Religion In what do you believe OFFTOPIC about SVF and sabro

[strongvoicesforward]

Sabro: I am "intolerant due to the nature of my religion."
Therefore ALL Christians are intolerant.

Yes, you are. We agree.

Thanks for the honest confession.

Now please ask all prosylitisers to make that the first thing that spews forth from their mouths when they approach others about "The Good News." It would also be great to have that on placards over the church doors at the entrances of all churches. At least those curious about entering will be forwarned about what they are getting into.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Quoting people out of context is also inadvisable, IMO. That's how we get statements like "Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame""

 

[strongvoicesforward]

My second objection is that SVF doesn't use disclaimers, such as IMO or 'I think'.

Tsuyoiko, if your style is to give your debate opponent fuzzy feel good hummers with verbal care, tonguing them, then do so. That is not my style. I will take your "IMOs" and I thank you for making me feel good with them, but I am under know obligation to ingratiate myself to others just because I state my opinion and feel no need to turn myself into a junkie for them. You, however, are addicted to that style and i leave you to it.

They do not make your arguments any stronger and I have no need for them where I choose to not use them.

Most people understand that when something is not readily provable, but still do make an absolute statement, they in fact are stating an opinion and no one needs to say "IMO." Does the Bible start out with every sentence or every statement it has with an "IMO" disclaimer, or "I think God said, 'Let there be light'"?

You are being ridiculous and you are driving your wagon into the wall of hysteria on the "IMO" point.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Lastly, even if Sabro were hypocritical,...

Why are you asking, "if"? Don`t you know?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

You are being ridiculous and you are driving your wagon into the wall of hysteria on the "IMO" point.

Well since it was only one point in quite a long post, I don't think I could really be accused of hysteria. What about my other objections, particularly the logical ones?

 

[Revenant]

You mean the whole SVF and BWOG issue?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Then why don't you go where there are stronger arguments from the other side? I've already pointed you to the Philosophy forum.

What makes you think I may have not come from one of those other forums? Skeptics like myself are very active in finding audiences that seem to be on the fence or not very knowledgable about the Bible. We want to give the data of falsehoods and contradictions to those who maybe have not been interested enough to go to one of those kinds of forums. We fan out to spread "The Real Good News," -- that being your REASON is what will go much further in assisting you than superstition.

Revenant, why don't you worry about what sites you visit, and I will do so to the sites I choose to visit?

Also, you keep pressing Sabro to cede arguments, so why don't you? Why haven't you ceded one argument yourself.

Because none of your arguments have cornered me into a position where reason can`t handle. I am prosecuting, therefore he has been proffering answers to my inquiries.

If he, or even I come up with a particular explanation that seems to fit, you just ignore it thus forth. Why don't you admit where you cede them from here on out, or should I highlight those for you till you do?

Your explanations have been rationalizations based on conjecture. However, I am not averse to giving ground on a point or two. I certainly am not infallible, and any few points I may cede, would in know way rescue the Bible from the hundreds, if not thousands of things that pile and pile on showing it to be highly unlikely as innerrant or for that matter the word of a real God.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Well since it was only one point in quite a long post, I don't think I could really be accused of hysteria.

Sure, it could. Because it wasn`t the first time you brought it up, was it? You`ve returned to your craving for insincere ingratiating or the need to ask others to adopt it.

What about my other objections, particularly the logical ones?

Do you mean my first OP where I state absolutes? If so, my decision not to put proofs in the introduction was based on it already being a few paragraphs so I thought the length as it was was best for encouraging others to read it and then compell them to respond -- which it did.

However, I did add a teaser to it, didn`t I? About the "bat" as proof the Bible was putting forth some silly comments.

Tsuyoiko, the Bible is 1000s of pages long in small print. There are litterally hundreds of problems with it. While I do have some free time to post, please do allow me the kindness to make my case over time, rather than in one instant. Fair enough?

The other parts, since admitted by you to be one`s of emotion are not even worth my caring about. Your sensitivities are your problems and I would never pretend or delude myself that I could accomodate everyones'.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Sure, it could. Because it wasn`t the first time you brought it up, was it?

It is the first time I brought it up in public, AFAIK. If I were so inclined, I could equally accuse you of hysteria regarding the inaccuracies in the Bible, since you have brought that up again and again.

About the "bat" as proof the Bible was putting forth some silly comments.

Did you see Sabro's answer to that? I don't think you've responded to that yet.

The other parts, since admitted by you to be one`s of emotion are not even worth my caring about. Your sensitivities are your problems and I would never pretend or delude myself that I could accomodate everyones'.

This is probably the main thing we differ on. I think other people's feelings are worth caring about.

What about my other logical objections: your claim that the Bible could be fabricated, that it has caused 'untold suffering' and that a strong opponent makes a stronger debater?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

... the ushers will throw you out. And then NO sushi for you!

Vegetarians don`t eat sushi, so it wouldn`t bother me to miss it.

There isn't a public Q & A, but everyone hangs out for coffee afterwards.

Yes, I know the "afterwards (sometimes prior) coffee" mingling. Skeptical questions even in those situations don`t go much further than a few exchanges before it is shut down.

In addition, not the sermon part of the service, but the Bible Study sessions are not open to skeptical inquiry. They are meant not to study the Bible as in a critical context to find Truth or question assumptions, they are designed to reinforce what has already been decided before going to it. Rather than use the word "study," it would be more honest if churches called these meetings, "Reinforcement of indoctrination."

There are significantly better places to air your grievences or discuss you disproof of all things biblical. If you go to www.oasisredlands.org you will find the e-mails and phone numbers of all four pastors. Jake McGee loves to debate and discuss and Brent Wisdom is also good for a verbal spar. (The other two are older like me and get annoyed much faster. Steve will ignore your. I believe you could probably get Mike to not only yell at you, but to hit you.) Those guys make it their business to know the big book. And Jake's masters is in philosophy- so he likes forensics.

Sabro, why don`t you invite them to the forum? I am not interested in one on one debate. My debate partner is not my target. I am concerned with those who are looking in on the debate and since this forum is not a religious forum, it means there are probably many who are not fully decided on the issue. Haven`t you seen where I have already pointed that out?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

It is the first time I brought it up in public.

Why would where the place it is brought up be relevant?

Did you see Sabro's answer to that? I don't think you've responded to that yet.

Yes, I did. I didn't respond to it because I had already pre-empted that excuse in a previous post so felt no need to have to repeat myself. But, I guess I should for those who come after that could probably be deceived by his answer.

I think, if my memory is correct, he posited the thought that the bat was grouped with the birds due to the fact they were "fliers" -- right? (Please correct me if I am summerising wrong).

That cannot be right because insects, which also are "flyers", had been given a separate grouping. Now, if all flying living things were grouped together, then the "flyers" defense would be permissable.

This is probably the main thing we differ on. I think other people's feelings are worth caring about.

Yes, on "bubble gum" issues that do not pervert intellectual honesty. I would say to my wife, "In my opinion, I think don`t think you would look good in that dress," if she were really eyeing it and wanting to buy it. It would be much better than saying bluntly, "You won't look good in that."

But someone needed to say, "Adolph, you can`t do that," rather than, "IMO, Adolph, you can`t do that."

Intellectual honesty on matters of great import need not blow kisses. Superrstition has caused millions of lives and misery. It is not a "bubble gum" issue. You seem to think it is and seem to think that those kinds of things all need the same egalitarian approach. I don`t. Period.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Intellectual honesty on matters of great import need not blow kisses. Superrstition has caused millions of lives and misery. It is not a "bubble gum" issue. You seem to think it is and seem to think that those kinds of things all need the same egalitarian approach. I don`t. Period.

I think it's possible to be intellectually honest and care about people's feelings at the same time. It's more difficult than saying what you think without caring who you hurt, but I think it's possible, and it's what I try to do. It might even help you win people over - Have you ever heard the saying "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"?

Of course, it's your choice to argue however you like, I'm just saying I can understand why people have gotten upset.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Rocklee, smug and an attempt to make someone look bad would fall under being disrespectful, not to mention the <snickers> that he/she often placed in there. There was no desire on his part to understand the religion, or a different way of thinking as other atheists here do, but simply a desire to make the religion and all it's adherents look bad. That is as I see it.

And that is why you "see it" wrong, Revenant. You might want to check the lense from which you look at things through.

You are not understanding "witticism," and their use, and I would suggest you reflect on it?

I can`t remember who said it in the debate, but I am almost it was surely between G. Bush Sr. and Dukakis, when one retorted, "Where`s the beef?" It was a devastating witticism delivered and no one screemed "disrespectful" eventhough it did make the other look foolish in front of millions. "Witticisms" are commonly used to deflate and disarm a debate opponent -- and oftent the outcome of that is cries of "unfair, outrage, indignation, and embarrassment," -- many of which Sabro has been crying.

 

[Maciamo]

Vegetarians don`t eat sushi, so it wouldn`t bother me to miss it.

That's where the good Christian jumps on you and says : "Wrong ! There are also vegetarian sushi with avocado or cucumber ! This shows that you are not right all the time", and leaves happy to have seen you mistaken on a point, even one that was not Bible-related.

Sabro, why don`t you invite them to the forum? I am not interested in one on one debate. My debate partner is not my target. I am concerned with those who are looking in on the debate and since this forum is not a religious forum, it means there are probably many who are not fully decided on the issue.

What about making a website pointing out all the mistakes and contradictions in the Bible, then ? I could help you with it. We could even discuss the appropriate phrasing with other Atheists on the forum, so as not to "offend" believers, be sure they read all, but also make sure they have no doubt and no serious counter-argument left available after reading that essay. I suggest you give sabro a break, and start a new thread gathering point by point all the "errancies" of the Bible. There should probably be a different version for Christians who take the Bible literally, and one for those who take it metaphorically. As the first one is by far the easiest to disprove, I suggest we start with that.

This way, Revenant won't have to complain about you not being "open" to the other side's arguments, because it would be a one-way thing from the start, and would avoid pointless arguments about wording style and personal sensibilities.

 

[Mycernius]

Wow, this is the first time I have seen an entire thread on people behaviour in other posts. Okay I shall put my two penny worth in.
Strongvoices forward stikes me as an erractic poster. Sometimes he will post in a sensible calm and collected way, and other times it is like a rant. It is a bit like two people are debating instead of one. It was the original hunting thread is where this aggression started and Maciamo had to step in and tell SVF and sabro to quit it. Unfortunately it didn't and the post was locked. It now seem to have tumbled over in the the religious forum and yet again there is this friction. This time the threads seem to have calmed down, but BOTH parties are still niggling at each other in sarcastic remarks that seem to be put on just to aggravate the other.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I think it's possible to be intellectually honest and care about people's feelings at the same time.

Tsuyoiko, while I am interested in exposing a falsehood, I am also interested in denying my debate opponant any quarter of rest. If him/her getting flustered and frustrated in the audiences' eyes then it adds points to my argument. If his/her frustration cause them to make crucial errors, then so be it -- I will more than happily reap the rewards for that.

Sure, I know which buttons to push to make Xtians swarm, but I do not do so intentionally. Those buttons are just simply pushed due to the nature of the issues and how it is best to corral them into corners. I am not playing Sabros chess game for him, I am playing my own game -- and that is how I view debate -- a game of mental chess. I`ve already stated that.

Haven`t you read my post where I specifically pointed out that Sabro is nothing more than an unwitting sounding board in a chess game-- where he is but a pond that sits in front of me who I have very little care about? I have been quite honest and open in that. I care more for the audience than my opponent.

It's more difficult than saying what you think without caring who you hurt, but I think it's possible, and it's what I try to do. It might even help you win people over - Have you ever heard the saying "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"?

If insincere ingratiating helps win people over rather than the construct of the reason used in the argument, it is very unlikely that that winning over of people has been an honest one that will stick.

Hmmm...the honey bee analogy...

Do you know what lions are really attracted to and go crazy for when they find it? -- elephant scat. With weak people needing a crutch to lean on to search out and find meaning and safety in their lives and afterlife as the lions in the analogy, what does that make the BWOG in the analogy? (Hint: It will be found on the ground.)

Of course, it's your choice to argue however you like, I'm just saying I can understand why people have gotten upset.

Yes. It is. I make no apologies. None are needed and none are warranted.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Strongvoices forward stikes me as an erractic poster. Sometimes he will post in a sensible calm and collected way, and other times it is like a rant. It is a bit like two people are debating instead of one.

I am one person. Man, though,-- if you would have said "three," I could have had fun with the Trinity in my reply.

My style of debate would be quite consistant if some would not get personal and focus on the comments and questions put forth to them. When they turn it personal it creates a "hiccup" in the flow of things and when someone acccuses me directly, I have to decide to respond or let it go. Letting it go could be seen as making it legitimate and I didn`t take kindly to being called a intolerant and a bigot by someone who was clearly so and was being a hypocrite.

What is amazing (well not quite so) was that Sabro forum friends, rather than identifying the wrongful action where it rightly laid, could not bring themselves to do so and posted on emotional senses of loyalty rather than an honest appraisal of the outright insults. While my posts bothered Sabro or some others, those feelings of being bothered were on sensitivities and out of loyalty, and dislike of style -- not out of something being outright wrong.

It was the original hunting thread is where this aggression started and Maciamo had to step in and tell SVF and sabro to quit it. Unfortunately it didn't and the post was locked.

To my memory, Maciamo, did not step in with a warning on the hunting thread. He made a decision and closed it as soon as he made the decision. You are referring to a warning he posted on the thread, "The Bible is not the WOG." Kirei_na_me came in on that thread when Reiku started getting overtly rude. Sabro encouraged that by patting him on his back by taking a part of the thread out of context to reply to. Reiku devolved even worse and then Maciamo came in and closed it.

 

[Revenant]

What is amazing (well not quite so) was that Sabro forum friends, rather than identifying the wrongful action where it rightly laid, could not bring themselves to do so and posted on emotional senses of loyalty rather than an honest appraisal of the outright insults. While my posts bothered Sabro or some others, those feelings of being bothered were on sensitivities and out of loyalty, and dislike of style -- not out of something being outright wrong.

Dislike of style would sum it all up for me. I did not look at all at the posts in the hunting thread, nor did I really look at the back and forth stuff between you and sabro, since it seemed in part to take place in a thread that I was never involved in, nor even bothered to read. I still don't like your crusade to make an entire faith and it's adherents look bad, and that has been your entire quest, as highly indicated in the very first post and topic of 'The Bible isn't the WOG' thread. But that is your go, and I'll leave you to it thus forth, admitting that your arguments are very strong indeed.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Dislike of style would sum it all up for me. I did not look at all at the posts in the hunting thread, nor did I really look at the back and forth stuff between you and sabro, since it seemed in part to take place in a thread that I was never involved in, nor even bothered to read. I still don't like your crusade to make an entire faith and it's adherents look bad, and that has been your entire quest, as highly indicated in the very first post and topic of 'The Bible isn't the WOG' thread. But that is your go, and I'll leave you to it thus forth, admitting that your arguments are very strong indeed.

Thank you, Revenant. Let`s put the issues of style behind us. It is agreed you don`t like my style. I appreciate you offerng the first olive branch.

I look forward to further debate and discussion with you. Perhaps we won`t change each others' minds on the topic of the Bible, but we may get a better perspective of how the other view it -- if not a serious lesson in differing debate styles. That alone may make it worth the time to keep engaged. -- SVF.

 

[Revenant]

Strongvoicesforward, what is the purpose of your sig? Why is that taken out of context?