Theophobia

[Stephen Morgan]

For the restaurant servers this Sunday, faced with large tables of well-dressed family folk going for post-church brunch, who for the most part tend to be picky, whiny and don't tip well, we pray to the Lord.

Lord, hear our prayer.

For those in deep, indefensible trenches who keep digging... ahhh, who cares, they can do what they like. It's their business unless the mud starts hitting others.

That bunch of cunts don't have any faith. Don't even have belief. No cunt who goes to church in a suit has any faith, the bunch of hypocrite scumbag fuckers. If they had faith it would be an internalised matter which would alter their being and their modes of conduct, rather than their dress. Not to mention being a seven-day a week phenomenon.

[Laodicean]

For the restaurant servers this Sunday, faced with large tables of well-dressed family folk going for post-church brunch, who for the most part tend to be picky, whiny and don't tip well, we pray to the Lord.

Lord, hear our prayer.

For those in deep, indefensible trenches who keep digging... ahhh, who cares, they can do what they like. It's their business unless the mud starts hitting others.

That bunch of cunts don't have any faith. Don't even have belief. No cunt who goes to church in a suit has any faith, the bunch of hypocrite scumbag fuckers. If they had faith it would be an internalised matter which would alter their being and their modes of conduct, rather than their dress. Not to mention being a seven-day a week phenomenon.

You motherfuckers.

[Stephen Morgan]

Now show precisely where in the OP, or in the any of early pages of this thread, C_w "attribut[ed] qualities to posters here" of any kind whatsoever.

You cannot tell me that there isn't a prejudice, especially noticeable here on this board...against people who are spiritual.

I would tend to call that an attribution of qualities to posters here. A wonderfully vague accusation which must be taken on faith.

Well done to C_w for providing such a list of examples.

the bias is the shame. bias locks people away from pursuing certain paths - those paths of course are whichever are covered over by the forest of bias.

Your rejection of their point of view constitutes a bias as well.

I don't reject people who don't believe. I would not attempt to discredit a scientist or researcher with the following: "S/he's an evolutionist." I don't make up little name-calling slang against people who don't have faith.

But you have no problem saying things like...

• "People who do not accept any sort of faith in their lives... will never be able to realize the truth as I and others see it."

She's quite correct. Affects one's perceptions.

I'm going to say this one more time. I think that it is unfortunate that there are people who are not able to take seriously those people who are of faith.

Yeah I get that. You find their lack of discernment "unfortunate". You're trying hard to separate their belief systems in action from what they actually believe, but it doesn't really work that way. It's denigrating and prejudicial.

There's believe and there's "believe".

I was careful in my above quote to say "embrace things that are out of the realms of perceived, mainstream possibility" because I want to amek it clear that I am not necessarily talking about religion.

I know. You want to introduce your concepts with as much wiggle room as possible when it suits you to, because you don't want to get pinned down by what you really are trying to say. Which is understandable, but then, in statements like that one - "embrace things that are out of the realms of perceived, mainstream possibility" - you wind up implying that the inspired work of diligent scientists is somehow in a continuum with your notion of "belief in things that cannot be proved", which I find to be somewhat disingenuous.

You wish to pin things down so you have something to attack. And you wish to attack the variable accoutrements rather than the core substance.

I said it is a shame that they are biased. It isn't the same thing.
If someone drops their keys down a volcano, that's a shame but it isn't shameful. See?
If someone's new puppy dies it's a shame, but not shameful.
If you get a bad haircut the day before your wedding that's a shame, not shameful.

So now the prejudice that you see on the board against people of faith is being equated with all the seriousness of losing one's keys or getting a bad haircut? If that's the extent of the damages (which I'm inclined to agree that it is, based on the scant evidence for the prejudice available here), then why all the fuss? Also, I wouldn't equate the death of a baby animal with key-loss, personally.

Death is only so tragic to those who believe it constitutes the ultimate end of existence. Which it does, for a puppy, but that's not the point. But a prejudice against faith on this board could hardly be expected to cause substantial real world damage.

Unlike yourself, though, I never went through a period of atheism in my life. You're like a reformed alcoholic, for whom the tippling of social drinkers has now become unacceptable.

Have I told you how shameful I consider any consumption of alcoholism to be, and about my previous consumption thereof? But this is well-known, the most fanatical muslim fundamentalists are allegedly late converts, and the Bible specifically says that repentant sinners are God's favourites because their sorrow as to their former conduct will motivate a greater renovation of their souls and activities. Mister Catholic.

Perhaps I can give a shout out to a couple of others who might or might not be able to just confirm or deny for barracuda whether or not this OP has a place and a point at RI.

I don't have any problem with the discussion. It's your prejudice and painting of others on the board as hurtful that I find dangerous and offensive, when what is really happening is simply disagreement with your arguments. Disagreeing with your personal position does not constitute prejudice against people of faith, and to imply that it does is nonsense.

May I suggest that if you are causing upset to people who feel that upset on the basis of their attachment to their faith then you should consider your conduct and the likely repercussions thereof, and reform your conduct so as to minimise offence caused?

[barracuda]

And the shitty defense of a bad premise ends with a retreat into victimhood and hollering for mom and dad.

Not to mention gender-baiting...

I agree. It's offensive and hypocritical.

May I suggest that if you are causing upset to people who feel that upset on the basis of their attachment to their faith then you should consider your conduct and the likely repercussions thereof, and reform your conduct so as to minimise offence caused?

That is precisely what I have been doing.

[Laodicean]

In your own mind perhaps.

[Stephen Morgan]

And the shitty defense of a bad premise ends with a retreat into victimhood and hollering for mom and dad. Nice.

Maybe those who criticize the whole village shouldn't complain about dogpiles.

It would be nice if people would stop appealing to the mods for every little thing. Jeff, Jeff, he called be a nasty name! Jeff, Jeff, he pushed me! Jeff, Jeff, he doesn't believe in the imminent extinction of economically viable oil supplies and the inevitable consequent collapse of western society and a substantial decline in the population of the earth!

Gets on my nerves. My aversion to unnecessary restrictions on board conduct remains undiminished.

[MacCruiskeen]

My aversion to unnecessary restrictions on board conduct remains undiminished.

Mine too. As does my aversion to Bully Boys who don't have the grace or intellectual honesty to apologise when they're caught offering dumbfuck pseudoresponses that merely waste people's time, especially when they're Big Boss Moderators to boot.

[norton ash]

MacC, your chivalry reminds me of Don Quixote. You make me proud to be a windmill.

[MacCruiskeen]

Norton, your chivalry reminds me of a drunk harrassing a barmaid. You and the other Bully Boys make me proud to be Don Quixote.

(And since when have you been a moderator?)

[norton ash]

But Aldonza said the devil stalks the inn and us tosspots are his minions, and she wouldn't let it go. So some of us took the piss.

Too hard to resist for an immoderate few, I guess.

[Searcher08]

It has been implied on this board that my use of statistics to back up one of my positions is an indication that I have a non-functioning occult third eye. .. I feel quite certain it will help them to learn empathy and be more sensitive and aware in our future interactions. Besides, it will be fun and make me feel better!

It better be fun, cos i wouldn't rely on the theophiliacs learning empathy with nonbelievers. The former always regard the latter as less than, subhuman even, and we all know where that leads.

barracuda - here's one. It is like when you ask for evidence they give it to you ... It's happened a few times - but you don't see it.
Why not?

I would like to gently but meaningfully say that there are some cognitive blindspots with the people of Scientism, big enough to drive a locomotive through.

and absolutely, C_W - the irony and TBH hilarity for me is that the sort of stuff that is going on here is doing here, I was doing a lot in the mysogny thread in a different context It's the "foot stamp - but I AM a sensitive guy who loves the Feminine, so you have no right to be angry at men - or ME"

Well, I got over that one and I really wish to fuck that wintler and AD would get over their 'self-righteous unexamined more-logical-than-thou' BS which never actually gets the discussion.

Please do not characterise me as science hating - I adore maths and logic - I just object to your making a religion out of it (The Holy Church of Critcal Tinking) and pretending you are not.

Whenever you have been challenged on that, the response is... chirping crickets.
I would love to stick some people on this thread into an fMRI machine and watch the same religious brain centres light up when you watch TAM (Randi debunks 9/11!!!) highlights as a born again watching Benny Hinn Raises the Dead.

A_D, you think you have achieved some sort of Critical Thinking Game Treble Word Score by invoking reductio ad absurdum? This is precisely what you practice as thinking is so limited - you and the fellow 'critical thinkers' dont apply the same attention to your OWN thinking foundations as you do to others.
You have blinkers on - you parrot things in terms of LOGIC..
Well, WHICH logic? You know, there is actually MORE THAN ONE???
And in some of them, reductio ad absurdum ISNT ACTUALLY FRIKKIN VALID.

The mathematical school of so-called intuitionism has taken a definite line regarding the limitation of reductio argumentation for the purposes of existence proofs. The only valid way to establish existence, so they maintain, is by providing a concrete instance or example: general-principle argumentation is not acceptable here. This means, in specific, that one cannot establish (∃x)Fx by deducing an absurdity from (∀x)~Fx. Accordingly, intuitionists would not let us infer the existence of invertebrate ancestors of homo sapiens from the patent absurdity of the supposition that humans are vertebrates all the way back. They would maintain that in such cases where we are totally in the dark as to the individuals involved we are not in a position to maintain their existence.

Am I pissed off - yes - because as Mac so eloquently posted, your whole epistemology is a croc of shit - and a deeply oppressive patriarchal, Western European based Socratic one at that. It is a style of thinking that is inherently producing of Orthodoxy - in fact I would say there is a lot of evidence that Orthodoxy emergent readily from within it, and creates an environment that is extremely destructive of curiousity.

You really think that science acts on the basis of LOGIC??
Do you think we are going to solve the worlds issues by teaching the world to think SYLLOGISTICALLY??

<WAITS FOR TYPICAL BARRAGE OF DEEPLY CRAP CARTOONS>

TBH , Like MAC, I'm amazed that CW has stuck around in this thread, but good for her for doing so.

[Searcher08]

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


Exhibit D

Oh, come on! There is much to be critiqued in certain areas of (apolitical) "New Age" thought. It doesn't prove that one is against all "New Age" spiritualities to do so.

Much less against all "faith" or all religion...

In context, that is as really disingenous to put it mildly - and as feeble as posting a caricature racist cartoon and when people object to it wailing "But some of my best friends are black!!!!"

[Searcher08]

And the shitty defense of a bad premise ends with a retreat into victimhood and hollering for mom and dad. Nice.

Maybe those who criticize the whole village shouldn't complain about dogpiles.

It would be nice if people would stop appealing to the mods for every little thing. Jeff, Jeff, he called be a nasty name! Jeff, Jeff, he pushed me! Jeff, Jeff, he doesn't believe in the imminent extinction of economically viable oil supplies and the inevitable consequent collapse of western society and a substantial decline in the population of the earth!

Gets on my nerves. My aversion to unnecessary restrictions on board conduct remains undiminished.

Hey, you Midlands boy! Shut The Fuck Up!

[Canadian_watcher]

You asked me the to do the following:

Now show precisely where in the OP, or in the any of early pages of this thread, C_w "attribut[ed] qualities to posters here" of any kind whatsoever.

And I provided this:

For those of you embittered, angry people who cannot possibly separate out the Christian Fundamentalists in the US from other people of faith - have it your way.

Now do you or don't you believe cw was addressing nonparticipating readers/lurkers?

edit:
And yes I understand you stipulated "early pages of this thread", but I fail to see why that matters at all, unless you want to argue that cw has been harassed into becoming irrational and throwing accusations around that she can't substantiate.

A. they are easily substantiated.. and
B. Do you really think that that doesn't happen in nature? That people and animals don't get surrounded and hounded and picked on until they do something to defend themselves?

Be proud! You were one in the line of the murder of crows, squawking and cawing until the cat (being a cat and all) took a swipe at you. Shit happens, bro. You don't like it, make a point worth something. Answer any of the questions put to any one of you that you have all failed to answer.

Bunch of chickens.

[norton ash]