|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 11/06/2006 : 00:54:35 [Permalink]
|
SeanSinjin, I do get a strong impression that you would, were you able, do to the religious much the same kind of oppression that some of them have exerted upon freethinkers (and one another) over the centuries. Perhaps, as Dave has suggested, this comes a chip on your shoulder acquired during your own struggle to free yourself from irrational ideology.
My own youthful break from religion was gentler. My parents required my sister, my brother, and myself attend church services and Sunday school on a weekly basis. We kids were spaced apart by five years, my sister oldest, and my brother youngest. We attended my father's Church of Christ, and my mother's Methodist Church on alternating Sundays.
When I gained insight into the lack of evidence for a divinity (this came for me around the 4th grade, as a logical extension of my discovery that Santa Claus was fraudulent), I worked up my courage, and then announced to my mother and father that I didn't think God existed. I asked for permission not to attend church any further. Then I stepped back, fearing calamity. Both my parents appeared shocked. But as soon as they were able to speak again, they assured me that of course, I didn't have to go to church. They even seemed a bit embarrassed that I might have thought churchgoing was going to be required forever.
This is the kind of religious tolerance that I experienced from Christians, and it's the kind that I want to impart to others. This does not mean I will ever simply ignore the theistic nonsense in even the most "progressive" of religions. But it does mean that I don't want to exclude the religious from public life, as the fundies would do to me, or as you would seem to want to do to all the religious.
Many people have had really terrible experiences in their gaining of atheism, and many here have chips on their shoulders due to the experience. But some of those with the biggest chips struggle mightily to be fair and tolerant of religious people, or at least tolerant of those of them who display a sense of tolerance themselves.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
SeanSinjin
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 19:39:33 [Permalink]
|
Hi all,
Many of the observations made in recent postings have already been addressed in the BetterHuman.org weblog and as such, I will refer to those postings where appropriate.
quote:
From my chair, it sounds like you've got a gigantic anti-religion chip on your shoulder
I assure you that I am not revenge motivated; I am altruism motivated. Though I have a history of ethereal-addiction, any anger that resulted from being duped has long ago faded, and all that remains is the sincerest attempt to help people.
Here are a couple relevant weblog entries:
3-29
And a little ways into:
3-40
quote:
..due to a harsh awakening at an age when many are unable to cope with such stress.
That doesn't justify allowing ethereal abuse to continue, it just points to solving the real underlying issues.
quote:
you made it sound like anyone who believes in some sort of god is a rabid fundamentalist nutjob. You completely ignore (for example) the scientist working to save human lives who happens to go to church once a week and say Grace when with her family. This woman doesn't "forego" anything but sleeping in on Sundays and "tsk-tsks" from her maiden aunt at Thanksgiving.
I stand by my assertion that ‘any' degree of ethereal addiction is as wasteful, intellectually-stunting, and as potentially dangerous as any extreme portrayal of said addiction. Not to insult your intelligence, but this is why I feel that you may be missing the point when it comes to my disease analogy because I'm sure you'd agree that it only takes a single virus sample to infect, multiply, and destroy millions. There is no safe degree of infection.
Please read this weblog entry:
15-190
quote:
The way you "look at it" seems to obviously be an utter rejection of the realities of life for the vast majority of religious people. You've gone to once extreme of the religious spectrum, and so it looks - from your perspective - like everyone else is at the opposite extreme.
Not so my friend, I've only ever focused on curing the mental illness of religion itself. Please do not attempt to polarize BetterHuman.org against religious ‘people', we are only against ‘religion'. I've would never suggest that ‘most' people are so far gone that they need to have their minds completely wiped.
Again, here's another relevant weblog entry:
3-26
I'm of the camp that most people ‘go with the flow' and if I can get enough ‘atheism' momentum flowing, then it might become fashionable and hence open the gates to educating the masses completely away from ethereal addiction. This is my gameplan, which wouldn't seem reasonable to me if I, as you suggest, truly believed that most people were immovably immersed in their ethereal addiction. True, there will always be those beyond the point of no return, and can't be saved, but I have never suggested they represent the majority.
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2006 : 20:52:08 [Permalink]
|
I don't have time for much right now, but I had to respond to this:quote:
Originally posted by [b]SeanSinjin
I assure you that I am not revenge motivated; I am altruism motivated. Though I have a history of ethereal-addiction, any anger that resulted from being duped has long ago faded, and all that remains is the sincerest attempt to help people.
Here are a couple relevant weblog entries:
3-29
Wow! If you think this portrays you as a rational being, you're very much mistaken:No, my friend, most of my motivation stems from the fact that I am infinitely lonely on this planet. I feel like I've been zapped back into medieval times where the notions of sorcery and barbarism greatly outweigh intelligence. Most attempts to commune with my fellow humans usually boil down to an exercise in my accommodating their righteousness-empowered egos that serve to protect their faith perspective, rather than my truly connecting with them. If "most" of your attempts at "connecting" with people end with a clash with their (alleged) "righteousness-empowered egos," then the problem is not religion, the problem is you. Because most people, when attempting to connect with others, don't discuss their "faith perspectives" or anything close to it.
I'd be extremely interested in seeing video of you trying to make friends, as my hypothesis about this now is that you wind up bringing up religion, and the "ego" response you encounter is simply some poor schmuck's defense against your unexpected but "disciplined" and "not angry" attacks upon his sanity (which you probably just think of as "being honest"). In other words, I bet you insult the people you're trying to "connect" with, and drastically misinterpret their justifiable indignation at being treated in such a manner by someone they've only just met.
I'm sure I'll never be able to test my hypothesis, though. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
SeanSinjin
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2006 : 15:30:39 [Permalink]
|
Hello again my friend David,
quote:
If "most" of your attempts at "connecting" with people end with a clash with their (alleged) "righteousness-empowered egos," then the problem is not religion, the problem is you.
I disagree. It's due to our incongruent philosophies, and not because I'm lacking in some social graces. I politely and frankly state my position, and they take offense, and prepare defense. Their reaction is entirely autonomic on their part. Did I know they would have that reaction? Of course. Do I want them to have that reaction? Of course not. Can I somehow avoid giving them this reaction? Only by lying. Will I lie to them?
No.
quote:
Because most people, when attempting to connect with others, don't discuss their "faith perspectives" or anything close to it.
You're taking the quote out of its original context. It is only meant to apply to a willfully engaged ‘philosophical' discussion. You're assumption is incorrect; I don't make a habit out of purposely starting religion-defeating conversations because, believe me, they're not fun. However, it is an inevitable subject that surfaces over time, and no matter how close, friendly, or otherwise congruent I may be with someone, as soon as the religious barrier surfaces, it quickly reveals the colossal void that separates us. I wish it could be different, but they're the ones that are offended by me, and they're the ones that distance themselves from me; such is the nature of the resilient religious meme-virus. I do not project or choose this outcome. I just tell them the truth.
quote:
… you wind up bringing up religion, and the "ego" response you encounter is simply some poor schmuck's defense against your unexpected but "disciplined" and "not angry" attacks upon his sanity (which you probably just think of as "being honest").
Precisely.
quote:
In other words, I bet you insult the people you're trying to "connect" with, and drastically misinterpret their justifiable indignation at being treated in such a manner by someone they've only just met.
Not quite my friend; they ‘feel' insulted, but it never was my 'intention' to insult (the exact opposite actually, I'm trying to help), and again your assumption remains incorrect, it's not my first topic of choice. When it does come up, however, they are only insulted because a reality perspective clashes with their beliefs; an unavoidable impasse; unless of course, you believe when these conversations arise that I should ‘lie' to them about the validity of their fantasy perspective in order to placate their egos...
Kind Regards,
Sean Sinjin
BetterHuman.org Authenticity Code:
8a58da81-7ac1-4917-b0be-9cc7ec8628ac |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2006 : 16:37:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by SeanSinjin
It's due to our incongruent philosophies, and not because I'm lacking in some social graces. I politely and frankly state my position, and they take offense, and prepare defense. Their reaction is entirely autonomic on their part. Did I know they would have that reaction? Of course. Do I want them to have that reaction? Of course not. Can I somehow avoid giving them this reaction? Only by lying. Will I lie to them?
No.
It's exactly because you're lacking in social graces that you think your only choice is to "lie" to people or else be brutally honest about your ideas. Such a dichotomy is a fiction of people who prefer to be principled outcasts, no matter how much they complain about being lonely. It's a rationalization used when you know that people will take offense to what you say, but you're not imaginative enough to examine other options.
As I said, the problem is you. No matter how much you dislike it, you are the one who is violating societal norms. You've acknowledged that, by admitting that you know that people are going to 'feel' insulted, but you keep right on repeating that behaviour, anyway.
Were I to walk around using racial epithets all the time, it wouldn't be "race" that caused people to take offense, it would be me. Your behaviour is what is causing the problem, not religion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2006 : 20:10:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by SeanSinjin
It's due to our incongruent philosophies, and not because I'm lacking in some social graces. I politely and frankly state my position, and they take offense, and prepare defense. Their reaction is entirely autonomic on their part. Did I know they would have that reaction? Of course. Do I want them to have that reaction? Of course not. Can I somehow avoid giving them this reaction? Only by lying. Will I lie to them?
No.
It's exactly because you're lacking in social graces that you think your only choice is to "lie" to people or else be brutally honest about your ideas. Such a dichotomy is a fiction of people who prefer to be principled outcasts, no matter how much they complain about being lonely. It's a rationalization used when you know that people will take offense to what you say, but you're not imaginative enough to examine other options.
As I said, the problem is you. No matter how much you dislike it, you are the one who is violating societal norms. You've acknowledged that, by admitting that you know that people are going to 'feel' insulted, but you keep right on repeating that behaviour, anyway.
Were I to walk around using racial epithets all the time, it wouldn't be "race" that caused people to take offense, it would be me. Your behaviour is what is causing the problem, not religion.
Dave: Why are you acting like a troll here (quote mining)? Sean even points out in his last post that you were taking his comment out of context. ("You're taking the quote out of its original context. It is only meant to apply to a willfully engaged ‘philosophical' discussion. You're assumption is incorrect; I don't make a habit out of purposely starting religion-defeating conversations because, believe me, they're not fun.") Yet you again take his words out of context!
What's up with that? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2006 : 21:41:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Yet you again take his words out of context!
How so, when he told me that when the subject comes up - as he says it inevitably does - he thinks his only options are to say something that he knows will make other people "feel insulted" or to lie to them?
SeanSinjin, I apologize for assuming incorrectly that you initiated these friendship-killing conversations of yours. My previous reply is still apt without that assumption in play.quote:
What's up with that?
Well, what's up with this, ergo? After trying to net-cop an imaginary rule, you can't abide by it yourself and instead go off-topic in this thread to accuse me of trolling. Since you've violated a rule that you tried to enforce, after being given three official warnings, and because your first two posts after your holiday break were both trolling me personally, you're now on temporary ban. You can ask to have the ban lifted by emailing me no earlier than December 27th, 2006. If you attempt to post to the SFN before that date, or otherwise contact the staff here, the ban will be permanent. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 05:47:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Yet you again take his words out of context!
How so, when he told me that when the subject comes up - as he says it inevitably does - he thinks his only options are to say something that he knows will make other people "feel insulted" or to lie to them?
SeanSinjin, I apologize for assuming incorrectly that you initiated these friendship-killing conversations of yours. My previous reply is still apt without that assumption in play.quote:
What's up with that?
Well, what's up with this, ergo? After trying to net-cop an imaginary rule, you can't abide by it yourself and instead go off-topic in this thread to accuse me of trolling. Since you've violated a rule that you tried to enforce, after being given three official warnings, and because your first two posts after your holiday break were both trolling me personally, you're now on temporary ban. You can ask to have the ban lifted by emailing me no earlier than December 27th, 2006. If you attempt to post to the SFN before that date, or otherwise contact the staff here, the ban will be permanent.
Maybe there is a god after all!
And thanks to beskeptigal for the OP. I didn't know about this site. It is really interesting. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 05:59:04 [Permalink]
|
Ergo is gone, but, unfortunately, not forgotten. The bad troll odor lingers. I applaud Dave W. for his action, and his incredible patience up to now.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 06:13:02 [Permalink]
|
| It´s always disappointing when these things have to be done, but this individual... well let´s not speak ill of those that are unable to defend themselves here anymore. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 18:27:54 [Permalink]
|
| I feel bad that everyone didn't just take Kil's advise and ignore him. If everyone had, he probably would have just gone away on his own. C'est la vie. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
SeanSinjin
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 18:41:00 [Permalink]
|
Hi all,
The time has come to take my leave. Thank you so much for the very beneficial feedback that you've afforded me over the past few months.
Please take care,
Sean Sinjin
BetterHuman.org Authenticity Code:
87f4ea3e-65e8-4434-ab06-5d69bbe1da90 |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2006 : 20:22:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I feel bad that everyone didn't just take Kil's advise and ignore him. If everyone had, he probably would have just gone away on his own. C'est la vie.
(ahem!) Kil's advice? I beg your pardon! I seem to recall another person giving this advice early on in the ego123 episode, thank you very much! 
(goes off to sulk in the corner....unloved, unrecognized, unappreciated, unrewarded for his award winning sad-face performance) |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2006 : 22:14:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I feel bad that everyone didn't just take Kil's advise and ignore him. If everyone had, he probably would have just gone away on his own. C'est la vie.
Marf,
He kicked it up a notch or two. The banning was not something that was taken lightly or as a punitave step towards an arrogant attitude. We had ignored him and some outright stopped responding to him at all. He decided to press the issue in unrelated threads to make himself more trollish. Ultimately, this became a pattern of abuse of the TOS and Dave had no other choice than to ban him.
This guy took on the attitude of "you will pay attention to me" by hijacking threads. While not as in your face as latinijral, it was the same pattern of abuse we had seen in the past. In my opinion, he was becoming more and more entrenched. In my years as a sysop (umpteen hundred years ago in 19 ought 94), I have seen this behavior before. An arrogant person moves in and percieving a somewhat lax enforcement of forum rules, they become antagonistic to the regulars in an attempt to drive them off so that they can take the board over to advance their message.
I agreed that the pattern had crossed over from merely annoying to a pattern of abuse of the TOS. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 11/28/2006 22:17:33 |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2006 : 09:44:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I have seen this behavior before. An arrogant person moves in and percieving a somewhat lax enforcement of forum rules, they become antagonistic to the regulars in an attempt to drive them off so that they can take the board over to advance their message.
I agreed that the pattern had crossed over from merely annoying to a pattern of abuse of the TOS.
That's what I was somewhat afraid was going to happen. I was just about to post a message to that effect (that the troll was going to end up owning the forum) when the ban was put on him.
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
