How many people would go for this if they could?

[Eudaimonist]

dingdong is a diamond in the rough. She may benefit from feedback, even negative feedback, that will hopefully allow her to hone her conversational style.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wicked Willow]

dingdong is a diamond in the rough. She may benefit from feedback, even negative feedback, that will hopefully allow her to hone her conversational style.

I admire your positive attitude. Although an indefatigable optimist myself, I still recognize that in order for feedback to work, it would have to be accepted as such first.
As it is, dingdong has repeatedly demonstrated a profound unwillingness to agree to even the most basic terms of productive communication, and refused to make any effort towards doing better in the future.
At this point, I can only conclude that the user behind the handle "dingdong" is indeed what is called a "troll" in internet slang, deriving pleasure from "stirring up the pot" and not much else.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I still recognize that in order for feedback to work, it would have to be accepted as such first.

Agreed, and she doesn't. But being called a troll, no matter how accurate (or satisfying when one is exasperated), most likely doesn't encourage positive change. While I am certainly being heroically positive and optimistic right now, I'm also reminded of what succeeds and fails in encouraging people to become better persons. Dale Carnegie had a point when he suggested that changing a person's mind is much easier when one "Give them a fine reputation to live up to".

From his book:


Be a Leader: How to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment

1. Begin with praise and honest appreciation.
2. Call attention to other people's mistakes indirectly.
3. Talk about your own mistakes first.
4. Ask questions instead of directly giving orders.
5. Let the other person save face.
6. Praise every improvement.
7. Give them a fine reputation to live up to.
8. Encourage them by making their faults seem easy to correct.
9. Make the other person happy about doing what you suggest.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dingdong]

There are lots of gods.

There is only one living God.

[citation needed]
Until you can show sufficient reasons why anyone should believe that, the statement can only be assumed to be false.

 

[dingdong]

When I am given good reasons to change my mind I will, until then I will continue to reject all offers that I should get into your heads to meet your Gods, after all you refuse to meet my God Atheism. (and my God won't kill you if you reject him)

 

[sidhe]

[citation needed]
Until you can show sufficient reasons why anyone should believe that, the statement can only be assumed to be false.

And vice versa - when you make sweeping affirmative statements without support, we can only default to the negative.

When I am given good reasons to change my mind I will, until then I will continue to reject all offers that I should get into your heads to meet your Gods, after all you refuse to meet my God Atheism. (and my God won't kill you if you reject him)

Again, equation of all forms of theism with Abrahamic faiths - and with rather fundamentalist versions at that!

It's interesting that you describe atheism as a "god," though...does that mean you accept the idea of the nonexistence of deity on blind faith, rather than having reasoned out your own conclusions?

 

[SithDoughnut]

[citation needed]
Until you can show sufficient reasons why anyone should believe that, the statement can only be assumed to be false.

Ah. There's the fundamental flaw in your argument. Not what you said - that's true - the issue is that you apply that thinking to the claim "There is a God", but not to claims such as "There is no God" or "Religion is in your imagination".

Until sufficient reasons and evidence is shown to back up an argument or refute it, you cannot come up with a definitive answer. Instead you can only stop the line of thinking there and draw no further conclusion from it until said evidence is provided. Anything else would involve an unfounded assumption on which the second conclusion must be based.

For example, the reason I am an atheist is not because I believe there is no God. I am an atheist because there is no evidence for a God, and therefore I cannot make a further conclusion that I should believe in one. Therefore I do not believe in a God, because I have not seen the evidence that would allow me to reach a conclusion. Note the difference between "I believe there is no God" (a positive claim that requires evidence should you try to establish it as fact) and "I do not believe there is a God" (which does not require evidence). Hence gnostic atheism (which is a positive claim) and agnostic atheism (which is not).

 

[jpcedotal]

mentally challenged or VERY young....or both

She has been hurt by someone (my guess is a man) who called himself a Christian.

So now she hates everything Christian and can not believe in any god (other than herself) who would let whatever happened to happen.....

 

[dingdong]

It's interesting that you describe atheism as a "god," though...does that mean you accept the idea of the nonexistence of deity on blind faith, rather than having reasoned out your own conclusions?

I describe Atheism as a God because that's how religious people want it known as, and as I don't care what it's called I go along with it.
No 'blind faith' involved, until I can be shown that there are Gods I do the obvious, until they are shown that Santa exists they will be doing the obvious, and the obvious is, dismiss it out of hand as being untrue.

Ah. There's the fundamental flaw in your argument. Not what you said - that's true - the issue is that you apply that thinking to the claim "There is a God", but not to claims such as "There is no God" or "Religion is in your imagination

Until sufficient reasons and evidence is shown to back up an argument or refute it, you cannot come up with a definitive answer. Instead you can only stop the line of thinking there and draw no further conclusion from it until said evidence is provided. Anything else would involve an unfounded assumption on which the second conclusion must be based.

For example, the reason I am an atheist is not because I believe there is no God. I am an atheist because there is no evidence for a God, and therefore I cannot make a further conclusion that I should believe in one. Therefore I do not believe in a God, because I have not seen the evidence that would allow me to reach a conclusion. Note the difference between "I believe there is no God" (a positive claim that requires evidence should you try to establish it as fact) and "I do not believe there is a God" (which does not require evidence). Hence gnostic atheism (which is a positive claim) and agnostic atheism (which is not).

I normally do not make statements that I can not prove, but it only works one way, religious people are so sure that their beliefs are the only way to go they refuse to see that they just might be wrong, so I started doing to them as they do to non believers, making claims that were unprovable like 'There is no God', my aim is to get religious people to understand one simple thing, they might just be as wrong as they think I am.

 

[sidhe]

I describe Atheism as a God because that's how religious people want it known as, and as I don't care what it's called I go along with it.
No 'blind faith' involved, until I can be shown that there are Gods I do the obvious, until they are shown that Santa exists they will be doing the obvious, and the obvious is, dismiss it out of hand as being untrue.

I'd call atheism a metaphysical viewpoint, not a god.

Your assumptions concerning people of spiritual persuasions are rather sweeping and unfounded.

I normally do not make statements that I can not prove, but it only works one way, religious people are so sure that their beliefs are the only way to go they refuse to see that they just might be wrong, so I started doing to them as they do to non believers, making claims that were unprovable like 'There is no God', my aim is to get religious people to understand one simple thing, they might just be as wrong as they think I am.

I don't think you're wrong due to your metaphysical stances. I think your rhetorical technique is flawed and your ability to hold a mature and meaningful conversation is minimal.

 

[dingdong]

mentally challenged or VERY young....or both

Wrong, if I was mentally challenged I would be religious.

She has been hurt by someone (my guess is a man) who called himself a Christian.

As a devoted Atheist do you honestly think I would go out with a Christian? or anyone religious for that matter.

So now she hates everything Christian and can not believe in any god (other than herself) who would let whatever happened to happen.....

You got one part of that right anyway, I can not believe in any Gods.

 

[jpcedotal]

Wrong, if I was mentally challenged I would be religious.

As a devoted Atheist do you honestly think I would go out with a Christian? or anyone religious for that matter.

You got one part of that right anyway, I can not believe in any Gods.

Why the hate? I mean, if you do not believe in any god, then why make fun of those of us who do?

Why not just let bygones be bygones?

 

[dingdong]

I don't think you're wrong due to your metaphysical stances. I think your rhetorical technique is flawed and your ability to hold a mature and meaningful conversation is minimal.

I'm really sorry about that, all I can do is my best.
When someone starts talking about Gods their maturity seems to diminish they get mentally younger the longer they speak.

 

[jpcedotal]

Why come on a Christian site at all?

Is this the only form of interaction with others you have in your life?

Do you want a friend? There are some really really good girls on this site who have hearts of pure gold that are full of love and can't see nothing but the good in people.

Are you wanting a boyfriend? If so, check out the single's area and find your age group. Mostly the guys are metros and geeks with more than a few Mama's boys mixed in, but if that is your thang...this is the place for ya.

Quit being so defensive and just be yourself. I bet that girl is a lot nicer than this one you are pretending to be....

Did you notice how I didn't use "God" in any of this?

 

[SithDoughnut]

I normally do not make statements that I can not prove, but it only works one way, religious people are so sure that their beliefs are the only way to go they refuse to see that they just might be wrong, so I started doing to them as they do to non believers, making claims that were unprovable like 'There is no God', my aim is to get religious people to understand one simple thing, they might just be as wrong as they think I am.

The thing is that many of them do think that. Your various other claims which accuse religious people of being mentally ill, God just being a part of the imagination, and so on require evidence. Otherwise you're making yourself look just as bad as the religious people you're trying to persuade. Insults do not make a good argument.

 

[sidhe]

I'm really sorry about that, all I can do is my best.

You say this, then...

When someone starts talking about Gods their maturity seems to diminish they get mentally younger the longer they speak.

...you say this. Tell me - how does this statement advance your viewpoint in any way? Does it make your audience more likely to listen to you? When you make sweeping, unsupported claims about things like history (where there can be objective research and evidence) and compare them to a philosophical field like theology or metaphysics (which work in conjecture and possibility, rather than hard facts), do you really think that makes your stance seem stronger, or does it make you seem illogical?

When you broadbrush everyone who believes in any kind of metaphysical construct as if they were a hellfire-and-brimstone Christian or a Wahabbi Muslim, do you think that you're showing your knowledge of the subject, or sounding as prejudiced as those you claim to oppose?

Understanding something does not mean you agree with it, it just means you can speak on it from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALA" when someone explains how you're mistaken concerning your broadbrush statements isn't conducive to any kind of discussion.

 

[dingdong]

The thing is that many of them do think that. Your various other claims which accuse religious people of being mentally ill, God just being a part of the imagination, and so on require evidence. Otherwise you're making yourself look just as bad as the religious people you're trying to persuade. Insults do not make a good argument.

How can I give them evidence? God being part of their imagination should be self evident to them, where was their God before they believed in him and where will he go if they decide not to believe in him anymore? their God is a part of their imagination wether they believe it or not.

What about them insulting my intelligence with their talk of Gods and magic? I agree that I'm free to get away from religion anytime I want and they're not, they have been snared by a beast that can get into the deepest parts of their minds and hurt them badly, so I perhaps should be a bit more charitable.

 

[Mobiosity]

.

 

[Wicked Willow]

I describe Atheism as a God because that's how religious people want it known as, and as I don't care what it's called I go along with it.

Who are these "religious people" you reference here?
Do you think I hold this position? Do you think sidhe does? Do you think every person who identifies as a Christian does?
What you describe here isn't "religion", or "monotheism", or even "Christianity". It's fundamentalism: an extremist branch of religion, and (thankfully) a minority position.

I normally do not make statements that I can not prove, but it only works one way, religious people are so sure that their beliefs are the only way to go they refuse to see that they just might be wrong, so I started doing to them as they do to non believers, making claims that were unprovable like 'There is no God', my aim is to get religious people to understand one simple thing, they might just be as wrong as they think I am.

Unfortunately, you will have very little success with the tactics you currently employ. It is VERY easy to dismiss your posts simply on account of the broad and sweeping generalizations you employ, not to mention your unfounded assertions about historical facts that can easily be checked. (And nope, going for a "tu quoque"-fallacy doesn't help your case, either.)

At times, it seems as if you've read "The God Delusion" once, and now basically parrot what you remember of it. In spite of its flaws (and there are some), Dawkins's book *does* go to the trouble of providing sources for its assertions, whereas your "arguments" are the equivalent of a Wiccan shouting:

"The Catholic Church killed nine million women during the Burning Times!!!1!"

 

[jpcedotal]

Well whatever...

There are a lot of good people on here who would love to talk to you and try to be a friend and I bet if you asked them they could do it without having to "convert" you to their "childish" religion....

but you can't keep "zinging" everybody and then wonder why people get so uptight and offensive. Show a little love and respect and see how much comes back at you......