Aggressive Athiesm

[Farren]

I'm writing this from the philosophical position of an Agnostic, because I don't believe one can prove God doesn't exist, unless one defines God in such a way that he/she has falsifiable attributes, which many definitions avoid. Nonetheless, in the sense that I actively disbelieve the God most people believe in actually exists, I suppose I'm an athiest. I just acknowledge that that's not proveable.

There are a lot of militant athiests here, who seem to have no problem stating their views in the most aggressive and offensive manner - and I must admit at times I find it a little disconcerting. Theists like Sweetie, fatherphil and seebs strike me as good people who I would admire and who's company I would enjoy were I to meet them in the flesh and at times the vicious attacks on things I know they hold sacred make me cringe.

The tone of some antifaith statements expressed here is one of pure hatred and I'm not sure this is ever warranted or, for that matter, in any way fruitful. Why is it so difficult to express disagreement on issues relating to religion and faith in a respectful way?

I acknowledge that sometimes I'm a bit hard-arsed and judgemental myself. The tone of my opening posts on the recent abortion thread were perhaps worded in such a way that they implied contempt for the opposing view, because it is something I feel very strongly about. But I studiously avoid overt contempt and try at all times to criticise the idea, not the person. Also, I don't see any usefulness in simply being broadly insulting insulting and cursing what other people consider sacred, rather than carefully describing specifically what you disagree with.

I appreciate that some here have had to engage in some very real battles with religious people in their own lives just to win the latitude to believe or disbelieve what they wish. I've certainly been through the process with very religious parents several years ago, who would not budge until faced with unrelenting refusal to play by the same rules and naked aggression. But having won that latitude, I feel no need to continue feeding the anger and hatred that came out of that. My relationship with my parents, who are still religious, has never been better. Having disabused them of the belief that I must believe what they believe, myself and my brother have re-established very loving relationships with them.

Herein lies the crux of my discomfort with some of the more vicious antifaith sentiments and mockery I sometimes see here. If the intention is win people over, its certainly the least effective strategy - and since there's no requirement to procure some freedoms from the people one is engaging, I can't see any good purpose of being contemptous of someone's faith. It invariably comes across as an attack on the individual, which, I think is unwarranted. Needlessly causing discomfort to human beings who are trying to be good people and live up to difficult standards seems ignoble to me, especially when one has nothing personally to gain from it.

Its not just posts made on threads. I think one or two of the quotes people have added to the random quotes are off-colour and needlessly disrespectful (which is what spurred me to start this thread), rather than thought provoking or humorous. I haven't gone into specifics (posts etc) because I don't want to point fingers at particular individuals. Nonetheless I had to get that off my chest.

I'm sure at least one person will respond to this be pointing out that it is a freethought forum, so I'll say in advance I'm obviously aware of that. But I don't believe having the right to say something necessarily means that's an appropriate or nice thing to say. I'm not suggesting any kind of censorship, just expressing my personal distaste for the way some things are expressed.

[godfry n. glad]

Thank you for your opinion, Farren.

You can feel free to point your finger at me, if you so wish.

I don't feel any need to label myself as an "atheist", as I'm not particularly fond of describing myself in terms of what I'm not. I agree, sometimes it's convenient or even necessary, if not accurate. I consider myself a militant agnostic... I agree that the existance of a metaphysical god is unknowable, but I tend to think that god-free has more credibility. As for the "militant" part, it's best expressed as, "I don't know, and neither do you." You see, I quickly tire of those who come bursting in full of the knowledge that they have a headlock on truth and they know everyone here will agree, if we just listen to their incessant nattering respectfully.

I feel that I try to maintain decorum if my interlocutor does. Occasionally, I lose my cool. But I feel I have just as much right to express my opinion as bluntly and openly as they do theirs. If theists start out demanding that I acquiesce to their interpretation of the cosmos from the get go and berate me when I disagree....they'll get it back in spades.

If you don't like it, don't watch. I don't speak for you or anyone else. I speak for me, and only me, so you needn't be unduly alarmed at being lumped into some arbitrary category with me. Disavow me, if it makes you feel better.

I'm not going to apologize, however.

[fatherphil]

if i'm ever in sa i'll look you up farren, and if you're in southern california i hope you do the same.

[livius drusus]

Herein lies the crux of my discomfort with some of the more vicious antifaith sentiments and mockery I sometimes see here. If the intention is win people over, its certainly the least effective strategy - and since there's no requirement to procure some freedoms from the people one is engaging, I can't see any good purpose of being contemptous of someone's faith. It invariably comes across as an attack on the individual, which, I think is unwarranted. Needlessly causing discomfort to human beings who are trying to be good people and live up to difficult standards seems ignoble to me, especially when one has nothing personally to gain from it.


I agree thoroughly, Farren, and I know just what you mean about some of those random quotes. Not only are they intentionally offensive, but I find them tedious and eye-rollingly overexposed.

I disagree, however, that there are a lot of militant atheists here who state their views in the most offensive manner. I rather think it's quite a small number, as in countable on the fingers of one hand, really. They just stand out a lot because apopleptic rhetoric is inevitably louder than anything around it.

I'll note something else, however, and godfry has graciously provided himself as a good example of this: aggressors tend to behave that way nomatter what the subject at hand. Any topic that gets their dander up will see them attack a discursive opponent. Religion is just one excuse among many.

[Farren]

I suppose you're right Liv. Inasmuch as "lot" may imply the majority, I didn't mean that. And combativeness isn't a function of athiesm but a personality trait.

And yes, Godfry, I'll admit you're one of the people I was thinking of, although I've steered clear of your arguments about religion in recent times. That doesn't mean I think you're an asshole. I think you're a fascinating and entertaining person and enjoy your presence. But I really don't like the way you express yourself sometimes when you get worked up about issues around faith.

fatherphil, I'll look you up if I'm in California :) I do plan on visiting that state at some point.

[LadyShea]

I will also admit I am an aggressive person, but I don't think I have been aggressively anti-theist...at least not here. The one person that made me cringe no longer posts, so I don't see what you are seeing I guess.

[godfry n. glad]

I'll note something else, however, and godfry has graciously provided himself as a good example of this: aggressors tend to behave that way nomatter what the subject at hand. Any topic that gets their dander up will see them attack a discursive opponent. Religion is just one excuse among many.

Excuse me... If you're saying what I think you're saying, I think you're flatly wrong. If that's your definition, then from my perspective, I don't fit your "aggressor" stereotype. This board is replete with sane, civilized and cultured exchanges on my part, both in and out of the topic of theism.

I could say the same about nauseating obsequiousness, but it wouldn't necessarily be true.

[godfry n. glad]

I will also admit I am an aggressive person, but I don't think I have been aggressively anti-theist...at least not here. The one person that made me cringe no longer posts, so I don't see what you are seeing I guess.

I don't think of you as aggressive, but assertive. I still respect you and your opinions despite our clashes over our differences. I think it's people like yourself, and even Sweetie, or Adora, who have the strength of their opinion and aren't afraid to put it out there and argue about it. Sometimes we frustrate each other, but hey... It happens.

If this was a place where everybody was walking on eggshells trying to be politically correct at all times, making with the nicey, nicey all the time, it'd make me puke and move on. I do that enough at work. Even with unequivocal morons and assholes.

[livius drusus]

I'm saying that whatever sets you off, and the topic could be religion, politics, law, anything else you're passionate about, results in the same aggressive behavior. That doesn't mean that every time you're discussion religion, politics, law, etc you'll attack. It just means your temper isn't remotely bound by your atheism.

[LadyShea]

Excuse me... If you're saying what I think you're saying, I think you're flatly wrong. If that's your definition, then from my perspective, I don't fit your "aggressor" stereotype. This board is replete with sane, civilized and cultured exchanges on my part, both in and out of the topic of theism.

I could say the same about nauseating obsequiousness, but it wouldn't necessarily be true.

I think she has a point though, Godfry. You and I have gone balls to the wall at each other over recycling and dog parks and saying "Merry Christmas" (just to name a few items). We are the way we are on subjects we feel passionately about, regardless if they are religious topics.

I still respect you and your opinions despite our clashes over our differences.

Thanks, I feel the same.

[godfry n. glad]

I'm saying that whatever sets you off, and the topic could be religion, politics, law, anything else you're passionate about, results in the same aggressive behavior. That doesn't mean that every time you're discussion religion, politics, law, etc you'll attack. It just means your temper isn't remotely bound by your atheism.

Oh... Sure. With that, I'll agree. It's a behavior I'd guess I've been taught to utilize when my conversants are painfully obdurate or willfully ignorant. It does not work all times, but it has with surprising frequency....at least from my perspective. vm is an excellent example; perhaps because he exhibits a similar personality style. If pushed, I will push back.

[livius drusus]

It's a behavior I'd guess I've been taught to utilize when my conversants are painfully obdurate or willfully ignorant.

Yeah, but I don't think either LadyShea or myself fit into either of those categories when you've engaged in that behavior with us.

[viscousmemories]

vm is an excellent example; perhaps because he exhibits a similar personality style.
I didn't understand that. What am I an excellent example of?

[PinkRose]

Farren, you have some time on your hands? God.

[albert cipriani]

when my conversants are... willfully ignorant.

How is that even possible? Willfully ignorant? Can you will not to know what you know? Yet you presume others can, and use your presumption as a justification to pounce on them?! :fuming:

Prove me wrong and will yourself to be ignorant of 2 + 2 = 4. Stop knowing your name. You can deny that you know it, but you cannot un-know it. Like our parents who imbibed from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, once acquired, knowledge cannot be shitted out. It stays with us despite any will to the contrary.

So in spite of your justification for your spitefulness, you simply are that (spiteful) despite your metaphysically preposterous appeal to the willful ignorance of others. The phrase is an oxymoron, a self-refuting compounding of words that make as much sense as oil and water make a mixture. – Disgusted, as Always with You, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[godfry n. glad]

It's a behavior I'd guess I've been taught to utilize when my conversants are painfully obdurate or willfully ignorant.

Yeah, but I don't think either LadyShea or myself fit into either of those categories when you've engaged in that behavior with us.

Well, there we'll have to disagree. LadyShea, was, in my estimation, both of those on the two threads she mentioned.

As for you, liv, the only direct confrontation which stands out in my mind was the one over the teenagers delivering late night cookies to neighbors. You, as I remember, were doing the forked tongue scene, telling others they could not discern the motives of the youngsters, while typifying the youngster's behavior as questionable and suggesting motives.

But then, these are merely my distorted views of my own actions. I fully recognize that I may be in error, but somebody's got to make it clear to me. I believe there are plenty of instances where I've backed away from my positions, and even, on occasion, acknowledging my error.

[Gurdur]

* was actually going to make a very long, thought-provoking, mildly humorous, empathetic post in this thread, replete with a mini-Maoist-selfcriticism session, but instead now I am going to build a nuclear war shelter in my garden *

[godfry n. glad]

when my conversants are... willfully ignorant.

How is that even possible? Willfully ignorant? Can you will not to know what you know? Yet you presume others can, and use your presumption as a justification to pounce on them?! :fuming:

Prove me wrong and will yourself to be ignorant of 2 + 2 = 4. Stop knowing your name. You can deny that you know it, but you cannot un-know it. Like our parents who imbibed from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, once acquired, knowledge cannot be shitted out. It stays with us despite any will to the contrary.

So in spite of your justification for your spitefulness, you simply are that (spiteful) despite your metaphysically preposterous appeal to the willful ignorance of others. The phrase is an oxymoron, a self-refuting compounding of words that make as much sense as oil and water make a mixture. – Disgusted, as Always with You, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Well, Al, what a delightful and timely surprise!

Here folks is the very epitome of "willfully ignorant", Al Cipriani. Ignorance is a matter of ignoring what can be known, rather than not knowing. You are a perfect example of "willful ignorance". Despite multiple interlocutors pointing out what they perceive as mistakes, and factual errors, in your stated beliefs, you ignore what is inconvenient to your self-enclosed twisted and deluded dogma.

The phrase is not an oxymoron...you're just a moron. A willfully ignorant moron who is deadset on remaining that way.

Given your behavior since your arrival, I feel not a twinge of regret or remorse over how I have interacted with you. I once thought you amusing, but no longer. Now I think you're sad and pathetic.

[livius drusus]

I fully recognize that I may be in error, but somebody's got to make it clear to me.

Sorry, but I'll only go so far in attempting to clarify. When you're mean, you're really mean, and I don't want to intentionally set myself up as a target for abuse. I'll take it for as long as it seems there's a slim likelihood I might reach you but once it gets too painful or tiring, my efforts end.

Call it obsequiousness or moral superiority/cowardice or lying if you want; I'm just plain out of there. Explaining my position and justifying a courteous approach while you assault me is not something I'm interested in doing. :shrug:

[godfry n. glad]

I fully recognize that I may be in error, but somebody's got to make it clear to me.

Sorry, but I'll only go so far in attempting to clarify. When you're mean, you're really mean, and I don't want to intentionally set myself up as a target for abuse. I'll take it for as long as it seems there's a slim likelihood I might reach you but once it gets too painful or tiring, my efforts end.

Call it obsequiousness or moral superiority/cowardice or lying if you want; I'm just plain out of there. Explaining my position and justifying a courteous approach while you assault me is not something I'm interested in doing. :shrug:

That's fine.

Just to ask... Have I ever come to you, or to vm, complaining about my treatment on this board or the actions of others?

[Farren]

* was actually going to make a very long, thought-provoking, mildly humorous, empathetic post in this thread, replete with a mini-Maoist-selfcriticism session, but instead now I am going to build a nuclear war shelter in my garden *

:tmlol:

[livius drusus]

Just to ask... Have I ever come to you, or to vm, complaining about my treatment on this board or the actions of others?

Nope. Your point?

ETA: Unless you count your repeated and now-retracted claims that vm was attempting to stifle you on the counterpoint thread.

[godfry n. glad]

Just to ask... Have I ever come to you, or to vm, complaining about my treatment on this board or the actions of others?

Nope. Your point?

I takes my lumps just as I gives them.

As for the confrontation with vm, I did that spontaneously and openly, just as I would any other exchange here. I also admitted my error and apologized in that case. I still remain befuddled as to why the two of you set up a board with the title and tagline you did, and then attempt the moderate the conversations. Isn't that a bit contradictory? And then, when it's pointed out that such is happening, you seem to withdraw into the defense that this is a free-expression board and he has the right to express his opinion (with which, by the way, I fully agree) .

It seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it, too. Free and open communications don't always run smooth. Disagreements arise, tempers flair. Farren is welcome to express his dislike and discomfort with my "style" so long as I am able to express my opinions openly as well. Just because my "style" is at variance from either yours or his is not a reason for me to comply with your desires as to how I should behave.

You are not the boss of me. Nor is Farren, or the numbnuts Capriani.

[livius drusus]

I've never once spoken to you the way you've spoken to me, godfry. You hand out lumps you've never been given.

[Gurdur]

OK, I am going to make a long post, but later.
But I think it's now wasted and will be wasted; I think this thread is going into everyone biting each other willynilly, IOW; it's all too confused.

---> Farren: you have some very good points,but I think the dynamics are different to what you think they are here. More later.

---> livius drusus & Farren: no matter what else you say about godfry, I don't think classing him under the "aggressive atheists" is valid. There is sometimes a question of provocation from say some statements by Albert

---> godfry: I don't think livius deserves at all what you're saying; she's a much finer person than you believe. Plus your targets get overwide at times

---> Albert: you already know. Must you be so hostile ? It really is not proving any point nor is it justfied in any way whatsoever, you know. You could be a hell of a lot more poetic and more iinsightful if you weren't out for baiting.

----> everyone else: you already know.

[godfry n. glad]

vm is an excellent example; perhaps because he exhibits a similar personality style.
I didn't understand that. What am I an excellent example of?

An example of a poster with whom I had an exchange that escalated into an exchange of vituperative invective on the part of both participants, yet managed to sort itself out in such a manner that we can work together and communicate civilly and with respect.

[viscousmemories]

Farren is welcome to express his dislike and discomfort with my "style" so long as I am able to express my opinions openly as well.
I guess what I don't understand is why you think Farren expressing his opinion of your style is just him exercising his right to free speech, whereas when livius or I do so it's "attempted moderation". Why are you not accusing Farren of attempting to moderate you?

[viscousmemories]

An example of a poster with whom I had an exchange that escalated into an exchange of vituperative invective on the part of both participants, yet managed to sort itself out in such a manner that we can work together and communicate civilly and with respect.
Ah, okay thanks. I've been used as an example a lot lately so I'm losing track of what it is I supposedly represent. :D

[godfry n. glad]

Farren is welcome to express his dislike and discomfort with my "style" so long as I am able to express my opinions openly as well.
I guess what I don't understand is why you think Farren expressing his opinion of your style is just him exercising his right to free speech, whereas when livius or I do so it's "attempted moderation". Why are you not accusing Farren of attempting to moderate you?

Well, gosh, vm... Could it be that despite Farren's erudite, enlightening, engaging and amusing postings, he is not an authority? You are. Both of you. Besides, do you think I did not learn something in that most recent confrontation? I admitted my error and apologized. Is that not enough?

[viscousmemories]

Well, gosh, vm... Could it be that despite Farren's erudite, enlightening, engaging and amusing postings, he is not an authority? You are. Both of you. Besides, do you think I did not learn something in that most recent confrontation? I admitted my error and apologized. Is that not enough?
Well I have no idea why you feel my question warranted such a sarcastic and patronizing response, but I think Gurdur is right. This conversation doesn't seem likely to go anywhere productive from here.

[godfry n. glad]

Well, gosh, vm... Could it be that despite Farren's erudite, enlightening, engaging and amusing postings, he is not an authority? You are. Both of you. Besides, do you think I did not learn something in that most recent confrontation? I admitted my error and apologized. Is that not enough?
Well I have no idea why you feel my question warranted such a sarcastic and patronizing response, but I think Gurdur is right. This conversation doesn't seem likely to go anywhere productive from here.

Do you have problems answering questions?

[Clutch Munny]

when my conversants are... willfully ignorant.

How is that even possible? Willfully ignorant? Can you will not to know what you know?

Maybe. But that's not what "wilfully ignorant" means, in any case.

Here's Ted, sitting on his couch, watching the news. The newscaster says, "After the break, we'll be looking at the evidence that the President lied about Iraq and WMDs". Ted, who has loudly proclaimed his complete trust in the President many a time, is just not interested in hearing such evidence. He changes the channel.

He does this wilfully. It preserves his ignorance of the evidence. He is wilfully ignorant.

metaphysically preposterous appeal to the willful ignorance of others. The phrase is an oxymoron, a self-refuting compounding of words that make as much sense as oil and water make a mixture.

Albert, humorous old sock! You got your money's worth out of your thesaurus, but you've tied yourself in square knots. Wilful ignorance is not merely coherent. It's commonplace.

[JoeP]

How is that even possible? Willfully ignorant?
No, but that's not what "wilfully ignorant" means.
Ignorance is a matter of ignoring what can be known, rather than not knowing.
Albert, godfry and clutch are right here. The meaning of "wilfully ignorant" is refusing to address one's ignorance - more specifically, refusing or failing through inaction to learn about something necessary given the subject one has chosen. As such I am wilfully ignorant of the Baltimore Catechism.

I thought this was well-known and obvious. Did you not know this?

In the interests of discussing aggression, it seems to me to be a trigger for an aggressive response on my part in that you have chosen to present the term "wilful ignorance" as a clear contradiction - at some length - without allowing for the possibility that you've misunderstood. Help me entertain the possibility that I've misunderstood you - did it really seem so clear to you?

[viscousmemories]

Do you have problems answering questions?
So are you attacking me because my post was painfully obdurate or willfully ignorant?

[Gurdur]

Wilfully painfull ?

[JoeP]

I've been used as an example a lot lately so I'm losing track of what it is I supposedly represent. :DYou represent the kind of person who is made an example of without knowing why.

[livius drusus]

Obdurately ignorant?

[JoeP]

---> Farren: you have some very good points,but I think the dynamics are different to what you think they are here. More later.
I'm very interested in the more later. I agree substantially with farren's post (except for his misspelling of atheist - we will hunt him down for that heresy :mob: ). But I believe there's a lot more to the dynamics.

----> everyone else: you already know.
Know what? Obviously not...

[albert cipriani]

That's not what "wilfully ignorant" means.

Here's Ted, sitting on his couch, watching the news. The newscaster says, "After the break, we'll be looking at the evidence that the President lied about Iraq and WMDs". Ted, who has loudly proclaimed his complete trust in the President many a time, is just not interested in hearing such evidence. He changes the channel.

He does this wilfully. It preserves his ignorance of the evidence. He is wilfully ignorant.

Well said. Excellent alternative reality. I accept your spin as an utterly valid interpretation of the term “willfully ignorant.” But not in this context.

And how did Godfry get my house bugged so that he has this privileged information vis a’vis my channel switching proclivities? In other words, your spinning of his oxymoron works for ignorance maintained in contexts other than this message board. Godfry claims that his opponents are willfully ignorant of his words. Were it only possible that us opponents could change his channel! Were it that we could willfully ignore his spittle that pass as his words of wisdom.

Fact is, responding to a Godfry post is proof positive that we have not willfully ignored his wisdom. For how can we respond to posts we haven’t read?

Nice try, changing Godfry’s bogus assertion from its message board context to the hypothetical remote possibility of some remote-controlled tv set context. But that dog won’t bark. But thanks for at least engaging me intellectually. That’s more than most here seem capable of. – Cheers, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[godfry n. glad]

Do you have problems answering questions?
So are you attacking me because my post was painfully obdurate or willfully ignorant?

A question is an attack? I think you've a sensitivity problem, vm.

[godfry n. glad]

And now I see that Al has taken his willful ignorance about the term "willfully ignorant" and become painfully obdurate about it.

Thanks, Al. The demonstrations are wonderful. Keep up the good work!

[King Louie]

I've got a great idea:

Let's all rent a pasture in the middle of Utah, then meet there next Thursday around 4 o'clock. Then, let's kick the piss out of each other and rub each others faces in the dirt, and then, we can all get stupid drunk.

That's a Friday night, here in Bama. Gets the led out.

From the Jungles of A Friday Night In Mississippi, Too,

Kang Louie

[viscousmemories]

A question is an attack? I think you've a sensitivity problem, vm.
It seems to me that any reasonable person might interpret a loaded question like "Do you have problems answering questions?" as an attack, but maybe I am hypersensitive. Did you expect me to say, "Why yes, godfry. Actually I do have a problem answering questions. Do me a favor and limit your comments to statements, k?"

[PinkRose]

King Loiuse could you really handle that?

[livius drusus]

It's cow-tipping or nothing, Kang. :cowdance:

[PinkRose]

a little moow and a swift kick in the ass, works all the time. RUN BABY. hurry they're gonna get ya. stop screaming & run.

[godfry n. glad]

A question is an attack? I think you've a sensitivity problem, vm.
It seems to me that any reasonable person might interpret a loaded question like "Do you have problems answering questions?" as an attack, but maybe I am hypersensitive. Did you expect me to say, "Why yes, godfry. Actually I do have a problem answering questions. Do me a favor and limit your comments to statements, k?"

No, I expected you to answer the questions I asked in the previous post. Instead, you got all huffy and accusatory with some lame statement about how nothing more could be gained from this conversation. You have assured that it will be mostly useless with your response. Congratulations.

[viscousmemories]

[...] and then, get stupid drunk.
I was with you up to here, Kang, but as evidenced by my revelations elsewhere I take that expression a bit too literally.

[JoeP]

from the philosophical position ofI rewrote a pov on this twice and still am not happy with it. Does a philosophical position tell you how to live? And even if it does, is it right to debate philosophical positions with the passion that comes with examining and stating how you should live?
seem to have no problem stating their views in the most aggressive and offensive mannerIt does seem that way sometimes, but I think most of the instances of offence do in fact feel bad to the people committing them.
one of pure hatredI actually doubt this. I can't think of a case. I think the appearance of hatred is caused by frustration: partners in discussion appear to be refusing to discuss certain points or unable to question certain assumptions, and thus become opponents; and this apparent refusal - which is in fact most likely just working from their pov and involves no aggression or hatred - tends far too often to feel like deliberate disrespect, and it escalates from there.

We have this presumption that "logic" is always able to reconcile two points of view, and that only one of them can be right. I mention this because very many of the aggressive exchanges go around seeing the other person as misusing or abusing logic. Typically the confrontation is not in the logic, however, but in the translation of views into logical statements. Most of us don't hold views because of logic or really know why we hold those views.

I'm not sure this is ever warranted or, for that matter, in any way fruitful.
...
If the intention is win people over, its certainly the least effective strategyHere I agree 100%. It is never warranted. It could only be fruitful if your aims were hostile to begin with, to convert forcefully or ostracise people with different views.

Why is it so difficult to express disagreement on issues relating to religion and faith in a respectful way?As I said above, partly because we don't treat them as detached philosophical discussions but as matters of great personal emotional weight.

feel very strongly aboutExactly. Emotions will run high; it's not conducive to giving the other party credit for having views so their expression of views can be seen as an attack. This happens even in the best-conducted discussions here.

Joe

[Gurdur]

.....we could willfully ignore his spittle that pass as his words of wisdom.
....
But thanks for at least engaging me intellectually. That’s more than most here seem capable of. – Cheers, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
Albert, I was just wondering, what are you criticising godfry for again ?
Could you run that one by me just once more ?

[albert cipriani]

Let's... kick the piss out of each other and rub each others faces in the dirt, and then, get stupid drunk.

OK, but only if I get to be on your team. You and me against the rest. That appeals to my martry-complex and besides that way we could double-team Godfry. -- Albert

[viscousmemories]

No, I expected you to answer the questions I asked in the previous post. Instead, you got all huffy and accusatory with some lame statement about how nothing more could be gained from this conversation. You have assured that it will mostly useless with your response. Congratulations.
I see. So you can respond to my honest and direct question with some sarcastic and patronizing "Well gosh, vm [...]" nonsense, but my calling it sarcastic and patronizing is intolerably huffy and accusatory? That seems like a double standard there to me, but fine. I'll ignore the sarcasm and answer your questions.

Well, gosh, vm... Could it be that despite Farren's erudite, enlightening, engaging and amusing postings, he is not an authority? You are. Both of you.
I don't see the point. We don't edit posts and we've only ever banned one person for reasons other than spamming and blatant rule violations. So I don't see how the simple fact that I am an administrator makes my criticisms "attempted moderation" where Farren's criticisms are just him expressing his personal viewpoint. I think I've asked you this before and you didn't answer it, but is it your opinion that I should not be allowed to have and express a personal viewpoint here?

Besides, do you think I did not learn something in that most recent confrontation? I admitted my error and apologized. Is that not enough?
I don't understand why you're asking this. What did I say that gave you the idea that I didn't think that was 'enough'. I'm not even sure what you mean by enough. Enough for what? I was satisfied with the outcome of that interaction between us, but it's not as if you were required to admit your mistake and apologize. Did you feel like you were?

[JoeP]

spin
his oxymoron
his spittle
bogus assertion
That’s more than most here seem capable of.
Albert, do you think you could rewrite your post without these belittling words? They are unwarranted, in the context farren use in his op, and serve no purpose I can respect. More, they discourage me at least from engaging you intellectually. They create an impression of hostility. Do you see that?

[Farren]

[...] and then, get stupid drunk.
I was with you up to here, Kang, but as evidenced by my revelations elsewhere I take that expression a bit too literally.

I'm stupid drunk right here (otherwise, Joe, I'd have the mental stamina to respond seriously).

[JoeP]

I'm stupid drunk right here (otherwise, Joe, I'd have the mental stamina to respond seriously).Take your time!

[albert cipriani]

Albert, I was just wondering, what are you criticising godfry for again?

I took exception to notion that his opponents deserved his vitriol because they were being “willfully ignorant.” In the context of a message board, opponents can only be ignorant of our positions, not willfully so. Ergo, Godfry pretext for his vitriol is unjustifiable.

But at a lower level here’s evidence drawn from this thread whereby Godfry hangs himself from his own petard and is worthy of criticism:

“Here folks is the very epitome of "willfully ignorant", Al Cipriani… a perfect example of "willful ignorance"… you ignore what is inconvenient to your self-enclosed twisted and deluded dogma… the phrase is not an oxymoron... you're just a moron. A willfully ignorant moron who is deadset on remaining that way… I feel not a twinge of regret or remorse over how I have interacted with you… I think you're sad and pathetic.”
– Albert, Sadly and Pathetically Signing Off

[JoeP]

In the context of a message board, opponents can only be ignorant of our positions, not willfully so.
Albert, this is wrong. If I choose to argue a point of dogma with you but I can't be bothered to try to find the Baltimore catechism or the Denzinger (sp?) book you mentioned I would be being wilfully ignorant. Please comment. When you're back online

[Gurdur]

.....

[D. Scarlatti]

I get all aggressive when it's misspelled.

[Clutch Munny]

That's not what "wilfully ignorant" means.

Here's Ted, sitting on his couch, watching the news. The newscaster says, "After the break, we'll be looking at the evidence that the President lied about Iraq and WMDs". Ted, who has loudly proclaimed his complete trust in the President many a time, is just not interested in hearing such evidence. He changes the channel.

He does this wilfully. It preserves his ignorance of the evidence. He is wilfully ignorant.

Well said. Excellent alternative reality. I accept your spin as an utterly valid interpretation of the term “willfully ignorant.”

Well, it's what the expression means. So, yeah, I guess it must be a valid interpretation!

But not in this context.

Albert, old egg, I think you're confabulating this. Or, as Granddad Clutch would have said, you're makin shit up again. There's no very precise context that godfry invoked; he really just said that wilful ignorance gets on his wick and provokes his excesses. The idea that he must have had something mistaken in mind with "wilful ignorance" seems to come from you. Confabulation, old bean.

And how did Godfry get my house bugged so that he has this privileged information vis a’vis my channel switching proclivities?

Golly, maybe you should ask him politely! He might even tell you. Notice that plenty of w.i. charges hardly need bugging to support them; someone capable of corresponding online but who professed ignorance of any WMD controversy, for example, would be reasonably judged insincere or wilfully ignorant.

In other words, your spinning of his oxymoron works for ignorance maintained in contexts other than this message board.

Albert, old filbert, you're backsliding. What was proven is that it was no oxymoron. Don't go being painburately oddful, now.

Godfry claims that his opponents are willfully ignorant of his words.

Albert... really, now. You just can't launch such clangers. He didn't say this. End of story.

Nice try, changing Godfry’s bogus assertion from its message board context to the hypothetical remote possibility of some remote-controlled tv set context. But that dog won’t bark. But thanks for at least engaging me intellectually. That’s more than most here seem capable of. – Cheers, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Albert, old mutton, is that a sly smile? You old prankster! Of course you didn't mean a word of that post. It's a higher-order giggle of some sort, right?

[albert cipriani]

“Albert, do you think you could rewrite your post without these belittling words?

1) his oxymoron [willful ignorance]
2) his spittle
3) bogus assertion
4) That’s more than most here seem capable of.

1 & 3) No. Willful ignorance is a term that connects our will with our knowledge in a way that is oxymoronic, like the sounds of silence, or military intelligence, or the famous invisible pink whatever. It’s the perfect word for Godfrey’s term, which is, therefore, by definition, bogus.

2) No. Spittle is the physical expression of the intellectual content of the following Godfrey words describing me and my beliefs: “twisted, moron, deadest, sad, pathetic.”

4) No. Please do engage me intellectually, and I will happily withdraw this final phrase. The woeful lack of intellectual engagement here is my real and honest assessment, an assessment I’ve shared with others publicly and privately in PM’s as lately as just yesterday. I am truly sorry if that assessment of mine seems belittling to you. I would rather it be motivating to you. I happily compliment the precious few here that do manage to engage me intellectually.

“They… serve no purpose I can respect.”

Then you do not respect my honest assessments, nor the correct and figurative usage of negative terms (oxymoron, spittle) to accurately describe Godfry’s negative fulminations.

“They discourage me at least from engaging you intellectually.”

I am genuinely sorry.

“They create an impression of hostility. Do you see that.”

If accurately complaining about Godfrey’s hostility constitutes the impression of me being hostile, well, so be it then. I do not see it but do not doubt your sincerity in saying you do see it – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[viscousmemories]

I suppose out of respect for Farren I oughta make at least one on-topic post...

Most people who have read my posts over the last couple years know that I don't like aggressive atheism. I'm on record many times over at IIDB, here and elsewhere critcising it as ineffective at best, damaging at worst. I've also frequently condemned prejudicial treatment of theists by atheists and I've taken a fair amount of ridicule and criticism for this stance.

As many here also know, one of the fundamental reasons livius and I started this forum was because we wanted to make a place where aggressive anti-theism and an institutional bias toward atheism and atheists was not the norm as it is at various other sites. Of course there will always be some bias, given that she and I are both non-theists and 'freethought' is (imo) largely antithetical to obedience to religious authority.

In this mostly unregulated environment (and with consideration of the fact that our even suggesting that people try to give each other the benefit of the doubt is sometimes interpreted as an effort to stifle certain views) I'm not really sure there's much that can be done about the reactions some people are going to have to certain other people or ideas. And there's even less we can do when people refuse to help themselves by way of ignoring (mentally or using the software features) people who offend them.

And I realize Farren that you're just expressing yourself and not suggesting that we need to do anything from an administrative viewpoint. I guess I'm just saying that I've had this discussion numerous times over the last few years and I've never seen anything productive come of it. I'm pretty sure everybody believes that their particular style of interaction is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable way to engage people, else they'd act differently.

But maybe this is just me being typically cynical, in which case freely ignore. :)

[viscousmemories]

I see. So you can respond to my honest and direct question [...]
For what it's worth, after re-reading my original post I can see that it was poorly phrased and how you might have perceived it as accusatory comment despite my thinking that it was a direct and honest question. It really was just a question, though. I genuinely wanted to know why you appear to think it's fine for Farren to be critical of your discursive style and not me. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

[Farren]

Yeah, I know, but I had to say it. I appreciate the spirit behind this particular forum. But its that exact spirit that bolsters my confidence that posting my feelings might in some small way sway those people who give in to their more aggressive instincts to the light side of the force :}

[Carlos]

I suppose out of respect for Farren I oughta make at least one on-topic post...
It was time for being honest.


But maybe this is just me being typically cynical, in which case freely ignore. :)
Some people will never know how to do it.

Thanks,
Carlos

[Godwhacker]

Late to the post, I realize, but I think there is a good point in here that I agree with, namely that, if Atheism is going to ever flourish and grow, then we need to be approachable and not alienating. We need to strive for acceptance from other religious viewpoints.

However, that is part of the problem. Most religious views condemn atheism outright, so thus the aggression is usually pointed at us Atheists. Especially in the US recently, Atheists are getting hammered constantly by the religious right and their political lackeys. We are also constantly reminded that we are different. We are contantly bombarded with messages from the majority religious culture that we are different, sick, twisted, evil, etc. Is it any wonder we are aggressive? We are constantly being attacked, so, yes, we are on the defensive. This website is one of the view avenues alot of us have to express our views without being totally blasted or alienated. Yes, I think many of us are defensive, and it is because of those in the theist majority who are attacking us that we are so.

As much as I try to be an approachable atheist, I do snap at times and have my moments. I do believe logically that Atheism needs to become accepted and atheists need to be approachable. I try my best to respect other belief systems, even though very few theists I have encountered give my belief system the same amount of respect. However, after having day after day of being surrounded in my daily life by intolerance towards my belief system from theists, yes, I do have my moments of wanting to be angry, and this forum is one place where I can vent such feelings and hopefully have some people who understand where I am coming from.

I also think that what many theists experience in this forum, we Atheists experience in our everyday lives. They can turn off the computer to get away from it, but we can't. Maybe if more theists experienced how it feels to get ripped for their beliefs and be in the minority, with little support or place to turn, maybe there would be more tolerance (and maybe even understanding?) from the theist majority for what it is like being an Atheist in this culture.

[JoeP]

I do not see itYou badly need to see this, Albert. Being accurate about godfry does not stop you from appearing hostile and arrogant yourself. It is not difficult to see, surely: reflect on your words as a neutral third party would.

[godfry n. glad]

Yeah, I know, but I had to say it. I appreciate the spirit behind this particular forum. But its that exact spirit that bolsters my confidence that posting my feelings might in some small way sway those people who give in to their more aggressive instincts to the light side of the force :}

Thank you, Farren.

Feel free to contradict me, but I feel I have improved in my time here. Mellowed, as it were. I'm still a cantankerous, opinionated old fool. I don't pretend to be the poster boy for atheism, nor do I have any desire. I'd make a piss-poor exemplar. It's not easy for me to touch "the light side of the force", because I've walked a dark road these last months. It's hard for me to not be bitter and be damned if I'll be quiet. Not when hordes around me presume on a daily basis that I share their particular peculiar delusion. I have my own peculiar delusion, thank you. If you insist on sharing yours, you'll hear mine. I have actually been conciously trying to govern my intemperance and engage on a less strident basis.

I'm trying. Really. Sometimes very trying. I know this.

As for Al, now al...I started out being amused by him. I offered to buy him a beer. He was so offensive, and I attempted to be merely disagreeable. He ignored every cogent criticism of his belief system I presented...even when presented in the most civil of manners. Now, I feel I am being painted as the "big bad ogre" because I've changed my mind and think him a pernicious presence and am not afraid to say so outright. He's every right to spout whatever he' will, it's his opinion.

So have I.

I also feel I've offered up more than just drive-by invective.

And liv... you're right, you didn't deserve what you got from me. I'm sorry.

[Godless Wonder]

Addressing the OP. I'm anti-faith. Let me define "faith," as this word is slippery and defenders of faith seem to almost always be equivocators.

Faith == believing with a certainty unwarranted by available evidence.

That kind of faith to me is always wrong, always unethical. Religion's biggest hoax is to convince people that faith is a virtue, or at worst, harmless. It is not harmless.

Seebs, for instance, is guilty of that sort of faith, from what I can tell.

[Adora]

Why is it so difficult to express disagreement on issues relating to religion and faith in a respectful way?
Because that would be boring and pointless.

Also, I don't see any usefulness in simply being broadly insulting insulting and cursing what other people consider sacred, rather than carefully describing specifically what you disagree with.
Sometimes it's not that you disagree with specifics of what is sacred and what isn't, but just the conept of "sacredness" itself. A bit like nobility. It makes me gag.

If the intention is win people over
See, I've never understood this intention in people. Most of the discussions I get in with people isn't for the benefit of those who I am interacting with, but those reading it. If I manage to illustrate "I think you're wrong and stupid stfukthnx" or "I disagree with you, though I think you're intelligent" (obviously depending on my opinion of the poster) in my posts properly for the understanding of the bystanders, I don't care what conclusions the other person comes to. That's their happy little puppetshow... I mean reality to work out.

Also, I personally think the whole trying to "win over" theists is a stupid endeavour. Faith trumps all (see Godfry's comment about "willful ignorance"). Unless that person has a personal change of her/his faith, you're just wasting your time, and are better off doing a puppet show for the masses. It would be more entertaining.

Needlessly causing discomfort to human beings who are trying to be good people and live up to difficult standards
What's that phrase? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"? It's not just that they're trying to be "good people", but they're judging other people and trying to change their lives by those impossible, backward and unrealistic standards. There's nothing one should respect in that.

ignoble
... *gags*

[livius drusus]

Thank you, godfry. I appreciate it.

Yeah, I know, but I had to say it. I appreciate the spirit behind this particular forum. But its that exact spirit that bolsters my confidence that posting my feelings might in some small way sway those people who give in to their more aggressive instincts to the light side of the force :}

I think that's great, Farren, and I'm so glad you and your equanimity are back.