"Anti-church" - the sure way into doom

tryintogrow · Aug 5, 2017

Best as I can tell from the OP, the first idea here was that certain forms of decorum are common to man and necessary for discourse, and anyone who rejects them has a deeper problem. The OP felt like she came upon a pack of feral cats.

We tend to expect too much out of atheists because we have a polite civilization overall. They're capable of blending in with social norms, so we assume that these norms are common sense to them. However, in any venue, especially online, where atheists huddle together and assume control, depravity sets in very quickly.

Cearbhall · Aug 5, 2017

LaraLara said:
I recently had the doubtfull experience of encountering an atheist forum the "thinking atheist" that states in the rules that ad hominem attacks and foul language is allowed.

1. Such a forum is inacessible to the mentally handicaped as they can not stand such attacks.

...what?

LaraLara said:
I think it is because they want to be "anti-church".

I'm not seeing how these things are related.

essentialsaltes · Aug 5, 2017

tryintogrow said:
However, in any venue, especially online, where atheists huddle together and assume control, depravity sets in very quickly.

I think it's more about being online than being atheist.

SolomonVII · Aug 5, 2017

I don't have a problem with forums that allow swear words and personal attacks.

Sounds pretty boring though.
If all one needs to make an argument is the appropriate four letter word, and to call people names, I don't think that the mentally disabled would be excluded from such a discussion. It doesn't take much intellectual or emotional prowess to yell out words about bodily functions, after all.

tryintogrow · Aug 5, 2017

essentialsaltes said:
I think it's more about being online than being atheist.

Individuals lose their ethics online, but the huge majority of websites are moderated to keep things calm, and most individuals regret their language when they cool down. Atheist forums are famous for endorsing and applauding depravity.

Cearbhall · Aug 5, 2017

tryintogrow said:
We tend to expect too much out of atheists because we have a polite civilization overall. They're capable of blending in with social norms, so we assume that these norms are common sense to them. However, in any venue, especially online, where atheists huddle together and assume control, depravity sets in very quickly.

Wow.

I'm really glad that you're a Christian, since you seem to be completely unable to comprehend that there could be a reason to be a good person besides the threat of Hell.

Please don't project that fault onto others.

tryintogrow · Aug 5, 2017

SolomonVII said:
Sounds pretty boring though.
If all one needs to make an argument is the appropriate four letter word, and to call people names, I don't think that the mentally disabled would be excluded from such a discussion.

It depends on what we mean by personal attacks. If it's a silly juvenile personal insult, that's one thing. If someone advises you to commit suicide, or spreads a rumor that you're gay, or says you would never make it through college, those things can really hurt an unstable person.

tryintogrow · Aug 5, 2017

Cearbhall said:
Wow.

I'm really glad that you're a Christian, since you seem to be completely unable to comprehend that there could be a reason to be a good person besides the threat of Hell.

Please don't project that fault onto others.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said the threat of Hell was the only reason for polite decorum. And that is, after all, the only thing we're discussing on this thread. Name-calling on a forum.

SolomonVII · Aug 5, 2017

tryintogrow said:
It depends on what we mean by personal attacks. If it's a silly juvenile personal insult, that's one thing. If someone advises you to commit suicide, or spreads a rumor that you're gay, or says you would never make it through college, those things can really hurt an unstable person.

That is why those kind of attacks are illegal.

tryintogrow · Aug 5, 2017

SolomonVII said:
That is why those kind of attacks are illegal.

The OP here expressed concern about it. Take it up with them.

bhsmte · Aug 5, 2017

Aseyesee said:
Faith is required to not believe in God as much as it is required to believe in God.

It really depends how one chooses to apply the word faith and how each person interprets the meaning of the word.

For instance, I don't have faith the light will go on when I flip the switch, because I have a track record and objective evidence the light will go on. No faith is required for me, because I view faith, as really wanting something to be so, but you don't have much of any verifiable evidence it is so.

tryintogrow · Aug 5, 2017

This is why there's not much point in debating/discussing matters of faith. There is no common ground. There is no consensus on what words mean. No matter how basic a moral principle may sound, there is always a way to wiggle around it. No matter how common-sense a statement may seem, it quickly unravels under a microscope. We can't get past first base because we disagree on where the field is.

Rajni · Aug 5, 2017

LaraLara said:

I recently had the doubtfull experience of encountering an atheist forum the "thinking atheist" that states in the rules that ad hominem attacks and foul language is allowed.

Click to expand...

My first thought was that if ad hominem attacks are permitted in any forum, and given that such attacks are usually implemented when one has run out of good arguments for one's case, then such a forum mustn't have much to offer. I'd rather be enlightened than excoriated.

Rajni · Aug 5, 2017

LaraLara said:
It is discriminatory because it excludes the mentally ill. A forum with any sort of compassion should always be constructed for the weakest member.

Well, to be fair, some forums will by necessity contain content that isn't universally digestible. For example, I'm not about to tell someone they can't eat peanuts because my child happens to be deathly allergic to them.

LaraLara · Aug 5, 2017

RayJeena said:
Well, to be fair, some forums will by necessity contain content that isn't universally digestible. For example, I'm not about to tell someone they can't eat peanuts because my child happens to be deathly allergic to them.

Some forums will by necessity contain foul language and ad hominem attacks?

LaraLara · Aug 5, 2017

RayJeena said:
... then such a forum mustn't have much to offer. I'd rather be enlightened than excoriated.

It was impossible to discuss anything about physics in the physics section in a physics post. Judging from that the information content of the overall discussion will be rather low.

bhsmte · Aug 5, 2017

LaraLara said:
Some forums will by necessity contain foul language and ad hominem attacks?

If that disturbs you, I would just stay away from those forums.

LaraLara · Aug 5, 2017

bhsmte said:
If that disturbs you, I would just stay away from those forums.

It does not just disturb me, it would disturb anyone with similiar illness. If society would do this at large the mentally ill could not participate in any discussion anymore. Would you please stop designing the world as if only healthy people exist?

Rajni · Aug 5, 2017

LaraLara said:
Some forums will by necessity contain foul language and ad hominem attacks?

Given that foul language and ad hominem attacks suggest a weakness of either character or argument, forums "constructed for the weakest member" would allow for such things. I was thinking more along the lines of subject matter, not language and attacks.

bhsmte · Aug 5, 2017

LaraLara said:
It does not just disturb me, it would disturb anyone with similiar illness. If society would do this at large the mentally ill could not participate in any discussion anymore. Would you please stop designing the world as if only healthy people exist?

Billions of people in this world, so it is highly likely, the behavior of some will be disturbing to others.

That is reality, and it isn't going away.

"Anti-church" - the sure way into doom

ContraryTwit

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

ContraryTwit

Well-Known Member

ContraryTwit

ContraryTwit

Well-Known Member

ContraryTwit

Newbie

ContraryTwit

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯

1 leptofrofron + 1 leptofrafran = 1 leptofrofran

1 leptofrofron + 1 leptofrafran = 1 leptofrofran

Newbie

1 leptofrofron + 1 leptofrafran = 1 leptofrofran

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency