On Sep 5, 9:12 am, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:24:17 -0700 (PDT), PG 
> wrote:

> >On Sep 3, 11:04 am, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:55:58 -0700 (PDT), PG 
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 3, 7:56 am, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 00:52:24 +0100, "John Brockbank"
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >"Sleepalot"  wrote in message
> >> >> >news:8t3rb4l3u6bovuip3q1dak9n3uqtcokcru@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> "John Brockbank"  wrote:
>
> >> >> >>>I think, in fact I know, it is a mistake to think that because Lee wrote
> >> >> >>>something offensive to you, that means things are 'polarised'.  Fact is,
> >> >> >>>he
> >> >> >>>is just offensive - he has done it to just about everybody who ever posts
> >> >> >>>anything.
>
> >> >> >> He has never offended me.
>
> >> >Hasn't offended me either, despite a couple of attempts. Have to have
> >> >a minimum of respect for someonre before he can offend you. Still he
> >> >has misconstrued enough of my comments to make me wonder whether he
> >> >understands or is interested in understanding the more in-depth
> >> >issues.
>
> >> >> >It is really extraordinary how illogical people can be.  I refer to a person
> >> >> >who has called somebody who, quite evidently is a reasonably sensible person
> >> >> >and who merits a decent answer and some respect, 'a moron', which is the
> >> >> >type of thing that person says to plenty of people (you can see I am sure
> >> >> >that he has said to me some silly teenage remark about which planet I am on
> >> >> >and how I should 'for once' show some honesty) - I don't know how many
> >> >> >quotations I need, and you merely retort that he has not offended you?
>
> >> >> I only treat idiots as idiots.
>
> >> >You're something of an arrogant, patronising sob, aren't you.
>
> >> In your dreams.
>
> >> Why should inconsiderate theists get an undeserved free ride?
>
> >No one, least of all me, suggested they should. But unfortunately, by
> >using your tactics, that's precisely what you are doing - giving them
> >a free ride. Why? Because no matter how extensively the fragility of
> >their argument is exposed by rational, calm debate, you step in to
> >provide them with the perfect excuse to dismiss atheism. The
> >stereotyped alleged lack of morals, tolerance, as well as the rudeness
> >of atheists generally. QED as far as they are concerned.
>
> They don't listen. There's nothing to "debate".

That's a bland assertion that is unlikely to stand up to intelligent
scrutiny. Care to attempt to substantiate it?

> Look at Richard for example.
>
> >> Do you have a better word than "idiot" to describe one who presumes
> >> his god in the real world outside his religion, to people he knows
> >> don't share his belief?
>
> >Sure. 'Brainwashed', 'manipulated'. Programmed by a genetic
> >disposition to believe in something (whatever) as an unfortunate
> >byproduct of a directly advantageous trait (that part of social
> >behaviour that requires conformity/belief). But I would use any
> >description sparingly, and of course it's mostly counterproductive to
> >insult.
>
> It's not an insult but a fact.

Another bland unsubstantiated Leeism. Back it up.

> And merely doing unto them as  they did unto us.

It's fortunate that you're unlikely to be appointed to as a UN
conciliator. 'Do unto them as you would have others do unto you' might
be preferable. I think the reciprocal altruism gene might have missed
a generation in your case.

> >> Or who lecture as to what our POV "really" means, dismissing
> >> explanations why they get it wrong?
>
> >Arrogant, patronising and intolerant. Pretty much as you do
> >occasionally, in fact.
>
> Only when they deserve it.
>
> But then you knew that.

Don't put words into my mouth. You are mistaken. Again.

> >> >> If you don't like it, try not to be one.
>
> >> >I forget - are you from across the Pond? Introspection and humility
> >> >are not the strongest qualities of a sizeable percentage of Americans,
> >> >IME.
>
> >> Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha.....
>
> >Ah, so you probably are from across the Pond. If you're a Brit who
> >lives there, it must be catching.
>
> I treated idiots as idiots when I still lived there.

I'm hardly surprised.

> They didn't like it - but most of them realised it was in reaction to
> their own stupidity and rudeness.

I sincerely doubt that 'most' of them realised any such thing.

> But there were less of them.
>
> >> >Usenet groups are not private clubs. If this place was just reserved
> >> >for atheists, given the tone and standard of debate you and a couple
> >> >of others generally engage in I would have gone elsewhere a while
> >> >back. Before you turned up there was some genuinely useful and
> >> >intelligent atheist contributions from the likes of Peter Ashby, Peter
> >> >Brooks and others. The Charter is about as simple as it gets -
> >> >"philosophical and general discussion of atheism in the UK". Just
> >> >because religionists wade in sometimes with their daft preconceptions
> >> >doesn't mean you have to respond in kind, adding the usual puerile
> >> >insults.
>
> >> I never said they were private clubs.
>
> >> Once again, the intelligent ones get treated with respect.
>
> >> The stupid ones as idiots.
>
> >Reinforcing their preconceptions about atheists.
>
> Reinforcing our conclusions about them.
>
> >> The rude ones as rude.
>
> >Reinforcing their preconceptions about atheists.
>
> Reinforcing our conclusions about them.

You are confusing your possessive pronouns again. The word you are
looking for is "my".

> >> Examples: preaching, presuming their god, bringing it up where it is
> >> inappropriate, telling us what our POV "really" is,
> >> amateur-psychologising  non-existent "motives" et,.
>
> >> God-talk is hardly "discussion about atheism".
>
> >Of course it is. You and I just don't consider their 'evidence' to be
> >admissible.
>
> Bullshit.

Oh, so you do consider their evidence to be admissible? Or do you mean
you consider their evidence to be "bullshit"? Your point?

> It is irrelevant and off-topic anywhere but inside their religion.

It is evidence that we consider to be invalid in the general debate
about the existence or otherwise of deities. Up to us to demonstrate
that the evidence is 'bullshit', which we  can and do do regularly.
Strangely enough, the argument as folows:

- "Miracles are evidence of God's work".

- "Bullshit"

Isn't terribly effective.

> >> But it doesn't even matter that it is an atheist group.
>
> >It's an atheism group. An 'atheist' group can leave the wrong
> >impression.
>
> They should learn how to behave outside their religion.

Whereas some just need to learn how to behave, period.

> >> If a theist knows he is talking to an atheist, he  has to show more
> >> respect than impugning our honesty if we don't believe what he does,
> >> than talking about his beliefs as though they were real, etc,
>
> >Ironic. Replace theist by atheist in the above, and atheist by theist,
> >and you have precisely the same criticism of atheists such as
> >yourself  that we see on xian ngs.
>
> More bullshit.
>
> When have I ever started any cross-posts on theist groups, moron?

I'll leave it to other readers to work out who's winning in the
moronicity stakes. In the meantime, is that the best argument you can
come up with? Atheism is (for the majority) a non-belief in g(G)od(s).
To discuss the topic of non-belief, we have to talk about what
constitutes belief and the alleged supporting 'evidence', funnily
enough. Doh.

> Let alone the kind of stupidity they expect us to put up with?

It's somewhat more than stupidity. It is a highly complicated long-
evolved programmed psychological process at work, combined with the
memetic effect. That needs to be explained to theists, as well as the
undecided. And to some atheists who seem to have little notion of what
evolutionary psychology is all about. That is, assuming you are
concerned about the potential negative effect on science, scoial
stability, our children etc. Maybe you aren't.

> >> >In my view comments from you in particular are a main reason why
> >> >lurkers and some intelligent atheist ex-posters, a number of whom are
> >> >bound to have something useful to contribute, don't bother. You and
> >> >your ilk are, imo, bad for the ng and atheism generally, in the same
> >> >way that DILV and Mormons are useless spokespeople for their
> >> >religions.
>
> >> Bwaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha......
>
> >You can laugh, but it doesn't change the fact that on this ng, and
> >privately, I've seen plenty of comments from athiests who agree that
> >badmouthing theists does us no favours..
>
> Fact not badmouthing.
>
> They don't listen.
>
> And unless they have been egregiously stupid they get at least one
> chance.
>
> Which for some reason they waste.

(a) they are *your* facts, (b) they are unlikely to listen to
badmouthing, and (c) it takes time, and a lot of patience, to
counteract the effects of behavioural programming.

> >> >People on Xian ngs such as ukrc discuss the way they are treated here
> >> >during a brief sortie, and from the follow-ups it's clear that you
> >> >help to reinforce their preconceptions about atheism and their own
> >> >misguided convictions. Well done mate.
>
> >> That's their problem.
>
> >If it was only their problem, I wouldn't bother engaging theists in
> >debate here or anywhere else. Unfortunately nothing could be further
> >from the truth. There are dangers inherent in religion that affect us
> >all, in a multiplicity of ways.
>
> The issues are the behaviour of theists, not their gods.

The issue is why theists behave as they do. That is partly because
they attempt to model their behaviour according to the alleged
objective, supernaturally-imposed, standards of their gods.

> And as long
> as we let them get away with it they will keep doing it.

To an extent. That has never been disputed. But this also implies
understanding the theist psyche in order to effectively address the
problem.

> >> Those are the stupid ones.
>
> >> Who turn into whining hypocrites.
>
> >So you have to call them names? That's pretty juvenile. Not to mention
> >pointlessly reinforcing their misconceptions just so you can vent some
> >spleen.
>
> What names?

This is getting surreal. Ok, "idiot", "moron", "liar" etc. Otherwise
known as ad hominems.

> And why the theist-like lie?

Can you translate that into English?

> Did you think Richard was reasonable?

Not especially, but he was coming around to understanding that a
different approach might be more productive. Shows he's learning.

> He merely got what his rudeness and stupidity deserved.

IYO.