Bush-loving Republican. Conservative Christian. Welcome?

Not really.

Back when Prok used to harass so many people, he still would occasionaly post things that made sense. But even in those cases, I was pre-disposed to disagree with him, I noticed. Even when I noticed it, I sometimes still found myself doing it. People tend to form opinions of people over time like that... There's an old adage that goes "he who seeks a reason to be offended will always find one". And it's pretty much true. But the question is /why/ is the person looking for offense?

If a person is - as a matter of course - combative, or at least abrasive, it's just human nature to eventually begin to read anything they say in that light. It conditions a person to view anything they say with the assumption that it's meant in an abrasive manner. That's not the same thing as just playing the victim.

In this specific case, I can easily see how, given a history with Ulrika on arguing that particular point, it could be viewed as a needless jab - in point of fact, I think it kinda was, though not a major one. Because there is history there.

hehe, you say not really but then in your next paragraph justify why it is really the case. I was the same way with prok, but it had much less to do with his demeanor than with the utter lack of rationalism. I have a much higher tolerance for people being snarky than with people asserting things as facts that are only personal opinions, especially if the argument behind those opinions lacks any logical or rational basis. I really don't have a problem with people taking issue with ideas or personalities, but as soon as you take issue with personality you lose the high ground. Nothing wrong with that unless you're trying to claim it.

Chip is doing an excellent job of supporting my position, whereas Reitsuki is doing an excellent job of misrepresenting my position. You could be my lawyer any day Chip.

Jesus was snarky too!

~Ulrika~

If I were the judge, I'd agree with Reitsuki that there is no need to call anyone stupid in a debate forum, even in general terms, without naming names. It would be like me saying "Anyone who doesn't believe in God is a complete idiot, can't they open their eyes to reality?" It would be wrong to do that, no matter my personal feeling. It doesn't further the debate, and it's only meant to inflame.

I agree with Reitsuki that there is no need to call anyone stupid in a debate forum, even in general terms, without naming names. It would be like me saying "Anyone who doesn't believe in God is a complete idiot, can't they open their eyes to reality?" It would be wrong to do that, no matter my personal feeling. It doesn't further the debate, and it's only meant to inflame.

Not everyone who believes in a God is "stupid". It's just that the belief in the supernatural correlates strongly with indoctrination and lack of education.

~Ulrika~

95% of the world believes in a god of some sort. Including most scientists. So I guess you might say most (insert any group here, smart people, dumb people etc) believes in a god.

It breaks my heart that you don't understand what correlation means.

Not everyone who believes in a God is "stupid". It's just that the belief in the supernatural correlates strongly with indoctrination and lack of education.

~Ulrika~

"Believing in a God" can mean an awful lot of different things.

To me, it seems atheists are goodhearted, nice people, who will do good for anyone they find needy.

However, it's my opinion some atheists are just as bad as the street corner preacher, who demands we must agree with them or burn in hell, or be labeled indoctrinated or uneducated.

Some atheists can debate issues without offending anyone. Just as some Christians can.

But some atheists or Christians can be trolls, seeking only to disrupt any positive conversations, because it upsets their delicate sensibilities. To them (atheist), allowing a conversation about God is wrong. To a Christian troll, it's wrong to allow atheists the right to deny the existence of God. It's their duty to stop any conversation of God, and ridicule any who dare continue. Both are nothing more than trolls, and should be removed from the forum. That's why it's important to report those who constantly seek to inflame.

Let's start with those damn ID trolls. (Stated sarcastically in light of the actual thread topic. )

~Ulrika~

Chip, don't think or speak for me, please. You are not my agent, and I don't grant you power of attorney.

The particular comment I responded to, had it occurred in a vacuum, wouldn't have bothered me one iota. It amounted to the preschool version of one last pinch before a timeout in the corner. No, it's Ulrika's long-standing crusade that bothers me. Snarky is as snarky does.

The spirit of this thread was summed up in Eggy's final statement:

I suppose there's no point continuing the dialog other than I refuse to be shut down.

Who's trying to shut you down, Paolo? Who's trying to speak for you? Not I. This topic was all generalities without anything personal at all until you made a personal attack. If you don't like Ulrika, great. That's certainly within your rights. If you don't like me either, have at it. But can you not see the irony, in a thread about tolerance as it relates to diametrically opposed points of view, that you were the first to hurl a personal attack while claiming that believers are being victimized here? I can, so I commented on it.

Chip, in a couple of earlier posts, you presumed to understand my thoughts and motives, and proceeded to reduce them down to trite anecdotes. How was that not designed to minimize my dissenting voice?

And, where exactly was my personal attack? I strongly addressed a person's behavior without attacking the person's innate human value. If you feel that I committed a personal attack, then I invite you to click the little red triangle, but don't over-dramatize what I said. I think that you are reading more into my posts than is really there.

One point I forgot to address, earlier, is that both you and Ulrika, within this thread, have suggested that belief in the supernatural or a religion implies lack of education and/or of childhood indoctrination. How is that not a generalized attack designed to label a broad swath of people as, at minimum, suspect? Unlike you, I was not raised in a church family, and I've pretty much been on the rebel fringe of the church ever since I became affiliated with a church in my teens. Because it wasn't foisted on me, I was pretty much free to find my own spiritual path. That, and I am a college graduate with a pretty darn high GPA. So, there goes that theory.


So, you or anyone can run around saying stuff like, 'those effing faggots' or 'those darned people of a certain race, creed or color,' but because it wasn't aimed at an individual, it's not a form of intolerance? Lovely logic. You might wanna check with your HR director to see just how little it takes to establish a harrassment suit.

So, not only is an intolerant statement not so when it is not directed at an individual, the offended party is branded the intolerant party for objecting. Oh, that's lovely. And, here we go again presuming to know my mind. I don't see myself as a victim; I see myself as an advocate for the dissenters.

I did? I gave you my opinion of what it appears like to me. Nowhere do I claim psychic powers. It appears to me, even more now than before, that you are taking offense at things that aren't particularly offensive and are valid pesonal opinions, and branding the opinion holders as trite, dismissive, intolerant, campy, vulgar, and probably a couple more adjectives I missed.



See above. Who's being overly dramatic?



I didn't address correlation to education at all. I did comment on indoctrination and exactly why I think it's a fair statement to make. Most people continue through life with the same religion they were born into and that they were raised to believe in. That's called indoctrination. I don't really know how anyone can logically dispute that. I'm sorry if you find that factual statement to be offensive. It is, however, an objective fact.

As for lack of education, there is a strong correlation between it and religious faith. That doesn't mean that all people of faith are poorly educated. It doesn't even mean that most are. However, most poorly educated people are religious. You can debate the merit of the assumed causation, but the correlation is another objective fact. Again, sorry if you find that uncomfortable or offensive. You are the one choosing to take these things as personal insults when they're not. They are opinions about fairly objective observations.



That's great, and good for you. I don't recall anywhere in the thread where your GPA or childhood experiences were called into question.



Now you're going completely off the rails. Have I ever called anyone an effing faggot? Has Ulrika? So now you're out and out implying that Ulrika and I are bigots? Why not throw in baby eating or a few nazi references while you're at it.



Great. Kindly stop acting like one. In my personal opinion you are being by far the most intolerant person in this thread about tolerance, and frankly I'm sorry I commented on your statements at all. We used to have some great and very respectful discussions about these topics, but lately you take everything personally and start in with this routine. It's a shame because you used to be one of my favorite people to debate precisely because you're very intelligent and used to be tolerant.

Too much to quote, so I will just reply in general. First, I didn't attack a person; I took issue with a person's stated position. Based on other definitions offered herein, doing such is permissible while not being intolerant. Intolerant would be: "You atheist intellectuals are worthless jerks who don't deserve to be heard, at all." I didn't say that.

Ulrika made the direct correlation between education level and religious adherence. I addressed both of you in that context, and should have been more precise.

My GPA comes into play only to refute the above sentiment that religious adherents lack eduction.

No, I never accused you of calling anyone an effing faggot. I was drawing a parallel based on the logic you presented. Your logic suggests that we can say anything derogatory provided that it isn't directed at an individual. I kinda doubt that the various civil rights movements would agree.

I, too, used to enjoy debating with you, Chip, but I would assert that you are far more intolerant in that it appears that, in your atheistic zeal, you have no tolerance for those who believe differently.

As for me, I have grown very tired of the constant berating, belittling and aggressive behavior of those on the scientific/atheistic side of these debates. Heck, why would someone like Eggy even start a thread like this if there weren't some pretty serious groupthink going on.

Obviously "Republicans" aren't accepted here unless they follow certain special rules that only apply to them. That's fine, though, that's how it works everywhere when someone knows something that the majority of people in a place don't want to hear about, because it gives them the truth pains. I am quite used to it.