PG  wrote:

>On Sep 5, 11:11 am, Sleepalot  wrote:
>> PG  wrote:
>> >On Sep 3, 9:54 pm, Sleepalot  wrote:
>> >> Ian Smith  wrote:
>> >> >The Magpie wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Intentionally offensive remarks have a valued and valuable role in
>> >> >> conversations, particularly with those who's views are themselves
>> >> >> offensive or objectionable.
>>
>> >> >I'm not convinced, in this context.
>>
>> >> >The theists have a mistaken notion that morals come from religious
>> >> >belief (we can see that here with Dave ranting on about relative
>> >> >morals rather than absolute). For atheists to be offensive just
>> >> >serves to confirm their delusions and hands them the (absolute)
>> >> >moral high ground.
>>
>> >> Have you ever known a fundie to change their mind about anything
>> >> regarding us? Has Dave learned anything about anything during his
>> >> time here?
>>
>> >Yes, I have.
>>
>> But you don't want to talk about it?
>
>I answered your question. What makes you think I wouldn't want to talk
>about it? How odd. And it was you that changed the emphasis of my
>point away from "theists" (pg) to fundamentalists.

I asked about fundies because in my decade of reading 
atheism groups, I haven't seen many non fundie theists. 
In that time I've never seen a fundie change their mind. 
You say you have, so I'm naturally interested in hearing 
about that. What you've told me so far does not seem to
have been about any fundy changing their mind.   

>> >And outside fundamentalism,
>>
>> You meet fewer fundies - by definition (so I won't reply to
>> the next bit you wrote).
>> [snip]
>>
>Shame, because the vast majority of religious people are not
>fundamentalists, and certain of their beliefs are considerably harder
>to refute.. 

I'm not in the business of converting theists. Why should I?
Would they thank me if I destroyed their god?

>And if you don't want to talk about the less fanatical
>believer, then don't answer a point of mine (above), referring to
>"theists", as if I was talking about fundies alone.

Your purpose is making a case against being rude to theists.
Most of it is redundant, as I don't abuse all kinds of theists
in all situations. I don't go to church to abuse theists, but I
abuse those who come to my door. I don't (well, try not to)
abuse theists in uk.r.c, but I might here. On Usenet generally,
I take people as I find them. If I find them insulting, I react.
If a relatively reasonable, liberal theist were to wander in here,
I would not be immeadiately insulting towards him.
So, you need to limit yourself to making a case why I shouldn't
abuse insulting theists (usually fundies) here, otherwise you're 
wasting your time.  

>> > Remember that subconsciously theists are looking for any excuse
>> > to hang on to their beliefs, through fear of the alternative.
>>
>> I can't remember what I don't know. Fundies (and it is almost
>> invariably fundies) don't come here to refresh their faith, they
>> come to convert us.
>>
>> > Hardly a case of "the truth will set you free" in the theist
>> > subconscious, as this truth leaves them without the prospect of
>> > forgiveness, without a life after death, without the promise of
>>
>> [snip] Good greif! Are you getting paid by the word?
>> [snip]
>
>Good job *you* are not ("greif").

Gosh, I made a spelling mistake. Well aren't you just the 
biggest, cleverest person in the group, eh? 

> Now can we dispense with the ad hominems?

Stricly, an ad hom is a fallacious argument. I wasn't making
an argument, just critisizing you.

> Obviously sneering is a much-used sophistic tactic for some

Hew said, sneeringly.

>to avoid addressing complicated issues, but evolutionary psychology
>remains a key factor in the debate, whether you want to address it or
>not.

The guts of your argument so far is(/seems to be) that I
shouldn't abuse theists because religion is really, really, really
important to them, and because reasonable theists can be 
reasoned with. Most of your case seems irrelevant. 

>> >> >Personally, I find it can be very satisfying baiting a theist and
>> >> >watching them become offensive as they are unable to respond with
>> >> >logical argument, resorting instead to ad-hominem attacks.
>>
>> >> I've seen a few go into meltdown.  Some simply start with ad homs.
>>
>> >> > I'd be unhappy to think that they could make the same accusation
>> >> > against anyone here.
>>
>> >> Oh come on. They accuse us of anything and everything anyway.
>> >> That's what religion is for - browbeating other people.  
>>
>> >Even if your stereotype was remotely accurate - which it isn't if you
>> >venture into the world of the intelligent theist
>>
>> Ah there you go. I knew that's where you were going. You moved the
>> goalposts. In fact you moved them completely off the field and out of
>> town! Go to the top of this post, and see why I'm not going to follow
>> you.
>
>You came up with a very silly and simplistic stereotype "They accuse
>us of anything and everything anyway. That's what religion is for -
>browbeating other people." Pointing this fact out is remaining
>entirely on topic.

The type of theist I meet in atheism groups is a stereotype: fundie.

>> > (where DILVs and Mormons are ridiculed just as they are here, except
>> > politely)
>>
>> (that's merely a question of style -and makes no claim wrt sucess
>> rate)
>
>You appear to have lost the thread.

My reply makes sense to me.

>> > it is no justification for responding in kind.
>>
>> Why not? Because you say so?
>
>Sigh. No, for the reasons I have previously advanced in some
>considerable detail, even if wasted on you.

Wasted in the context of fundies coming to uk.p.a.

>> Are you telling me I should "turn the other cheek"?
>
>Sigh. No. Of course not. I've never even come close to it. On the
>contrary I engage theists on the debating 'front line' and on their
>own turf, unlike some who only feel comfortable slagging off somewhat
>less than intellectual fundies from the 'safety' of an atheism group.

I spent from 1Aug2000 to 10feb2003 posting in uk.r.c
Total 803 posts. I left when I became ill. I've done my
part on that score.


-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:

>The message 
>from Sleepalot  contains these words:
>
>> The guts of your argument so far is(/seems to be) that I
>> shouldn't abuse theists because religion is really, really, really
>> important to them, and because reasonable theists can be 
>> reasoned with. Most of your case seems irrelevant. 
>
>In my experience over the past 12 years theists seem to come on to
>atheist newsgroups to proselytise and not to debate.  They always run
>away from answering any request for evidence to back their beliefs or
>even to explain the basis of their beliefs.  Most of them seem to be
>fundies who cannot admit that the story of the creation in Genesis is
>just a myth.

Yep.
>
>Should we just ignore the various fruitcakes who haunt this NG?  or
>should we counter their ludicrous statements?

Aye, there's the rub!

Wether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the lies and insults of
outrageous fundies, ... 

> I agree that in general it can be done politely as nothing much is 
> to be gained from invective.

With fundies, nothing much is gained from politeness. 
Invective relieves stress.


-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 11:31:08 +0100, David Wynne-Griffiths
 wrote:

>The message 
>from Sleepalot  contains these words:
>
>> The guts of your argument so far is(/seems to be) that I
>> shouldn't abuse theists because religion is really, really, really
>> important to them, and because reasonable theists can be 
>> reasoned with. Most of your case seems irrelevant. 
>
>In my experience over the past 12 years theists seem to come on to
>atheist newsgroups to proselytise and not to debate.  They always run
>away from answering any request for evidence to back their beliefs or
>even to explain the basis of their beliefs.  Most of them seem to be
>fundies who cannot admit that the story of the creation in Genesis is
>just a myth.
>
>Should we just ignore the various fruitcakes who haunt this NG?  or
>should we counter their ludicrous statements?    I agree that in general
>it can be done politely as nothing much is to be gained from invective.

You can't get through to them.

Unfortunately Genesis and creationism is only one of the problems.

They all boil down to the fact that they are incapable of
understanding the real world outside their religion.

Hence their inconsiderate rudeness of talking at us as presuming God,
Jesus etc.

And the sheer nastiness of "correcting" us when we explain what
atheism is.

If we let them get away with any of this it establishes a sort of
pecking order.