Religion In what do you believe OFFTOPIC about SVF and sabro

[Maciamo]

Strongvoicesforward, I would defend anyone to whom you interrogate in the way you do. I would defend a Pagan, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Liberal, or a Conservative.

In French, "interrogate" ("interroger"), and "ask" ("demander") are synonymous. I also don't see any problem with the way of SVF to discuss. He is straight to the point, which is a good thing otherwise we would be wasting too much time given the length of the debate. I always value conciseness and straightforwardness on too much elaboration and fuss about the way to express things. Let's be efficient ! No need to talk as if we were 18th cenury courtiers addressing a king ! In fact, I am quite annoyed at the diverted way sabro replies to most questions. We are wasting precious time in the already tedious discussion. I wish we could just exchange all we had in mind in a second like we sent a file from a PC to another. So there would be no point in lying, being hypocritical, playing on definitions, denying having said something or hiding behind a mask.

Sabro keeps a somewhat open mind, and his input is valuable here, I hardly see a reason to interrogate him.

What the connection between "open-mindedness" and "interrogate" ?

 

[No-name]

I believe that this may degenerate into the "monku"-fest the other topics have descended into.

We judge others by their last bad acts; We judge ourselves by our best intentions.

 

[Revenant]

Interrogate and ask fall under the same heading, but have very different intentions behind them. But I prefer some level of respect, and it is for that reason that this has become one of my favorite forums, for it is with the respect that was shown before that differentiated this forum from others. But if you wish to change that, it is your call.

Interrogating him may eventually drive him away, and driving away a more open-minded Christian, one who will debate his faith seems a mistake, unless of course you wish to only have everyone you agree more with here.

There is an odd reason Sabro is on here now, and it may change your paradigm, but I'll let him share that with you if he wishes.

Also what's this on playing on definitions? I would say that tolerance implies a certain amount of respect, but for the fact that you agree with all that SVF says, you ignore SVF's lack of respect. What annoyed you about other posters, posters such as Gaijin 06, or others, you ignore in SVF's case. That's as I see it, and so be it if I am banned for seeing it that way.

 

[Maciamo]

Interrogating him may eventually drive him away, and driving away a more open-minded Christian, one who will debate his faith seems a mistake, unless of course you wish to only have everyone you agree more with here.

I see your point. I see a debate more as a fight that has to be won or lost. It hasn't so much to do with "converting" the other side, as to show which side is more "logical" or "correct", even if that doesn't change faith. Isn't faith almost always about irrational beliefs anyway ? If it was about facts or rational things, it wouldn't be called "faith" but "truth". So there is no way I see a debate as a way to change someone's faith, and SVF has also mentioned that he didn't believe or try to "convert" sabro to Atheism (that is probably too late), but for the undecided in the audience. Now, if more people think like you, it might be that some people go for Christianity by seeing that Atheists are "too harsh and logical", even in despite of friendliness. So I guess that your criticism means that some people may choose "irrationality and friendliness" to "rationality and unfriendliness". But of course the image of "unfriendliness" (interrogation-style) here is just a acquired reaction of SVF and me from our long experience of discussing with a good many narrow-minded, intolerant and proselytising Christians. We have to use their own weapons to fight them. In this case, sabro's beliefs match those of fundamentalist Christians, even if he is more friendly and patient than most of them. SVF may not have noticed it for not knowing him, and this is maybe where the problem resides.

What annoyed you about other posters, posters such as Gaijin 06, or others, you ignore in SVF's case.

What annoyed me with Gaijin 06 is his way of constantly making personal attacks on me (not on my beliefs, on me, something I haven't seen here with SVF, although sabro did use personal attacks too), typically unrelated to the thread.

That's as I see it, and so be it if I am banned for seeing it that way.

Why would you get banned for saying that ? It's not like if I had banned many people on this forum in 3 years. As far as I can recall, apart from spammers, I have only permanently banned 3 people : jarvis, miles6tp and McTojo, after deliberation with the moderation staff.

 

[RockLee]

I don't believe in alien abductions or bigfoot.

Yet you believe in a higher being? Now that I don't get.That's kind of hypocritical don't you think? You don't question the existence of a god, but you do in case of the bigfoot and aliens. :?

Now, I like Sabro's posts even if they are not conform with my point of view and wouldn't want to see him leave...let that be said.
I believe everyone should have his own opinion and should be able to defend it.SVF is merely questioning Sabro's believe in god and would like him to give some strong arguements.

Revenant, your can't stop going on and on ranting about something that isn't even worth ranting about.I think Sabro is old enough to take care of himself.

 

[Revenant]

But of course the image of "unfriendliness" (interrogation-style) here is just a acquired reaction of SVF and me from our long experience of discussing with a good many narrow-minded, intolerant and proselytising Christians. We have to use their own weapons to fight them.

I understand, but I would still say it is unobjective, and one really ought to remain objective as long as one can. Personally, I do not get caught be proselytizing Christians (you used the evil Brit 's' in proselytize BTW).

As this subject brings up the memory, I remember well my brother taking a hose to a couple of Jehovah Witnesses, and they didn't come back for two years. Not that I would ever do that.

 

[Revenant]

Revenant, your can't stop going on and on ranting about something that isn't even worth ranting about. I think Sabro is old enough to take care of himself.

Well thank you RockLee, and I'm sure he can take care of himself, but I would still hope that the level of respect that has kept me in these forums is maintained.

 

[No-name]

Wow I get to be a TOPIC now? Thanks Maciamo- this should let the other "lighter" topic go on unimpeded.

Question: How do you point out someone elses objectionable behavior without being accused of calling him/her names or of judging the person?

 

[Maciamo]

(you used the evil Brit 's' in proselytize BTW).

Well, I am more of a Brit than a North American, so I am only half-evil. :evil:

As this subject brings up the memory, I remember well my brother taking a hose to a couple of Jehovah Witnesses, and they didn't come back for two years. Not that I would ever do that.

That sounds like something I could do. And after that they did come back 2 years later ? (the same guys ?)

 

[RockLee]

Well thank you RockLee, and I'm sure he can take care of himself, but I would still hope that the level of respect that has kept me in these forums is maintained.

Ofcourse, but did you see anything disrespectful ? I sure as heck didn't :? (Oh I didn't want to sound cocky, sorry if I gave you that impression :blush: But the ranting didn't really contribute to the topic :souka: ) No hard feelings !

 

[No-name]

SVF- you missed the entire "organized" religion part of the joke. Oh well, it wasn't that funny.

I've been thrown out of church. I was asked to leave a church that I had attended for ten years where I was a deacon and elder. It folded a bit later. (The cancer of 'yes' men.)

You are invited to my church on Sunday. If you stand up in the middle and rant like a crazy man, the ushers will throw you out. And then NO sushi for you!

Sunday mornings we have music, sometimes a drama or video/multimedia thing and about a 30 minute lesson, followed by more music. It may be loud because I do sound and my hearing isn't what it used to be. There isn't a public Q & A, but everyone hangs out for coffee afterwards.

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.

 

[Revenant]

Question: How do you point out someone elses objectionable behavior without being accused of calling him/her names or of judging the person?

You use 'being hypocritical' rather than 'hypocrite', or 'being intolerant' rather than 'intolerant', or 'being a bigot' rather than 'be a bigot'. Something like that anyways, and then perhaps they cannot claim personal attack.

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.

 

[RockLee]

As this subject brings up the memory, I remember well my brother taking a hose to a couple of Jehovah Witnesses, and they didn't come back for two years. Not that I would ever do that.

I would, if they were too persistent at least.Some people commercialize religion in a way, which I don't like.

 

[Maciamo]

Question: How do you point out someone elses objectionable behavior without being accused of calling him/her names or of judging the person?

Well, you just explain what words in particular you are uneasy with, or why you don't like the way the discussion is evolving. For example, you could say "I don't approve very much of using the term "Xtian" for "Christian" (btw, I don't see why). But without calling him "intolerant" or a "bigot" for doing it. Don't just say that you don't like the way he replies to you, but explains why. For example, you could say "I am not going to change my beliefs, and you are not going to change yours, so I don't want to debate".

In fact, I didn't manage to understand what was your problem with SVF's posts, apart that you couldn't find a counter-argument for all of them, which visibly frustrated you. If it's only that, then there is no point continuing the debate, as your opponent want a point by point fight, with a clear winner on each point, not a pleasant informal talk about how it could be nice to all agree in the best of the worlds.

 

[No-name]

You use 'being hypocritical' rather than 'hypocrite', or 'being intolerant' rather than 'intolerant', or 'being a bigot' rather than 'be a bigot'. Something like that anyways, and then perhaps they cannot claim personal attack.

Excellent suggestions. Sometimes in responding it is hard to attack the behavior without hitting the person.

 

[Revenant]

Sabro hasn't been able to counter every post here in a very long time (if ever, as Sabro has been here longer than I), and that would even include some of mine. I don't think it has anything to do with him not being able to counter a post.

 

[No-name]

Well, you just explain what words in particular you are uneasy with, or why you don't like the way the discussion is evolving. For example, you could say "I don't approve very much of using the term "Xtian" for "Christian" (btw, I don't see why). But without calling him "intolerant" or a "bigot" for doing it. Don't just say that you don't like the way he replies to you, but explains why. For example, you could say "I am not going to change my beliefs, and you are not going to change yours, so I don't want to debate".
In fact, I didn't manage to understand what was your problem with SVF's posts, apart that you couldn't find a counter-argument for all of them, which visibly frustrated you. If it's only that, then there is no point continuing the debate, as your opponent want a point by point fight, with a clear winner on each point, not a pleasant informal talk about how it could be nice to all agree in the best of the worlds.

Fair enough. I shall endeavor to follow those suggestions.

When someone starts making blanket generalities about how people from one religion believe though,it does strike me as bigoted. When the point is no longer discussion but the ridicule of my belief system I get angry.

As an administrator I think you fell down on the job. If he had been ridiculing and disrespecting a person's disability or race, or if the religion was not Christianity and instead Judaism or Budhism it would be totally unacceptable. I can't say for sure that you would recognize this.

The only points that I can't find counter-arguments to at this point is the discussion of slavery- which I'm working on... and the rabbit- cud thing- which I looked at from every possible angle and-- gave up.

In the rest of the "debate" I felt I answered every point that I saw. My responses are generally ignored...Yet he quite rightly pointed out that context, translation, and non-literal meaning are among the main reasons for dismissing his points. When examining any document these three things cannot be minimimized, forgotton or dismissed. He mocked it in a response to Tsuyoiko and discussed it briefly with you. I don't see what the other unaswered discussion "points" are. If you could point them out or repeat them...

 

[Revenant]

When the point is no longer discussion but the ridicule of my belief system I get angry.

Beliefs and faith are more personal and therefore more sensitive issues, and the ridicule, however subtle, really isn't needed.

My responses are generally ignored......

They absolutely were ignored, he never ceded one point, but has continued to press for Sabro to cede.

 

[Maciamo]

As an administrator I think you fell down on the job. If he had been ridiculing and disrespecting a person's disability or race, or if the religion was not Christianity and instead Judaism or Budhism it would be totally unacceptable. I can't say for sure that you would recognize this.

I may be an admin, but god has not shown me the light yet. (just kidding )

The only points that I can't find counter-arguments to at this point is the discussion of slavery- which I'm working on... and the rabbit- cud thing- which I looked at from every possible angle and-- gave up.

That would really be too bad is a miserable little cud could ruin the Bible's inerancy, wouldn't it ?

In the rest of the "debate" I felt I answered every point that I saw. My responses are generally ignored...Yet he quite rightly pointed out that context, translation, and non-literal meaning are among the main reasons for dismissing his points.

In fact, I find it much more difficult to argue with Catholics or Liberal Protestants who do not take the Bible literally, because every possible metaphor is allowed then. Given that everything should be understood mtaphorically, nothing can be disproved except contradictions within the Bible (e.g. schizophernic personality of god between OT and NT). But if you say you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible taken literally, you can't use metaphors or refuse to consider scientific facts without being criticised for not looking at.. well, facts !

 

[Maciamo]

They absolutely were ignored, he never ceded one point, but has continued to press for Sabro to cede.

I may not have followed well all the discussion, but could you remind me of what arguments were ignored ?