're dealing with depression, suicidal thoughts, self-harm and other mental probelms. I'm not at liberty to tell you their identities, nor will I do so. They've taken me into their confidence and I'm not about to betray them.

 

This is where you introduce the PM evidence. Notice you do not mention their opinion of the Backsliding thread. Also notice that you mention these people until after my comments about the hypothetical situation. Sorry but I cannot comment about them before you mention them.

 

You're also wrong about them not trying escape. They are.

 

At this point I had not yet said anything about those who PMed you because I didn't know anything about that.

 

If they draw the wrong conclusions from our arguments with aggressive Christians like OC or Thumbelina, then this is because they're confused - NOT because they're delusional.

 

Thumby hasn't been on for a week. What does this have to do with my comments? It seem unrelated to me.

 

So how can you expect them to instantly develop razor-sharp logic and to see things as clearly as you do?

 

My comments about a hypothetical situation and a vid creator do not relate to something you had not yet mentioned.

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks for you replies, MM.

 

I can now see that there's a couple of areas where we're talking at cross-purposes.

So I'll try and settle this issue, in the hope that we can still be friends.

Trust me on this... I'm not picking a fight with you and I haven't been playing bait and switch.

What's happened is that I was trying to draw your attention to something retroactively.

 

Now, before you flare up at my use of this word, please read on and it should all fall into place, ok?

 

Calling hurt and traumatized people 'delusional' doesn't just insult them, it hurts them even more.

 

Where did you get these "hurt and traumatized people" from? Are you talking about the author of the Youtube vid. I mentioned? If not then why do you apply my comments about that author of the Youtube vid to them? I don't know how you could be talking about that creator of that vid since I did not identify him or her. I would have to look it up to figure out which vid I was talking about.

 

Please understand that you did not know about these hurt and traumatized people, when you wrote message #35, which was your response to my words in #33. If you go back to #33, you'll see that I stopped talking about the hopeless fanatics, once I quoted Winston Churchill. The next paragraph refers only to the newbies, the lurkers, the waverers and the recently deconverted.

 

I was worried about what they would think if we (the Lions) had no proper response to the fanatics. Here it is...

"Secondly, not replying to them gives the Newbies, the Lurkers, the Waverers and the Recently Deconverted, entirely the wrong impression about us."

Them = the fanatics, the ones we (hypothetically) had no response to.

Us = we Ex-Christians and Lions, not the fanatics and not the newbs.

N, L, W & RD = the people I was worried about, not the fanatics.

 

Now, as I've already said, you had no knowledge of the NLWRD, when you wrote #35.

But I did know about them, because some of them had already PM'ed me, asking for help. I also knew that they'd be reading this thread and would see your 'delusional' comments. You didn't know that either. You couldn't have known, because I hadn't informed you about them.

 

But, even if you did make your delusional comments in ignorance of them, can't you now see how they would be hurt by those words?

Isn't sensitivity to the feelings of others the reason why we don't make jokes about the mentally ill, even if we haven't met these people yet?

Should'nt we modify our behavior pro-actively, before we meet these unfortunate people?

 

I felt it was right to draw your attention to your words, even though you weren't aware of these people. Ok, you can't see into the future but at that time, you would have been aware of the following, wouldn't you, MM?

You would have known that there are lurkers who look in on this forum.

You would have known that there are newbies in this forum who are still trying to shake off the yoke of Christianity.

You would have known that there are waverers here, who are trying to decide if they want to leave Christianity behind.

You would have known that there are recently-deconverted members who aren't as strong as we Lions.

 

All I was trying to do was to draw your attention to the labels you were using and asking you to modify your behavior accordingly. Granted, you didn't know about those who were PMing me, but you would have known about four groups I've just listed, right? Don't we have a responsibility to choose our words carefully, for their sakes?

 

Likewise, don't we have a responsibility to choose our words carefully, even about people we haven't yet met?

Even if I haven't yet met certain people with disabilities or mental problems, I've already resolved not to use various words in their company.

That's a pro-active decision about my future behavior.

 

I know this because I've been PM'ed by wavering Christians who've looked to me to help them escape from Christianity. And not just once. These conflicted people are fighting to rid themselves of guilt, shame, anger, self-loathing, fear and other harmful emotions. They're dealing with depression, suicidal thoughts, self-harm and other mental probelms. I'm not at liberty to tell you their identities, nor will I do so. They've taken me into their confidence and I'm not about to betray them.

 

This is where you introduce the PM evidence. Notice you do not mention their opinion of the Backsliding thread. Also notice that you mention these people until after my comments about the hypothetical situation. Sorry but I cannot comment about them before you mention them.

 

Yes, I introduced the PM evidence, but that has nothing to do with the Backsliding thread. These people have been in contact with me over a period of at least two years. The Backsliding thread isn't relevant to this.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

You cannot comment about people before I've mentioned them. That is entirely correct and I agree 100%.

But what you can do once I've informed you about them (which I did in #33) is to modify your future langauage, to honor their future feelings.

The other thing you could have done was to have been aware of the similar fragility of the feelings of the NLRW & WD in this forum.

 

You're also wrong about them not trying escape. They are.

 

At this point I had not yet said anything about those who PMed you because I didn't know anything about that.

 

That is correct.

I was simply trying to point out (retroactively) where some of your words could have hurtful. I clearly failed to make myself understood. I'm sorry about that. I hope that you can now see that there's been a number of misunderstandings between us.

 

 

If they draw the wrong conclusions from our arguments with aggressive Christians like OC or Thumbelina, then this is because they're confused - NOT because they're delusional.

 

Thumby hasn't been on for a week. What does this have to do with my comments? It seem unrelated to me.

 

Yes, it is unrelated. OC and thumby are the fanatics and we're both in total agreement that they're beyond help. The relevant part of this issue has to do with those who are asking for help.

 

So how can you expect them to instantly develop razor-sharp logic and to see things as clearly as you do?

 

My comments about a hypothetical situation and a vid creator do not relate to something you had not yet mentioned.

 

Correct.

But as I've tried to make clear, neither the Backsliding thread, OC and the Thumb, nor the vid are relevant to this issue.

The problem occurred when I tried to make you aware of a group of people you hadn't known about.

I tried to point out how your use of the word delusional would affect them.

That's what all of this has been about.

 

Once I read what you wrote about bait and switch in #44, I understood where our wires were crossed.

 

This is all a misunderstanding.

 

If it helps, just step back a moment and consider these questions.

 

Why would I be pulling a bait and switch trap on you, MyMistake?

What have I got to gain by picking a fight with you?

Why now, when you've done nothing to argue about?

Do I have any history of doing this to other Lions?

Doesn't this seem totally out-of-character, for me?

Don't I usually save my energy for the Christian fanatics who come here?

Does any of this make any sense to you?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[mymistake]

But, even if you did make your delusional comments in ignorance of them, can't you now see how they would be hurt by those words?

 

That depends. How many of them look at the never ending battle in the Lion's Den and conclude that ex-Christians can give no answer to Christians? If none have messaged you to that effect then the conditions are not met.

 

Now there are people in this world who could look at the Lion's Den and reach that conclusion. I can think of one systematic cause that would drive to that conclusion. The question is do we have any lurkers or readers affected by that cause, you know, the 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody is allowed to talk about. I'm still waiting for a synonym for "Having fantastic, harmful and false beliefs". If you have a suggestion then I am listening.

 

 

 

Isn't sensitivity to the feelings of others the reason why we don't make jokes about the mentally ill, even if we haven't met these people yet?

 

Mentally ill is not having fantastic, harmful and false beliefs. They are very different things. There are plenty of people who hold fantastic, harmful and false beliefs who are highly functional. Nobody has been completely free of fantastic, harmful and false beliefs. We start out with many and we dispel them as we develop. Dispelling FH&FB is the healthy response to them.

 

Should'nt we modify our behavior pro-actively, before we meet these unfortunate people?

 

The trouble with euphemisms is that over time they become the thing they replaced. As soon as everybody figures out what having fantastic, harmful and false beliefs means it becomes just as bad as saying the word itself.

 

The solution is to dispel the FH&FB. That solves the problem.

 

 

You would have known that there are recently-deconverted members who aren't as strong as we Lions.

 

I don't buy into your idea that lions are stronger. I can't know something if I believe it's false.

 

 

All I was trying to do was to draw your attention to the labels you were using and asking you to modify your behavior accordingly.

 

And I'm still waiting on a synonym. Do you have one for "Having fantastic, harmful and false beliefs"?

 

 

Even if I haven't yet met certain people with disabilities or mental problems, I've already resolved not to use various words in their company.

 

Having fantastic, harmful and false belief is not a disability. And you have never met somebody who didn't have a fantastic, harmful and false belief at some point.

 

This is awkward. Can't I just go back to using the word? It's not a label. It's a tool. A euphemism isn't going to change anything. People will figure out what it means and then it's just as bad as using the word only more awkward.

 

 

I know this because I've been PM'ed by wavering Christians who've looked to me to help them escape from Christianity. And not just once. These conflicted people are fighting to rid themselves of guilt, shame, anger, self-loathing, fear and other harmful emotions. They're dealing with depression, suicidal thoughts, self-harm and other mental probelms. I'm not at liberty to tell you their identities, nor will I do so. They've taken me into their confidence and I'm not about to betray them.

 

But how many of them looked at the constant war in the Lion's Den and concluded that ex-Christians are not able to give Christians any answers? There are people out there than can reach such a conclusion but did any of them message you? What should we call the thing that drives them to that conclusion . . . the belief or beliefs that happen to fly in the face of reality?

[bornagainathiest]

Hello MM.

 

Nope. I'm sorry, I can't think of a better way of tackling the 'fantastic, harmful & false belief' issue. I can't come up with a better word than delusional. Nor can I come up with a workable synonym. So, shall we just say that we've both learned something and then let this rest?

 

From what you've just written, I've learned that there's no real option except to use it. I may not like that outcome, but I'll just have to learn to live with it, won't I? Life can be difficult at times and this is just one of those things I'll have to deal with.

 

I hope you've come away a little bit wiser too.

 

Thanks and here's hoping there's no ill-will between us.

 

BAA.

[ConureDelSol]

I vote in favor of changing OC's name permanently to OrdinaryJello for lulz.

 

Or at least make that his title or something.