Scriptural mythos without atheists March 28, 2005 7:30 AM Subscribe
In the same way we want to avoid people's pet theories on pornography invading threads on pubic shaving (old gray/green thread, wish I could remember the URLs), I wish Metafilter's multitude of strident atheists would extend the courtesy of keeping their unhelpful but oh-so-clever snarks [6,6,6] out of otherwise cogent discussions on scriptural mythos. We can talk about these things objectively without being vilified as damn fundies, right? Thanks, and Happy Easter.
I'm definitely an atheist (or, maybe more accurately, a Naturalistic Pantheist), and I think there are few things lower than proselytization. In either direction. Those snarks are way off base. In AskMe, if you're not part of the solution, don't be part of the thread.
posted by Plutor at 7:45 AM on March 28, 2005
posted by Plutor at 7:45 AM on March 28, 2005
As an atheist, I often wish that my fellow non-believers would treat religious folks and their beliefs with more respect, viz., we should stop treating religious folks as though they were deluded morons.
Having said that, there's often a reason why atheists have a chip on their shoulder in re religion and public discussion thereof, namely, the fact that public discourse is frequently so saturated with religious values that inherently exclude us.
And having said that, I've seen plenty worse on MeFi than in this AskMe thread, which snarks seem pretty tame in comparison. All things considered, the signal:noise ratio in that thread is pretty good, so, given the foregoing and human nature, what's to complain?
posted by mcwetboy at 8:02 AM on March 28, 2005
Having said that, there's often a reason why atheists have a chip on their shoulder in re religion and public discussion thereof, namely, the fact that public discourse is frequently so saturated with religious values that inherently exclude us.
And having said that, I've seen plenty worse on MeFi than in this AskMe thread, which snarks seem pretty tame in comparison. All things considered, the signal:noise ratio in that thread is pretty good, so, given the foregoing and human nature, what's to complain?
posted by mcwetboy at 8:02 AM on March 28, 2005
Given that the question is why the Number of the Beast is "666" rather than some other arbitrary number, I took all these "strident atheist snarks" as nothing more than pointing out that religion (unlike, say science or mathematics) is fundamentally arbitrary.
That's no slam against religion, by the way: religion is fundamentally arbitrary because what is right and wrong, even what is, is a matter of God's will, which, to paraphrase Augustine, isn't chained down to comply with mere human logic. Or as it's more commonly phrased: "God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform". Maybe the reason it's 666 rather than 555 is beyond human ken, and maybe that is because God prefers it to be beyond human ken.
Now for some actual atheistsnark caution: if your religion's premise is that it -- or at least important parts of it, like the nature of faith or the miracle of transubstantiation or the nature of the three-in-one trinity or the nature of the Divine -- is, according to your own theology, too awesome or too subtle or to sublime or too whatever to be comprehended by humans or parsed by human logic or judged by (merely) human methods, you can't really complain when you get "clever but unhelpful" answers to theological questions.
(And remember, a lot of atheists see your entire religion as a "clever but unhelpful" answer to fundamental questions about life and meaning.)
None of the answers you complain about were egregiously anti-theist, none read "Because your imaginary sky ghost friend is too stupid to have learned to count above six, ha-ha-ha" or "How stupid to think religion has any answers, you should come to my meeting of Smug Atheists, we'll learn you a thing or two boy!", so perhaps you ought to just accept that few theological discussions, even inside your own church or temple, much less on MetaSchism, are going to produce answers that unanimously satisfy your beliefs.
posted by orthogonality at 8:27 AM on March 28, 2005
That's no slam against religion, by the way: religion is fundamentally arbitrary because what is right and wrong, even what is, is a matter of God's will, which, to paraphrase Augustine, isn't chained down to comply with mere human logic. Or as it's more commonly phrased: "God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform". Maybe the reason it's 666 rather than 555 is beyond human ken, and maybe that is because God prefers it to be beyond human ken.
Now for some actual atheist
(And remember, a lot of atheists see your entire religion as a "clever but unhelpful" answer to fundamental questions about life and meaning.)
None of the answers you complain about were egregiously anti-theist, none read "Because your imaginary sky ghost friend is too stupid to have learned to count above six, ha-ha-ha" or "How stupid to think religion has any answers, you should come to my meeting of Smug Atheists, we'll learn you a thing or two boy!", so perhaps you ought to just accept that few theological discussions, even inside your own church or temple, much less on MetaSchism, are going to produce answers that unanimously satisfy your beliefs.
posted by orthogonality at 8:27 AM on March 28, 2005
Yes, this request has been made before and it's generally quite valid. Atheists need to chill on the constant need to actively debunk / disprove / mock all theistic belief systems. It's rude, it's unbecoming (especially of a group supposedly so secure in what they believe).
Ortho makes a fine example of himself here. "Well if your religion is gonna say that magic is real, then I'm just logically obligated to smack you down, yo."
No. No, you're not. Shut up.
posted by scarabic at 8:33 AM on March 28, 2005
Ortho makes a fine example of himself here. "Well if your religion is gonna say that magic is real, then I'm just logically obligated to smack you down, yo."
No. No, you're not. Shut up.
posted by scarabic at 8:33 AM on March 28, 2005
I agree with brownpau (and scarabic, on preview). Gettin' all righteously atheistic on pious threads may be fine in the blue, but we can assume that in terms of a useful "answer" for AskMe, the amazing fact that there's a context in which the question is meaningless has already occurred to the poster. This happened to me when I tried to find an answer to a question about Jesus and the culture that was operative during his supposed lifespan - andrew cooke had to make the point that since the loaves and fishes story was impossible, the question "just doesn't make sense." Noise.
posted by soyjoy at 8:38 AM on March 28, 2005
posted by soyjoy at 8:38 AM on March 28, 2005
Most1 atheists are reactionary in the literal sense of the word. It's more of an emotional phenomenon than an intellectual, as of course is also true of theism.
1 Some qualifications for that statement. First, among the "developed" nations, this is probably mostly only true in the US. Most other comparable societies don't have as oppressive of a religious milieu. Second, not only are large numbers of atheists not reactionary in this sense (I'm an example), it's also possibly true that there's a selection bias in my generalization: the most reactionary, most emotional, are also going to be by far the most visible.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:44 AM on March 28, 2005
1 Some qualifications for that statement. First, among the "developed" nations, this is probably mostly only true in the US. Most other comparable societies don't have as oppressive of a religious milieu. Second, not only are large numbers of atheists not reactionary in this sense (I'm an example), it's also possibly true that there's a selection bias in my generalization: the most reactionary, most emotional, are also going to be by far the most visible.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:44 AM on March 28, 2005
"Gettin' all righteously atheistic on pious threads may be fine in the blue..."
I don't think it's okay there, either. It's not productive. It's mostly indignation—which, to me, looks pretty similar to the non-productive indignation I see often from theists.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:46 AM on March 28, 2005
I don't think it's okay there, either. It's not productive. It's mostly indignation—which, to me, looks pretty similar to the non-productive indignation I see often from theists.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:46 AM on March 28, 2005
Well yeah, inasmuch as righteousness and indignation aren't that useful anywhere, I'd suggest a bit more latitude in the Blue than the Green. In the Green it's just shitting through the mailslot.
posted by scarabic at 8:48 AM on March 28, 2005
posted by scarabic at 8:48 AM on March 28, 2005
It's difficult not to mock superstitious and deluded fools, especially when you don't think you'll be going to Hell.
posted by crunchland at 8:49 AM on March 28, 2005
posted by crunchland at 8:49 AM on March 28, 2005
Given that the question is why the Number of the Beast is "666" rather than some other arbitrary number, I took all these "strident atheist snarks" as nothing more than pointing out that religion (unlike, say science or mathematics) is fundamentally arbitrary.
What does it mean for something to be “fundamentally arbitrary?” Questions about the explanations for religious beliefs or traditions often have specific cultural, historical, or linguistic answers, even when the belief which forms the basis of the question is false. Snide comments about the “arbitrary” nature of religion in a thread asking for such an explanation are pure noise.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:55 AM on March 28, 2005
What does it mean for something to be “fundamentally arbitrary?” Questions about the explanations for religious beliefs or traditions often have specific cultural, historical, or linguistic answers, even when the belief which forms the basis of the question is false. Snide comments about the “arbitrary” nature of religion in a thread asking for such an explanation are pure noise.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:55 AM on March 28, 2005
I dunno. We all mock the Scientologists. Why do we have to stop short of the Christians?
Maybe I'm just bitter, though. I tried to go to the mall yesterday to buy a new shirt and it was closed because the Christians are taking over the world with this goofy stuff.
posted by xmutex at 8:58 AM on March 28, 2005
Maybe I'm just bitter, though. I tried to go to the mall yesterday to buy a new shirt and it was closed because the Christians are taking over the world with this goofy stuff.
posted by xmutex at 8:58 AM on March 28, 2005
I take objection to categorizing this whole band of folks as atheist; some may be agnostic. As an agnostic myself, I for one am irked at being lumped in with such a logically unsound belief system.
posted by angry modem at 9:01 AM on March 28, 2005
posted by angry modem at 9:01 AM on March 28, 2005
Apologies, angry modem. As an ex-agnostic and ex-atheist myself, I understand just how important the distinction really is.
posted by brownpau at 9:05 AM on March 28, 2005
posted by brownpau at 9:05 AM on March 28, 2005
Although I'm an atheist and I saw mention in the question of Revelation, I didn't find the question particularly 'religious' in any event. 6Six6 is such a ubiquitous symbol, I was interested to read of it's origins.
I think there's a fair bit of 'religious' symbology that derive from mythical or secular origins and get highjacked along the way into various sects and establishing the historical background needs evidentiary based explication.....almost to the exclusion of the religion(s) which may claim it/them as part of their lore. Plus, religious history itself can be pretty fascinating - and still follows the scientific path of evidence sifting (at least to a certain point).
But anyway......I like the strictish rules on AskMe that call for answers/suggestions/assistance and not noise. (although I didn't think the devilposters were very snarky FWIW)
posted by peacay at 9:10 AM on March 28, 2005
I think there's a fair bit of 'religious' symbology that derive from mythical or secular origins and get highjacked along the way into various sects and establishing the historical background needs evidentiary based explication.....almost to the exclusion of the religion(s) which may claim it/them as part of their lore. Plus, religious history itself can be pretty fascinating - and still follows the scientific path of evidence sifting (at least to a certain point).
But anyway......I like the strictish rules on AskMe that call for answers/suggestions/assistance and not noise. (although I didn't think the devilposters were very snarky FWIW)
posted by peacay at 9:10 AM on March 28, 2005
Maybe, like the women-specific AskMeFi posts, there should be a "THEISTIC RELIGIOUS POSTERS ONLY" disclaimer. I mean, these damn atheists coming on and mocking the [a]lmighty are just like men coming on and making cracks about the menses. Not welcome, right?
Would a god-friendly joke on a thread like this one be more welcome than an atheist joke? If so, an exclusive double standard is being imposed. That's contemptible.
On another note, it comes as no surprise that scarabic isn't reading orthogonality very carefully. Or that, when faced with cogency and clarity, scarabic responds, "Shut up."
The issue at hand could be anything, and you'd be saying the same thing in response to ortho, scarabic. "Shut up" never helps.
Problem 1 - 0 Solution
I liked me better when I just posted images, too.
posted by breezeway at 9:13 AM on March 28, 2005
Would a god-friendly joke on a thread like this one be more welcome than an atheist joke? If so, an exclusive double standard is being imposed. That's contemptible.
On another note, it comes as no surprise that scarabic isn't reading orthogonality very carefully. Or that, when faced with cogency and clarity, scarabic responds, "Shut up."
The issue at hand could be anything, and you'd be saying the same thing in response to ortho, scarabic. "Shut up" never helps.
Problem 1 - 0 Solution
I liked me better when I just posted images, too.
posted by breezeway at 9:13 AM on March 28, 2005
"shitting through the mailslot"
I've never heard that expression before. If it's yours, I'm impressed. If it's not, I'm not sure that I'm happy to have heard it. The imagery is a little overpowering.
"It's difficult not to mock superstitious and deluded fools, especially when you don't think you'll be going to Hell."
I sometimes wonder if doing so might reflect more uncertainty than it does certainty. I've been an atheist my entire adult life (and then some) but it wasn't until the last ten years or so that I became aware that this belief is completely internalized and I have no practical doubt about it whatsoever. (I still have intellectualized doubt on the matter, but that's because I try to be a rigorous falliblist.) For me, this certainty somehow is involved in putting me in an emotional place where I accept the majority's theism with a sort of fatalism. I can't really get all that worked up that the majority of human beings believe something I do not. It's like being angry about gravity. It'll be a long time before this situation changes, if it ever does. So, I take theism as a functionally valid alternative set of assumptions and engage against theists elsewhere than those assumptions.
"As an agnostic myself, I for one am irked at being lumped in with such a logically unsound belief system."
I'll assume that's a snarky but earnest point you're making. I often make the same point, that's why I describe my atheism as practical, not some sort of necessary deductive conclusion about reality. In this sense I agree with you. On the other hand, absolutist agnosticism is even more unsound than absolutist atheism: that the existence of a God (or Gods) is unknowable is, I think, an even more outlandish assumption than that God does or does not exist. I certainly don't think that this is, in principle, an unanswerable question. So I can't technically define myself as "agnostic", either. In the end, we don't really have a good way to communicate the empiricst atheist position because the cultural context of the debate is, in a deep sense, not empiricist. Or to put it another way, repeating what I said above, the debate is dominated by situation and emotion.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:15 AM on March 28, 2005
I've never heard that expression before. If it's yours, I'm impressed. If it's not, I'm not sure that I'm happy to have heard it. The imagery is a little overpowering.
"It's difficult not to mock superstitious and deluded fools, especially when you don't think you'll be going to Hell."
I sometimes wonder if doing so might reflect more uncertainty than it does certainty. I've been an atheist my entire adult life (and then some) but it wasn't until the last ten years or so that I became aware that this belief is completely internalized and I have no practical doubt about it whatsoever. (I still have intellectualized doubt on the matter, but that's because I try to be a rigorous falliblist.) For me, this certainty somehow is involved in putting me in an emotional place where I accept the majority's theism with a sort of fatalism. I can't really get all that worked up that the majority of human beings believe something I do not. It's like being angry about gravity. It'll be a long time before this situation changes, if it ever does. So, I take theism as a functionally valid alternative set of assumptions and engage against theists elsewhere than those assumptions.
"As an agnostic myself, I for one am irked at being lumped in with such a logically unsound belief system."
I'll assume that's a snarky but earnest point you're making. I often make the same point, that's why I describe my atheism as practical, not some sort of necessary deductive conclusion about reality. In this sense I agree with you. On the other hand, absolutist agnosticism is even more unsound than absolutist atheism: that the existence of a God (or Gods) is unknowable is, I think, an even more outlandish assumption than that God does or does not exist. I certainly don't think that this is, in principle, an unanswerable question. So I can't technically define myself as "agnostic", either. In the end, we don't really have a good way to communicate the empiricst atheist position because the cultural context of the debate is, in a deep sense, not empiricist. Or to put it another way, repeating what I said above, the debate is dominated by situation and emotion.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:15 AM on March 28, 2005
I tried to go to the mall yesterday to buy a new shirt and it was closed because the Christians are taking over the world with this goofy stuff.
That's a drag. We celebrated by eating ham and Junior Mints (my neice ate mashed bananas), my mom made us little Easter baskets with scratch-off tickets in 'em. Mom won 15 bucks. And she only spent 7 bucks on all our tickets.
So, celebrate religious holidays and double your money.
posted by jonmc at 9:18 AM on March 28, 2005
That's a drag. We celebrated by eating ham and Junior Mints (my neice ate mashed bananas), my mom made us little Easter baskets with scratch-off tickets in 'em. Mom won 15 bucks. And she only spent 7 bucks on all our tickets.
So, celebrate religious holidays and double your money.
posted by jonmc at 9:18 AM on March 28, 2005
We all mock the Scientologists. Why do we have to stop short of the Christians?
The Christian faith in all its myriad forms and expressions over history can never be anywhere near as funny as Scientology.
posted by zaelic at 9:42 AM on March 28, 2005
The Christian faith in all its myriad forms and expressions over history can never be anywhere near as funny as Scientology.
posted by zaelic at 9:42 AM on March 28, 2005
zaelic: The last twenty years of the Christian faith is really making gains on Scientology.
posted by xmutex at 9:57 AM on March 28, 2005
posted by xmutex at 9:57 AM on March 28, 2005
you should come to my meeting of Smug Atheists, we'll learn you a thing or two boy!",
How can you teach a non-existent idea? A discussion of silence?
posted by thomcatspike at 10:19 AM on March 28, 2005
How can you teach a non-existent idea? A discussion of silence?
posted by thomcatspike at 10:19 AM on March 28, 2005
I don't think it's okay there, either. It's not productive. It's mostly indignation—which, to me, looks pretty similar to the non-productive indignation I see often from theists.
Point granted, but indignation is a pretty easy thing experience. Irrational certainly, but irrationality tends to control human behavior in my experience. All I'm going to say is that if you were frequently ostracized throughout your life for your (a)religious views (and if you're a Christian I promise this has happened to you much less than some of us childhood atheists), you might have a bone or two to pick with the purveyors of the antagonistic perspective.
Sorry it's a day late, but Happy Zombie Christ day to you all.
posted by baphomet at 11:02 AM on March 28, 2005
Point granted, but indignation is a pretty easy thing experience. Irrational certainly, but irrationality tends to control human behavior in my experience. All I'm going to say is that if you were frequently ostracized throughout your life for your (a)religious views (and if you're a Christian I promise this has happened to you much less than some of us childhood atheists), you might have a bone or two to pick with the purveyors of the antagonistic perspective.
Sorry it's a day late, but Happy Zombie Christ day to you all.
posted by baphomet at 11:02 AM on March 28, 2005
thomcatspike : " How can you teach a non-existent idea?"
Atheism doesn't exist? That's gonna come as a big surprise to my atheist friends.
posted by Bugbread at 11:03 AM on March 28, 2005
Atheism doesn't exist? That's gonna come as a big surprise to my atheist friends.
posted by Bugbread at 11:03 AM on March 28, 2005
fyi, on the first "6"
Atheism doesn't exist?
If God = "nothing", non-existant, then how will you teach it?
posted by thomcatspike at 11:05 AM on March 28, 2005
Atheism doesn't exist?
If God = "nothing", non-existant, then how will you teach it?
posted by thomcatspike at 11:05 AM on March 28, 2005
I agree, too. Thanks brownpau. I also think monju_bosatsu is right, in that it wasn't a "fundamentally arbitrary" question--or even a fundamentally religious one, for that matter.
If someone asked about the etymology of the word "Pope," would we have to put up with "Who cares/He stinks?" I don't think you have to be Christian to be interested in the origin of either, particularly 666. Sucks that a few people got trigger-happy.
posted by leslita at 11:07 AM on March 28, 2005
If someone asked about the etymology of the word "Pope," would we have to put up with "Who cares/He stinks?" I don't think you have to be Christian to be interested in the origin of either, particularly 666. Sucks that a few people got trigger-happy.
posted by leslita at 11:07 AM on March 28, 2005
thomcatspike : " If God = 'nothing', non-existant, then how will you teach it?"
Watch me:
"God doesn't exist".
There, I just taught it.
(By the way, this is not intended to be a religious snark. Just an example of how you can teach that something doesn't exist, and how you can have an idea that something doesn't exist)
posted by Bugbread at 11:10 AM on March 28, 2005
Watch me:
"God doesn't exist".
There, I just taught it.
(By the way, this is not intended to be a religious snark. Just an example of how you can teach that something doesn't exist, and how you can have an idea that something doesn't exist)
posted by Bugbread at 11:10 AM on March 28, 2005
There is something to this post - if the question really delimits itself in a way so that atheistic answers don't contribute, they should not be welcome, but:
The question was about why the number of the beast is what it is - and I think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest a non-scriptural explanation for this (e.g. the perfectly valid "it is an arbitrary number" answer). The post was not "what is the scriptural reason that the number of the beast is 666". Like it or not (and people who really believe in this stuff won't like it) arbitrariness is a valid response to this question, which is at some level, "why/how does numerology work". Atheists/skeptics and numerologists can of course have a debate about this, but a debate would not be intruding "unhelpful but oh-so-clever snarks" into purportedly "otherwise cogent discussions."
I actually think (at the time I read it, I haven't read comments in it since yesterday) andrew cooke's answer was the most insightful in the thread - if you are interested in numerology/kabbalah/etc, you really should read foucalt's pendulum. And I am someone who went through a phase where I basically believed in numerology in some form.
posted by advil at 11:16 AM on March 28, 2005
The question was about why the number of the beast is what it is - and I think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest a non-scriptural explanation for this (e.g. the perfectly valid "it is an arbitrary number" answer). The post was not "what is the scriptural reason that the number of the beast is 666". Like it or not (and people who really believe in this stuff won't like it) arbitrariness is a valid response to this question, which is at some level, "why/how does numerology work". Atheists/skeptics and numerologists can of course have a debate about this, but a debate would not be intruding "unhelpful but oh-so-clever snarks" into purportedly "otherwise cogent discussions."
I actually think (at the time I read it, I haven't read comments in it since yesterday) andrew cooke's answer was the most insightful in the thread - if you are interested in numerology/kabbalah/etc, you really should read foucalt's pendulum. And I am someone who went through a phase where I basically believed in numerology in some form.
posted by advil at 11:16 AM on March 28, 2005
"All I'm going to say is that if you were frequently ostracized throughout your life for your (a)religious views (and if you're a Christian I promise this has happened to you much less than some of us childhood atheists), you might have a bone or two to pick with the purveyors of the antagonistic perspective."
You must not have read my comment very carefully. Not only am I (nearly) a lifelong atheist, but I grew up in a small town in the Bible-belt, about 12K people, and probably a dozen Baptist and Churches of Christ each. My high school prom was a perennial town controversy (prohibition against dancing by fundies). I've lived with as much oppression by US religious fundamentalists as pretty much anyone.
And I stopped being pissy about the whole thing by my early twenties. There are more important things to worry about that can be changed. Humanity's general theism, and American piety in particularly, are not going to change in our lifetimes.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:24 AM on March 28, 2005
You must not have read my comment very carefully. Not only am I (nearly) a lifelong atheist, but I grew up in a small town in the Bible-belt, about 12K people, and probably a dozen Baptist and Churches of Christ each. My high school prom was a perennial town controversy (prohibition against dancing by fundies). I've lived with as much oppression by US religious fundamentalists as pretty much anyone.
And I stopped being pissy about the whole thing by my early twenties. There are more important things to worry about that can be changed. Humanity's general theism, and American piety in particularly, are not going to change in our lifetimes.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:24 AM on March 28, 2005
sorry - my remark wasn't meant to be pro-atheist.
i am one, and i guess i've made it clear on other threads, including the art one recently, but my comment there was pretty much just what it says. the whole premise of foucault's pendulum spoiler alert is that these things begin as noise and take on meaning because people want to believe. i thought that was relevant to the thread.
i guess i could have made my point better, but it wasn't meant to be an anti-religion snark (which i try and avoid, unless i'm particuarly angry about something practical like chilean politics).
posted by andrew cooke at 11:25 AM on March 28, 2005
i am one, and i guess i've made it clear on other threads, including the art one recently, but my comment there was pretty much just what it says. the whole premise of foucault's pendulum spoiler alert is that these things begin as noise and take on meaning because people want to believe. i thought that was relevant to the thread.
i guess i could have made my point better, but it wasn't meant to be an anti-religion snark (which i try and avoid, unless i'm particuarly angry about something practical like chilean politics).
posted by andrew cooke at 11:25 AM on March 28, 2005
in fact, looking again at that thread, i really don't see why i'm being called out at all. can you explain, please, brownpau?
posted by andrew cooke at 11:29 AM on March 28, 2005
posted by andrew cooke at 11:29 AM on March 28, 2005
Fundamentalist = Troll
Atheist = Troll
While I understand that there should be some direction for threads, this sounds more like a problem with differing viewpoints than a problem with trolling. Isn't unilateral discussion just preaching to the choir?
posted by mervin_shnegwood at 11:45 AM on March 28, 2005
Atheist = Troll
While I understand that there should be some direction for threads, this sounds more like a problem with differing viewpoints than a problem with trolling. Isn't unilateral discussion just preaching to the choir?
posted by mervin_shnegwood at 11:45 AM on March 28, 2005
andrew - the explanation of Foucault's Pendulum does clear that up a bit.
posted by brownpau at 12:38 PM on March 28, 2005
posted by brownpau at 12:38 PM on March 28, 2005
I too agree with this post. If you don't agree, keep it out of the thread.
However, there must be a wider question of whether theology questions should be asked in the green. If you're going to allow Christians to ask questions basically evangelicising their faith, then you're opening the door for every crackpot faith out there. I'd hate to see a plethora of "I'm a Seanyboy-itarian, and I don't understand this particular piece of gospel learning. Can somebody explain it to me on this cheap to join and high profile site?" style questions.
If God = "nothing", non-existant, then how will you teach it?
It's logic like that which kept the romans from being good mathematicians.
posted by seanyboy at 12:39 PM on March 28, 2005
However, there must be a wider question of whether theology questions should be asked in the green. If you're going to allow Christians to ask questions basically evangelicising their faith, then you're opening the door for every crackpot faith out there. I'd hate to see a plethora of "I'm a Seanyboy-itarian, and I don't understand this particular piece of gospel learning. Can somebody explain it to me on this cheap to join and high profile site?" style questions.
If God = "nothing", non-existant, then how will you teach it?
It's logic like that which kept the romans from being good mathematicians.
posted by seanyboy at 12:39 PM on March 28, 2005
I for one am irked at being lumped in with such a logically unsound belief system.
Is this comment suggesting atheism is logically unsound? If so, I think your definition of atheism differs from mine.
An agnostic asserts no truth can be known of the existence of a supreme being. An atheist extends this by asserting that in the absence of sufficient proof of said existence, there is no logical need for religious belief. How is that not a logically sound system?
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:48 PM on March 28, 2005
Is this comment suggesting atheism is logically unsound? If so, I think your definition of atheism differs from mine.
An agnostic asserts no truth can be known of the existence of a supreme being. An atheist extends this by asserting that in the absence of sufficient proof of said existence, there is no logical need for religious belief. How is that not a logically sound system?
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:48 PM on March 28, 2005
"a bit". yay for compassion, eh? bites tongue. shrugs. raises finger. walks off, dodging lightning bolts.
posted by andrew cooke at 12:57 PM on March 28, 2005
posted by andrew cooke at 12:57 PM on March 28, 2005
"God doesn't exist".
There, I just taught it.
But you did, by saying the word “God” has a definition in your vocabulary. ;P
posted by thomcatspike at 12:59 PM on March 28, 2005
There, I just taught it.
But you did, by saying the word “God” has a definition in your vocabulary. ;P
posted by thomcatspike at 12:59 PM on March 28, 2005
thomcatspike: the word "unicorn" also has a defintion in my vocabulary. Among many other non-existant things. You can define something without implying its existence.
Have I shown you my pet hydra?
posted by xmutex at 1:02 PM on March 28, 2005
Have I shown you my pet hydra?
posted by xmutex at 1:02 PM on March 28, 2005
If you're not careful thomcatspike, you'll find yourself killed on the next zebra crossing.
posted by seanyboy at 1:06 PM on March 28, 2005
posted by seanyboy at 1:06 PM on March 28, 2005
Actually, that just sounded ominous.
Some context (quote at the top) for the non-believers in the audience.
posted by seanyboy at 1:08 PM on March 28, 2005
Some context (quote at the top) for the non-believers in the audience.
posted by seanyboy at 1:08 PM on March 28, 2005
Metafilter: we're all Seanyboy-itarians now.
posted by orthogonality at 1:39 PM on March 28, 2005
posted by orthogonality at 1:39 PM on March 28, 2005
I'm a strident athiest too, actually.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 1:54 PM on March 28, 2005
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 1:54 PM on March 28, 2005
thomcatspike: the word "unicorn" also has a defintion in my vocabulary.
xmutex, being sarcastic; ;P
posted by thomcatspike at 1:59 PM on March 28, 2005
xmutex, being sarcastic; ;P
posted by thomcatspike at 1:59 PM on March 28, 2005
It's difficult not to mock superstitious and deluded fools
It's difficult not to strangle smug and intolerant assholes. But then, perhaps I just haven't figured out all of life's mysteries, as you obviously have, crunch.
/strident but tolerant atheist
posted by scarabic at 2:40 PM on March 28, 2005
It's difficult not to strangle smug and intolerant assholes. But then, perhaps I just haven't figured out all of life's mysteries, as you obviously have, crunch.
/strident but tolerant atheist
posted by scarabic at 2:40 PM on March 28, 2005
No. No, you're not. Shut up.
You've been shouting a lot of people down, lately, scarabic. Strident is one thing, obnoxious is entirely another.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:43 PM on March 28, 2005
You've been shouting a lot of people down, lately, scarabic. Strident is one thing, obnoxious is entirely another.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:43 PM on March 28, 2005
Point taken. In this case I guess I'm being pretty intolerant of intolerance.
[head explodes]
posted by scarabic at 3:46 PM on March 28, 2005
[head explodes]
posted by scarabic at 3:46 PM on March 28, 2005
Extremism in defense of tolerance is no vice. Supposedly.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:54 PM on March 28, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:54 PM on March 28, 2005
f you're going to allow Christians to ask questions basically evangelicising their faith, then you're opening the door for every crackpot faith out there. I'd hate to see a plethora of "I'm a Seanyboy-itarian, and I don't understand this particular piece of gospel learning..." < snip>>
I don't see how one follows from the other. Asking about origins of a particular symbol within a religious (or if you prefer, 'mythical') tradition is not the same as proselytizing. Nor would any "come help me on this site.." questions be tolerated, whether they were religious in nature or no. Straw men, dude. Straw men.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:11 PM on March 28, 2005
I don't see how one follows from the other. Asking about origins of a particular symbol within a religious (or if you prefer, 'mythical') tradition is not the same as proselytizing. Nor would any "come help me on this site.." questions be tolerated, whether they were religious in nature or no. Straw men, dude. Straw men.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:11 PM on March 28, 2005
I think I'll mock what suits me, thanks. If you're going to have faith in something, then by definition you believe in something unproven, and you can't expect everyone to share or respect your delusion to the degree you'd like. I wasn't mean or attacking about it, and this isn't a chapel, no one is under any obligation to respect a certain point of view.
posted by dong_resin at 4:13 PM on March 28, 2005
posted by dong_resin at 4:13 PM on March 28, 2005
*clips e-meter electrodes to nipples, spews engrams all over the room*
posted by quonsar at 4:13 PM on March 28, 2005
posted by quonsar at 4:13 PM on March 28, 2005
q- that was hawt.
posted by exlotuseater at 4:23 PM on March 28, 2005
posted by exlotuseater at 4:23 PM on March 28, 2005
Actually, dong_resin, we are under a certain amount of obligation to accord each other respect. That is what adults do, after all.
The concern presented, I think, is that proselytization is an ugly and disrespectful thing, whether it's coming from evangelical Christians or evangelical atheists. We don't really stand for fundamentalist theists to come into threads about, say, homosexuality and say "YOU'RE ALL GOING TO HELL YOU SODOMITE SINNERS." Likewise, it's just as rude for atheists to come into a thread discussing religious symbolism (which, I may add, is not the same as saying "I believe." The question we're discussing here may as well have been 'What is the symbolic derivation of Inanna's behaviour in this Babylonian myth?" It's a scholarly question, and not necessarily one of belief) and proselytize their personal worldview.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:28 PM on March 28, 2005
The concern presented, I think, is that proselytization is an ugly and disrespectful thing, whether it's coming from evangelical Christians or evangelical atheists. We don't really stand for fundamentalist theists to come into threads about, say, homosexuality and say "YOU'RE ALL GOING TO HELL YOU SODOMITE SINNERS." Likewise, it's just as rude for atheists to come into a thread discussing religious symbolism (which, I may add, is not the same as saying "I believe." The question we're discussing here may as well have been 'What is the symbolic derivation of Inanna's behaviour in this Babylonian myth?" It's a scholarly question, and not necessarily one of belief) and proselytize their personal worldview.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:28 PM on March 28, 2005
You've been shouting a lot of people down, lately, scarabic.
A lot of people have deserved it.
scarabic for elected office! somewhere...or something...
posted by Cyrano at 4:44 PM on March 28, 2005
A lot of people have deserved it.
scarabic for elected office! somewhere...or something...
posted by Cyrano at 4:44 PM on March 28, 2005
I submit being drunk is perfectly reasonable explanation for people trying to give a number to evil itself.
btw, just to clarify: I've been characterized as a "strident atheist" above, when I am, if I am anything, an agnostic. It's so vitally important everyone know that.
posted by dong_resin at 4:51 PM on March 28, 2005
btw, just to clarify: I've been characterized as a "strident atheist" above, when I am, if I am anything, an agnostic. It's so vitally important everyone know that.
posted by dong_resin at 4:51 PM on March 28, 2005
If you're going to have faith in something, then by definition you believe in something unproven, and you can't expect everyone to share or respect your delusion to the degree you'd like.
Do you believe when you go to the bathroom and squeeze the toothpaste tube that toothpaste will come out? Then you believe something. It's unproven. You could do it a million more times in a row and the expectation still won't be "proven."
That's part of what irks me about this. I think atheists are overconfident and believe themselves to be wholly rational beings with no induction or emotion whatever factored into their worldviews. In other words: they're objectively correct and that's that. This is a dangerous viewpoint for anyone to have, even if it weren't so totally full of holes.
If you believe in atoms, then you've gone into a building and swallowed a doctrine that a bunch of old men fed you. You've never seen them. You just have an operative system of thought that works well enough for you. This doesn't license you to bash other people - many of whose thought systems might overlap with yours quite a bit.
posted by scarabic at 4:57 PM on March 28, 2005
Do you believe when you go to the bathroom and squeeze the toothpaste tube that toothpaste will come out? Then you believe something. It's unproven. You could do it a million more times in a row and the expectation still won't be "proven."
That's part of what irks me about this. I think atheists are overconfident and believe themselves to be wholly rational beings with no induction or emotion whatever factored into their worldviews. In other words: they're objectively correct and that's that. This is a dangerous viewpoint for anyone to have, even if it weren't so totally full of holes.
If you believe in atoms, then you've gone into a building and swallowed a doctrine that a bunch of old men fed you. You've never seen them. You just have an operative system of thought that works well enough for you. This doesn't license you to bash other people - many of whose thought systems might overlap with yours quite a bit.
posted by scarabic at 4:57 PM on March 28, 2005
dirtynumbangelboy: A question about intelligent design could be asked in such a way as to stop opponents of intelligent design from (within the rules of the site) questioning some of the core conceits in the theory. Either comments like "This is a bag of shite theory, there's no disproving it but it's rubbish" should be allowed, or these kinds of questions shouldn't be allowed. I prefer the latter option because it makes Ask Metafilter a useful resource instead of a place for arguments.
Personally, I see no problem with questions like "where did this symbol originate?", but if perfectly valid answers such as "It doesn't mean a thing. It was invented along with the bible" cause offence, then maybe we shouldn't be asking those questions in this forum.
I think there's a fine line to be drawn here. Your babylonian example wouldn't cause offence as a question, but maybe the 666 one would. The intelligent design question definitely would.
posted by seanyboy at 5:02 PM on March 28, 2005
Personally, I see no problem with questions like "where did this symbol originate?", but if perfectly valid answers such as "It doesn't mean a thing. It was invented along with the bible" cause offence, then maybe we shouldn't be asking those questions in this forum.
I think there's a fine line to be drawn here. Your babylonian example wouldn't cause offence as a question, but maybe the 666 one would. The intelligent design question definitely would.
posted by seanyboy at 5:02 PM on March 28, 2005
Hey, dong_resin: I just discovered Screenhead the other day and I think it's great. I'm conflicted about the Gawker empire, but hey, if it's good, it's good and you are.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:02 PM on March 28, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:02 PM on March 28, 2005
I think atheists are overconfident and believe themselves to be wholly rational beings
Not at all. Most atheists pride themselves on a lack of confidence (or if you will, belief) and understand that they are not rational beings. i.e. They believe they are animals, and are not "made in God's image".
In my mind, the difference between an athiest and a believer is simple. Prove to an athiest that God exists, and they will change their mind. Prove to a believer that God doesn't exist, and they will not.
posted by seanyboy at 5:08 PM on March 28, 2005
Not at all. Most atheists pride themselves on a lack of confidence (or if you will, belief) and understand that they are not rational beings. i.e. They believe they are animals, and are not "made in God's image".
In my mind, the difference between an athiest and a believer is simple. Prove to an athiest that God exists, and they will change their mind. Prove to a believer that God doesn't exist, and they will not.
posted by seanyboy at 5:08 PM on March 28, 2005
"That's part of what irks me about this."
Well, a claim of true equivalency is specious. But I agree that many strident atheists are similar to (or are!) strident Objectivists in that they are very naive materialists and rationalists, sophomorically so; and, in the end, are usually doing more harm to the credibility of their beliefs than they are helping.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:08 PM on March 28, 2005
Well, a claim of true equivalency is specious. But I agree that many strident atheists are similar to (or are!) strident Objectivists in that they are very naive materialists and rationalists, sophomorically so; and, in the end, are usually doing more harm to the credibility of their beliefs than they are helping.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:08 PM on March 28, 2005
Do you believe when you go to the bathroom and squeeze the toothpaste tube that toothpaste will come out?
-you answered for me there, scarabic, and wrongly.
No, I don't "believe." I may well be out of toothpaste. I don't believe in atoms either, it's just the best idea for that concept that I've heard. If something better comes along, I'll lightly embrace that until I get something better than that concept. I judge things as they come.
Lot of assumptions being made about me today just because I don't have reverence for ancient numerology. Interesting.
posted by dong_resin at 5:11 PM on March 28, 2005
-you answered for me there, scarabic, and wrongly.
No, I don't "believe." I may well be out of toothpaste. I don't believe in atoms either, it's just the best idea for that concept that I've heard. If something better comes along, I'll lightly embrace that until I get something better than that concept. I judge things as they come.
Lot of assumptions being made about me today just because I don't have reverence for ancient numerology. Interesting.
posted by dong_resin at 5:11 PM on March 28, 2005
Lot of assumptions being made about me today
I'm guessing that you're a sagittarian - right?
posted by seanyboy at 5:13 PM on March 28, 2005
I'm guessing that you're a sagittarian - right?
posted by seanyboy at 5:13 PM on March 28, 2005
All cancer, baby. Like John Wayne just before he left.
posted by dong_resin at 5:18 PM on March 28, 2005
posted by dong_resin at 5:18 PM on March 28, 2005
Oh hey, I missed the Screenhead shout out . Thanks, EB.
posted by dong_resin at 5:19 PM on March 28, 2005
posted by dong_resin at 5:19 PM on March 28, 2005
Personally, I see no problem with questions like "where did this symbol originate?", but if perfectly valid answers such as "It doesn't mean a thing. It was invented along with the bible" cause offence, then maybe we shouldn't be asking those questions in this forum.
It's not so much that an answer like that is offensive--which it is--but that it's entirely and completely useless within the context of the question. One may as well answer "Why did character X in book Y act in such and such a manner?" with "it's just a book, it doesn't mean a thing, it was invented." Fundamentally, they're the same question, with the same useless answer.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:29 PM on March 28, 2005
It's not so much that an answer like that is offensive--which it is--but that it's entirely and completely useless within the context of the question. One may as well answer "Why did character X in book Y act in such and such a manner?" with "it's just a book, it doesn't mean a thing, it was invented." Fundamentally, they're the same question, with the same useless answer.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:29 PM on March 28, 2005
I'm not assuming anything about you, dong_resin, just engaging you in a debate. I was making a comparison, which it sounds like you got, not accusing you of anything.
Most atheists pride themselves on a lack of confidence
I certainly think that this is the way it should be. All intellectually honest people question their premises constantly. When you cross the line into heckling others for their beliefs, you've crossed the line of leaving your own open. Perhaps "most" atheists are as you say, and there's just a snide, vocal minority at work here. I hope so.
Prove to an athiest that God exists, and they will change their mind. Prove to a believer that God doesn't exist, and they will not.
In other words, you think atheists are rational and theists are not :)
Hey! That was my point!
posted by scarabic at 5:30 PM on March 28, 2005
Most atheists pride themselves on a lack of confidence
I certainly think that this is the way it should be. All intellectually honest people question their premises constantly. When you cross the line into heckling others for their beliefs, you've crossed the line of leaving your own open. Perhaps "most" atheists are as you say, and there's just a snide, vocal minority at work here. I hope so.
Prove to an athiest that God exists, and they will change their mind. Prove to a believer that God doesn't exist, and they will not.
In other words, you think atheists are rational and theists are not :)
Hey! That was my point!
posted by scarabic at 5:30 PM on March 28, 2005
There has to be some flexibility on answers. Tech questions often get people saying.. "you're asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is {a} and the answer is {b}".
The issue here is one of offence, and if the question is allowed to be offensive, then the same rule must apply to the answers.
The question wasn't about characters in a book, it was about "facts in the bible". A number of users were just reminding the questioner that some of those facts are fiction.
posted by seanyboy at 5:39 PM on March 28, 2005
The issue here is one of offence, and if the question is allowed to be offensive, then the same rule must apply to the answers.
The question wasn't about characters in a book, it was about "facts in the bible". A number of users were just reminding the questioner that some of those facts are fiction.
posted by seanyboy at 5:39 PM on March 28, 2005
I think athiests try to be rational and theists do not.
posted by seanyboy at 5:43 PM on March 28, 2005
posted by seanyboy at 5:43 PM on March 28, 2005
Ah, hell with it. I might - might - think about not attacking the cretinous beliefs of the religious wherever they raise their nasty, primitive little heads, at around the time no religious groups knock at my door, no religious literature gets thrust in my face on the street, no religious advertising pollutes my environment and no religious influence what-so-fucking-ever is allowed to get within a country mile of my government or the judicial system.
But hey, that's probably just me being a strident atheist. We're such meanies.
posted by Decani at 5:51 PM on March 28, 2005
But hey, that's probably just me being a strident atheist. We're such meanies.
posted by Decani at 5:51 PM on March 28, 2005
Okay, Decani... so when people who have nothing to do with MetaFilter, barring a certain tangential relation with some of tis members, stop behaving in a boorish and disrespectful fashion then you will too?
That's not really a grownup way to behave. My personal delusioins, to use your terms, have absolutely no bearing on your life. So why castigate and denigrate me for them when they simply do not affect you?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:10 PM on March 28, 2005
That's not really a grownup way to behave. My personal delusioins, to use your terms, have absolutely no bearing on your life. So why castigate and denigrate me for them when they simply do not affect you?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:10 PM on March 28, 2005
scarabic writes "When you cross the line into heckling others for their beliefs, you've crossed the line of leaving your own open."
The point I think you're missing -- and which you certainly missed when reading my response, upthread -- is that none of the AkMefi answers were heckling or impolite.
At most, they were skeptical about whether "666" has any real meaning at all, and might not have been rather arbitrarily selected. And indeed, one of the comments brownpau singles out -- about the Eco book -- is a sincere answer that brownpau simply misinterpreted.
But you're not really here about the AskMefi. You're here to grind an axe against all atheists, whether they answered that AskMefi or not, indeed whether they're Mefi members or not, as your own words attest:
"Atheists need to chill on the constant need to actively debunk / disprove / mock all theistic belief systems."
"Well yeah, inasmuch as righteousness and indignation aren't that useful anywhere"
" It's difficult not to strangle smug and intolerant assholes. But then, perhaps I just haven't figured out all of life's mysteries, as you obviously have, crunch."
"I think atheists are overconfident and believe themselves to be wholly rational beings with no induction or emotion whatever factored into their worldviews. "
" If you believe in atoms, then you've gone into a building and swallowed a doctrine that a bunch of old men fed you. You've never seen them. You just have an operative system of thought that works well enough for you. This doesn't license you to bash other people - many of whose thought systems might overlap with yours quite a bit."
"Perhaps 'most' atheists are as you say, and there's just a snide, vocal minority at work here. I hope so."
And then to preen self-righteously, about how you're championing the cause of tolerance:"In this case I guess I'm being pretty intolerant of intolerance."
You're entitled to your opinion about atheists, and more power to you, but coming in here and building a strawman out of innocuous AskMefi answers is disingenuous at best. And using the opportunity to bash an entire class of people with over-broad generalizations -- because you feel atheists are "overconfident" "smug and intolerant assholes" -- well, that's ironic self-parody of the first order.
This MetaTalk shouldn't be about your dislike for atheists, nor is it the place for you to grind your axe, especially when that's at the expense of innocent commenters who meant no offense. You dislike atheists? Fine, good for you. But given all your complaints about atheists proselytizing you and subjecting you to their opinions in inappropriate venues, well, does the shoe pinch when it's on the other foot?
posted by orthogonality at 6:12 PM on March 28, 2005
The point I think you're missing -- and which you certainly missed when reading my response, upthread -- is that none of the AkMefi answers were heckling or impolite.
At most, they were skeptical about whether "666" has any real meaning at all, and might not have been rather arbitrarily selected. And indeed, one of the comments brownpau singles out -- about the Eco book -- is a sincere answer that brownpau simply misinterpreted.
But you're not really here about the AskMefi. You're here to grind an axe against all atheists, whether they answered that AskMefi or not, indeed whether they're Mefi members or not, as your own words attest:
"Atheists need to chill on the constant need to actively debunk / disprove / mock all theistic belief systems."
"Well yeah, inasmuch as righteousness and indignation aren't that useful anywhere"
" It's difficult not to strangle smug and intolerant assholes. But then, perhaps I just haven't figured out all of life's mysteries, as you obviously have, crunch."
"I think atheists are overconfident and believe themselves to be wholly rational beings with no induction or emotion whatever factored into their worldviews. "
" If you believe in atoms, then you've gone into a building and swallowed a doctrine that a bunch of old men fed you. You've never seen them. You just have an operative system of thought that works well enough for you. This doesn't license you to bash other people - many of whose thought systems might overlap with yours quite a bit."
"Perhaps 'most' atheists are as you say, and there's just a snide, vocal minority at work here. I hope so."
And then to preen self-righteously, about how you're championing the cause of tolerance:"In this case I guess I'm being pretty intolerant of intolerance."
You're entitled to your opinion about atheists, and more power to you, but coming in here and building a strawman out of innocuous AskMefi answers is disingenuous at best. And using the opportunity to bash an entire class of people with over-broad generalizations -- because you feel atheists are "overconfident" "smug and intolerant assholes" -- well, that's ironic self-parody of the first order.
This MetaTalk shouldn't be about your dislike for atheists, nor is it the place for you to grind your axe, especially when that's at the expense of innocent commenters who meant no offense. You dislike atheists? Fine, good for you. But given all your complaints about atheists proselytizing you and subjecting you to their opinions in inappropriate venues, well, does the shoe pinch when it's on the other foot?
posted by orthogonality at 6:12 PM on March 28, 2005
I submit being drunk is perfectly reasonable explanation for people trying to give a number to evil itself.
*That's* your excuse for cluttering up AskMe with noise?
posted by mediareport at 6:16 PM on March 28, 2005
*That's* your excuse for cluttering up AskMe with noise?
posted by mediareport at 6:16 PM on March 28, 2005
In the same way we want to avoid people's pet theories on pornography invading threads on pubic shaving
Can we please stop using me as an example of bad behavior?
I haven't caused any trouble in a while now.
posted by jonmc at 6:19 PM on March 28, 2005
Can we please stop using me as an example of bad behavior?
I haven't caused any trouble in a while now.
posted by jonmc at 6:19 PM on March 28, 2005
dirtynumbangelboy: well, I don't yet know what your personal delusions might be. But if they're religious delusions - particularly if they're Christian delusions - I assure you they very probably do have a bearing on my life and they most certainly affect me, and in a very negative way at that. But hey, if you don't post your delusions here, I won't post any attacks on them. On the other hand if you do post them, I might very well attack them. Equally, I hope you feel absolutely free to attack, mock or criticise any beliefs or opinions you see me publicly express. Why, you've already made a good - if somewhat tentative - start by suggesting my preferred reaction to public expressions of religious belief is "not very grown up". This is encouraging.
Now do we have a deal here? I do hope so.
posted by Decani at 6:45 PM on March 28, 2005
Now do we have a deal here? I do hope so.
posted by Decani at 6:45 PM on March 28, 2005
dirtynumbangelboy: well, I don't yet know what your personal delusions might be. But if they're religious delusions - particularly if they're Christian delusions - I assure you they very probably do have a bearing on my life and they most certainly affect me, and in a very negative way at that.
No, no they do not. What you actually mean is that the actions of a small but strident minority of extremists affect your life. My beliefs, and those of most theistic MeFites, don't actually impact you in any way, shape, or form. Why? Because we're not extremists, most of us recognize that the secular world must be governed by secular law. So, again.. you're basing your behaviour on what a very strident minority does, a minority that apart from one or two glaring examples, is for all intents and purposes completely absent from MetaFilter.
But hey, if you don't post your delusions here, I won't post any attacks on them. On the other hand if you do post them, I might very well attack them. Equally, I hope you feel absolutely free to attack, mock or criticise any beliefs or opinions you see me publicly express. Why, you've already made a good - if somewhat tentative - start by suggesting my preferred reaction to public expressions of religious belief is "not very grown up". This is encouraging.
That's because your preferred reaction is childish, boorish, and entirely disrespectful. What possible purpose is served by mocking and denigrating people who believe soemthing different than you do, especially when those beliefs don't, as demonstrated, actually affect you?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:14 PM on March 28, 2005
No, no they do not. What you actually mean is that the actions of a small but strident minority of extremists affect your life. My beliefs, and those of most theistic MeFites, don't actually impact you in any way, shape, or form. Why? Because we're not extremists, most of us recognize that the secular world must be governed by secular law. So, again.. you're basing your behaviour on what a very strident minority does, a minority that apart from one or two glaring examples, is for all intents and purposes completely absent from MetaFilter.
But hey, if you don't post your delusions here, I won't post any attacks on them. On the other hand if you do post them, I might very well attack them. Equally, I hope you feel absolutely free to attack, mock or criticise any beliefs or opinions you see me publicly express. Why, you've already made a good - if somewhat tentative - start by suggesting my preferred reaction to public expressions of religious belief is "not very grown up". This is encouraging.
That's because your preferred reaction is childish, boorish, and entirely disrespectful. What possible purpose is served by mocking and denigrating people who believe soemthing different than you do, especially when those beliefs don't, as demonstrated, actually affect you?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:14 PM on March 28, 2005
Maybe, like the women-specific AskMeFi posts, there should be a "THEISTIC RELIGIOUS POSTERS ONLY"
I posted twice in that thread and am an atheist. I did not get the impression that the poster was only interested in hearing answers endorsed by a church. You can discuss the meaning & symbolism of poetry and fiction, right? You can talk about where the story of santa claus began without getting all excited and demanding that SANTA'S NOT REAL!, right?
Discussing the roots of mythological stories is not the same as believing those mythological stories refer to concrete events or facts in the world, or even that they have a deeper degree of symbolism that somehow touches the divine (for those who consider themselves religious but not literalists) in a way 'ordinary' fiction doesn't.
Anyway, I missed the offending comments, so I don't know if I'm agreeing with the right of the posters to make non-theist comments or the caller-outers to decry unnecessary division over an issue which wasn't at stake in the thread... but generally, there's no need to assume that discussions about religion need to address the merits of various personal belief systems.
posted by mdn at 7:27 PM on March 28, 2005
I posted twice in that thread and am an atheist. I did not get the impression that the poster was only interested in hearing answers endorsed by a church. You can discuss the meaning & symbolism of poetry and fiction, right? You can talk about where the story of santa claus began without getting all excited and demanding that SANTA'S NOT REAL!, right?
Discussing the roots of mythological stories is not the same as believing those mythological stories refer to concrete events or facts in the world, or even that they have a deeper degree of symbolism that somehow touches the divine (for those who consider themselves religious but not literalists) in a way 'ordinary' fiction doesn't.
Anyway, I missed the offending comments, so I don't know if I'm agreeing with the right of the posters to make non-theist comments or the caller-outers to decry unnecessary division over an issue which wasn't at stake in the thread... but generally, there's no need to assume that discussions about religion need to address the merits of various personal belief systems.
posted by mdn at 7:27 PM on March 28, 2005
I think Scarabic just needs a nap.
posted by crunchland at 8:25 PM on March 28, 2005
posted by crunchland at 8:25 PM on March 28, 2005
And using the opportunity to bash an entire class of people with over-broad generalizations
Because the militant atheists around here would never do something like that.
Can we please stop using me as an example of bad behavior?
Not everyone can be a Joe Montana. Sometimes you're just a Steve Young. But quit bitchin'. You're still famous ;)
posted by Cyrano at 10:27 PM on March 28, 2005
Because the militant atheists around here would never do something like that.
Can we please stop using me as an example of bad behavior?
Not everyone can be a Joe Montana. Sometimes you're just a Steve Young. But quit bitchin'. You're still famous ;)
posted by Cyrano at 10:27 PM on March 28, 2005
Cyrano : "And using the opportunity to bash an entire class of people with over-broad generalizations"
Because the militant atheists around here would never do something like that.
Tu quoque.
posted by Bugbread at 1:54 AM on March 29, 2005
Because the militant atheists around here would never do something like that.
Tu quoque.
posted by Bugbread at 1:54 AM on March 29, 2005
No, no they do not. What you actually mean is that the actions of a small but strident minority of extremists affect your life. My beliefs, and those of most theistic MeFites, don't actually impact you in any way, shape, or form... So, again.. you're basing your behaviour on what a very strident minority does,...
dirtynumbangelboy: I would greatly appreciate it if you refrain from telling me what I mean and what I think and what does or does not affect me. Okay? I don't like to waste time dealing with straw men.
Religious belief - especially, not except for - "moderate" religious belief, most certainly does affect me and have influence over my life, and a far more insidious one than that of the "extremist" beliefs, which are generally so obviously barking mad they can be discounted. And they are discounted with a wave of the hand and the barest snort of derision; in relatively sane countries and societies, at least. No, I'm actually more exercised by precisely the so-called "moderate" religious beliefs because those are the ones which are given unjustified, knee-jerk respect by society at large. And this has led to what I consider to be some extremely unhealthy results for society at large. This is why I attack such beliefs. I reject the illogical and wholly unjustifed notion that religious beliefs - "moderate" or otherwise - deserve one iota more respect or indulgence than any other variety of human belief.
That's because your preferred reaction is childish, boorish, and entirely disrespectful.
Whereas this reaction of yours is... just fair and honest, I assume? There's a nice passage in the bible about logs and motes which you may care to revisit, if I'm correct in guessing you're a Christian.
I reject "childish", I dispute "boorish" and I accept that I am disrespectful towards religious belief. So? I'm afraid I see no good argument for showing respect towards something I consider almost entirely unworthy of it. And I'd add that I feel a familiar sense of amusement at being called "childish" by someone who appears to be defending beliefs that are frequently akin to believing in fairies and Santa Claus.
What possible purpose is served by mocking and denigrating people who believe soemthing different than you do,
Well, it helps stop them from getting too damned uppity, for one. But more seriously, it resists granting "power through silence" to beliefs (and believers) I consider to be stupid, dangerous and retrograde. I consider it a moral duty to attack that which I find to be bad for humanity.
especially when those beliefs don't, as demonstrated, actually affect you?
Again: you demonstrated nothing of the kind. You merely claimed it, unjustifiably.
posted by Decani at 7:09 AM on March 29, 2005
dirtynumbangelboy: I would greatly appreciate it if you refrain from telling me what I mean and what I think and what does or does not affect me. Okay? I don't like to waste time dealing with straw men.
Religious belief - especially, not except for - "moderate" religious belief, most certainly does affect me and have influence over my life, and a far more insidious one than that of the "extremist" beliefs, which are generally so obviously barking mad they can be discounted. And they are discounted with a wave of the hand and the barest snort of derision; in relatively sane countries and societies, at least. No, I'm actually more exercised by precisely the so-called "moderate" religious beliefs because those are the ones which are given unjustified, knee-jerk respect by society at large. And this has led to what I consider to be some extremely unhealthy results for society at large. This is why I attack such beliefs. I reject the illogical and wholly unjustifed notion that religious beliefs - "moderate" or otherwise - deserve one iota more respect or indulgence than any other variety of human belief.
That's because your preferred reaction is childish, boorish, and entirely disrespectful.
Whereas this reaction of yours is... just fair and honest, I assume? There's a nice passage in the bible about logs and motes which you may care to revisit, if I'm correct in guessing you're a Christian.
I reject "childish", I dispute "boorish" and I accept that I am disrespectful towards religious belief. So? I'm afraid I see no good argument for showing respect towards something I consider almost entirely unworthy of it. And I'd add that I feel a familiar sense of amusement at being called "childish" by someone who appears to be defending beliefs that are frequently akin to believing in fairies and Santa Claus.
What possible purpose is served by mocking and denigrating people who believe soemthing different than you do,
Well, it helps stop them from getting too damned uppity, for one. But more seriously, it resists granting "power through silence" to beliefs (and believers) I consider to be stupid, dangerous and retrograde. I consider it a moral duty to attack that which I find to be bad for humanity.
especially when those beliefs don't, as demonstrated, actually affect you?
Again: you demonstrated nothing of the kind. You merely claimed it, unjustifiably.
posted by Decani at 7:09 AM on March 29, 2005
No, you twit, m=y beliefs--which are not Christian, as a matter of fact--do not affect you in the slightest. You on your little moral high horse are fundamentally no different than the extremists who are trying to take over the USA.
Like them, it is entirely pointless trying to have any sort of reasoned conversation with you; you have your narrow little worldview, you're the only one who's right, and everyone else be damned. I am done with you.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:17 AM on March 29, 2005
Like them, it is entirely pointless trying to have any sort of reasoned conversation with you; you have your narrow little worldview, you're the only one who's right, and everyone else be damned. I am done with you.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:17 AM on March 29, 2005
Decani : "I would greatly appreciate it if you refrain from telling me what I mean and what I think and what does or does not affect me. Okay? I don't like to waste time dealing with straw men. "
I would also appreciate it if you refrain from telling me that what I think does or does not affect you. Okay? I don't like to waste time dealing with foundationless statements.
Your behaviour is boorish and childish. And I'm somewhere between being an atheist and an agnostic.
Dirtynumbangelboy : "especially when those beliefs don't, as demonstrated, actually affect you?"
Decani: "Again: you demonstrated nothing of the kind. You merely claimed it, unjustifiably."
Well, then, you're both riding the same pony. Where is your evidence that any individual person's beliefs affect you?
posted by Bugbread at 7:25 AM on March 29, 2005
I would also appreciate it if you refrain from telling me that what I think does or does not affect you. Okay? I don't like to waste time dealing with foundationless statements.
Your behaviour is boorish and childish. And I'm somewhere between being an atheist and an agnostic.
Dirtynumbangelboy : "especially when those beliefs don't, as demonstrated, actually affect you?"
Decani: "Again: you demonstrated nothing of the kind. You merely claimed it, unjustifiably."
Well, then, you're both riding the same pony. Where is your evidence that any individual person's beliefs affect you?
posted by Bugbread at 7:25 AM on March 29, 2005
I consider it a moral duty to attack that which I find to be bad for humanity.
well, except for hubris, obviously.
posted by quonsar at 7:41 AM on March 29, 2005
well, except for hubris, obviously.
posted by quonsar at 7:41 AM on March 29, 2005
There are strong arguments available that theism and religion are functionally beneficial, not harmful, to human beings. So it may be the case that Decani is working to harm humanity, not help it.
You're just way out of line, Decani. If your intolerance is motivated by your exasperation that so many people believe absurdities, then I share that exasperation. But I'd point out that there are a lot more common absurd beliefs than just theism. If your intolerance is motivated by your sense of being oppressed by an almost omnipresent theism, then I share that sense of oppression. But I'd point out that there are a lot more forms of oppression than religious oppression.
That doesn't mean that you are not justified in having negative feelings about theism. Given the above, I think you are. I am. But your expression of them, very likely your nurturing of those feelings, are disproportionate and unjustified. That makes you pretty much like any other person with a chip on their shoulder that is, in practice, misanthropic because they believe that they're better in some way than most other people. And that makes you a jerk.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:57 AM on March 29, 2005
You're just way out of line, Decani. If your intolerance is motivated by your exasperation that so many people believe absurdities, then I share that exasperation. But I'd point out that there are a lot more common absurd beliefs than just theism. If your intolerance is motivated by your sense of being oppressed by an almost omnipresent theism, then I share that sense of oppression. But I'd point out that there are a lot more forms of oppression than religious oppression.
That doesn't mean that you are not justified in having negative feelings about theism. Given the above, I think you are. I am. But your expression of them, very likely your nurturing of those feelings, are disproportionate and unjustified. That makes you pretty much like any other person with a chip on their shoulder that is, in practice, misanthropic because they believe that they're better in some way than most other people. And that makes you a jerk.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:57 AM on March 29, 2005
I suspect that if we were referring to cargo cultists or voodoo ritualists, no one would have a problem with calling them superstitious and deluded. But because we are talking about a belief system that some of the readers of Metaflutter hold dear, we're expected to tread lightly. The fact that that belief system is responsible for more death and destruction in the last 2000 years than any atheistic endeavor notwithstanding.
posted by crunchland at 8:33 AM on March 29, 2005
posted by crunchland at 8:33 AM on March 29, 2005
it's all in the attitude. email grief is but one of the many abundant benefits my mefi membership brings me!
posted by quonsar at 8:54 AM on March 29, 2005
posted by quonsar at 8:54 AM on March 29, 2005
I don't think I'm supposed to have fun. Every time I try, I get told to be just like every other asshole here.
posted by breezeway at 9:00 AM on March 29, 2005
posted by breezeway at 9:00 AM on March 29, 2005
crunchland: The fact that that belief system is responsible for more death and destruction in the last 2000 years than any atheistic endeavor notwithstanding.
By this same logic, we shouldn't put snark in AskMefi threads about Scientology, right? Because Scientology hasn't killed as many people as Christianity, right? So what's your lower limit for number-of-people-killed-by-this-religion for the skeptics of MeFi to start shitting in AskMefi threads about a certain sect? 10 troll points for you, though, for the unsabstantiated secularist propaganda; that was an excellent troll.
"Those who claim that Christianity is responsible for all the conflict and wars of the last two thousand years are also refusing to acknowledge the important point that it is not the religious philosophy itself which is responsible for the wars and conflict, it is the deliberate perversion of these by people seeking to use the power engendered by faith that is responsible."
posted by brownpau at 9:15 AM on March 29, 2005
By this same logic, we shouldn't put snark in AskMefi threads about Scientology, right? Because Scientology hasn't killed as many people as Christianity, right? So what's your lower limit for number-of-people-killed-by-this-religion for the skeptics of MeFi to start shitting in AskMefi threads about a certain sect? 10 troll points for you, though, for the unsabstantiated secularist propaganda; that was an excellent troll.
"Those who claim that Christianity is responsible for all the conflict and wars of the last two thousand years are also refusing to acknowledge the important point that it is not the religious philosophy itself which is responsible for the wars and conflict, it is the deliberate perversion of these by people seeking to use the power engendered by faith that is responsible."
posted by brownpau at 9:15 AM on March 29, 2005
Here I am, griping, while a reasoned and reasonable explanation sits in my inbox, dated yesterday. I understand, and will comply. From now on, no more "random" (random, my ass! Maybe you just can't discern the meaning. You wonder why I'm insulted? Look no further.) inline images.
Then again, that's what you get when you mix private correspondence and a public forum. Poor communication and lack of transparency. And hey, why would anybody privately email the sysop to tell him they love someone else's style? Only complaints, I warrant. So the clamor is always negative, and the impression is always of emergency.
Private correspondence (and the select chatroom of #mefi) allows the forces of negativity to pilot MeFi. Everything should be clear. I'd like to know if my carefully chosen "random" (ach, ptui!) images were complained about by the general population, or just the steering committee. But we'll never know, because private correspondence and chatter isn't available to us all.
All that said, I understand why inline images are annoying, and why I should stop posting pictures and start in on insults and snarks, like the valued contributors.
Here goes nothing!
posted by breezeway at 9:58 AM on March 29, 2005
Then again, that's what you get when you mix private correspondence and a public forum. Poor communication and lack of transparency. And hey, why would anybody privately email the sysop to tell him they love someone else's style? Only complaints, I warrant. So the clamor is always negative, and the impression is always of emergency.
Private correspondence (and the select chatroom of #mefi) allows the forces of negativity to pilot MeFi. Everything should be clear. I'd like to know if my carefully chosen "random" (ach, ptui!) images were complained about by the general population, or just the steering committee. But we'll never know, because private correspondence and chatter isn't available to us all.
All that said, I understand why inline images are annoying, and why I should stop posting pictures and start in on insults and snarks, like the valued contributors.
Here goes nothing!
posted by breezeway at 9:58 AM on March 29, 2005
I worship the Great Pumpkin and I demand that the rest of you embrace and accept my lifestyle choice.
Wait, you won't? Well, crap.
posted by darukaru at 10:04 AM on March 29, 2005
Wait, you won't? Well, crap.
posted by darukaru at 10:04 AM on March 29, 2005
breezeway : " All that said, I understand why inline images are annoying, and why I should stop posting pictures and start in on insults and snarks, like the valued contributors."
Nah, the insults and snarks aren't from the valued contributors, just the vocal contributors. Except quonsar. He's the anomaly "valued, vocal, insulting, and snarky" contributor. But, like capri sun, there's only one, so go for "insightful and thought-provoking" or "funny and invigorating" poster types.
posted by Bugbread at 10:27 AM on March 29, 2005
Nah, the insults and snarks aren't from the valued contributors, just the vocal contributors. Except quonsar. He's the anomaly "valued, vocal, insulting, and snarky" contributor. But, like capri sun, there's only one, so go for "insightful and thought-provoking" or "funny and invigorating" poster types.
posted by Bugbread at 10:27 AM on March 29, 2005
MeFi's valued contributors are neither always insightful and thought-provoking nor always funny and invigorating. Quite often they engage in petty shout-downs and valueless complaint. The valued contributors are often quite vocal in that regard.
It isn't a matter of who *I* should try to be like (I wish I could be more like myself) but who the sysop should be taking advice from. The vocal (valued?) contributors seem to have poisoned his ear via secret channels, and my "pointless" and "random" pictures are shunted without defense.
If this was represented as a unilateral decision of the sysop, I wouldn't mind. But when a whole host of detractors is alluded to in private email, but not in evidence on the public board itself, I am left to wonder: who are these people?
posted by breezeway at 11:34 AM on March 29, 2005
It isn't a matter of who *I* should try to be like (I wish I could be more like myself) but who the sysop should be taking advice from. The vocal (valued?) contributors seem to have poisoned his ear via secret channels, and my "pointless" and "random" pictures are shunted without defense.
If this was represented as a unilateral decision of the sysop, I wouldn't mind. But when a whole host of detractors is alluded to in private email, but not in evidence on the public board itself, I am left to wonder: who are these people?
posted by breezeway at 11:34 AM on March 29, 2005
breezeway : "MeFi's valued contributors are neither always insightful and thought-provoking nor always funny and invigorating. Quite often they engage in petty shout-downs and valueless complaint."
Really? There's plenty of them, but I always thought they were the vocal but unvalued contributors.
Which leads to an interesting side question: Who do you think of as MeFi's valued contributors?
posted by Bugbread at 11:40 AM on March 29, 2005
Really? There's plenty of them, but I always thought they were the vocal but unvalued contributors.
Which leads to an interesting side question: Who do you think of as MeFi's valued contributors?
posted by Bugbread at 11:40 AM on March 29, 2005
Who does MeFi value, or who do I value? These two are very different.
Honestly, there's nobody here I discount completely. Some folks make healthy contributions most places and spray shit others. Some have wonderful things to say on all topics, but have bêtes noirs who they attack at the slightest pretext. Some are lean, mean, and squeaky clean. But I'm sure they annoy somebody, somewhere.
Me, I try to add value, just like (hopefully) everyone else. But I have the annoying habit of posting inline images (for which I'm being taken to task even as I write). Wow, I haven't had fun like that in years, posting those images. I bet someone hates me for it.
I lurked here for years before I joined. What convinced me to pony up and play was the latitude the community gave creative, fun posters like quonsar and mcgraw, and the respect members started to show for each other post-election. Orthogonality is a favorite of mine (he's smarter than most everyone here), but if I start a list, then it'll end up like the shout-outs on a rap album, where it all ands with, "and all y'all I forgot, much love, you in my heart, peace."
I look forward to making my own valuable contribution, too. I'll just have to find a better way.
posted by breezeway at 12:30 PM on March 29, 2005
Honestly, there's nobody here I discount completely. Some folks make healthy contributions most places and spray shit others. Some have wonderful things to say on all topics, but have bêtes noirs who they attack at the slightest pretext. Some are lean, mean, and squeaky clean. But I'm sure they annoy somebody, somewhere.
Me, I try to add value, just like (hopefully) everyone else. But I have the annoying habit of posting inline images (for which I'm being taken to task even as I write). Wow, I haven't had fun like that in years, posting those images. I bet someone hates me for it.
I lurked here for years before I joined. What convinced me to pony up and play was the latitude the community gave creative, fun posters like quonsar and mcgraw, and the respect members started to show for each other post-election. Orthogonality is a favorite of mine (he's smarter than most everyone here), but if I start a list, then it'll end up like the shout-outs on a rap album, where it all ands with, "and all y'all I forgot, much love, you in my heart, peace."
I look forward to making my own valuable contribution, too. I'll just have to find a better way.
posted by breezeway at 12:30 PM on March 29, 2005
Breezeway: I pretty much overlooked your pictures (not my cup of tea), but something someone mentioned recently (probably EB) reminded me of why the big anti-inline-pictures fuss: A long time ago, there was some farkification going around (for better or for worse), and Matt floated the idea of removing the ability to inline pictures. He didn't, but the final atmosphere seemed to be "if it gets out of hand, I'll axe it". So people are (generally) judicious about their use of inline pictures (I use them more than most, and haven't gotten any flack, but that's because they tend to be graphs/diagrams, not humorous).
I've always wondered who the community sees as valuable. I know who I see as valuable, but the community overall doesn't seem to necessarily agree. The only three people that I can say for sure are seen as valuable by the community are Miguel, Mathowie, and Quonsar. I'm sure there are more, but it's hard to separate "vocal" from "valued".
posted by Bugbread at 12:42 PM on March 29, 2005
I've always wondered who the community sees as valuable. I know who I see as valuable, but the community overall doesn't seem to necessarily agree. The only three people that I can say for sure are seen as valuable by the community are Miguel, Mathowie, and Quonsar. I'm sure there are more, but it's hard to separate "vocal" from "valued".
posted by Bugbread at 12:42 PM on March 29, 2005
I do understand (now) about my images. I used them a bit much, and right from the start. The reasons given for my desist order were that they were pointless and that they annoyed people.
I don't have a problem with the order, and I get the reasons behind not posting images all over. MeFi would be a mess, and that's reason enough. I have a problem with the reasons given to me previously, though, and especially with the idea that the "vocals," in some location I'm not privy to, can clamor about me to the sysop without my knowledge.
In the great "Links vs. Comments" debate, I side with the links. Comments are what makes MeFi a community, and I value that. But the links are what makes MeFi different, and worth coming to. Personally, my favorite users are the ones who post interesting FPPs and avoid the community shitstorms in-thread. They are the givers.
I don't much value the putative policemen who always tell us what not to do, what posts are bad, without showing us the light and demonstrating the good. They are the takers, and what they take away is the sense of community they try so hard to control.
Thanks for taking the time to explain the image problem, bugbread. You're the only one who bothered; you're a good answer to your own "interesting side question." Thanks.
posted by breezeway at 1:09 PM on March 29, 2005
I don't have a problem with the order, and I get the reasons behind not posting images all over. MeFi would be a mess, and that's reason enough. I have a problem with the reasons given to me previously, though, and especially with the idea that the "vocals," in some location I'm not privy to, can clamor about me to the sysop without my knowledge.
In the great "Links vs. Comments" debate, I side with the links. Comments are what makes MeFi a community, and I value that. But the links are what makes MeFi different, and worth coming to. Personally, my favorite users are the ones who post interesting FPPs and avoid the community shitstorms in-thread. They are the givers.
I don't much value the putative policemen who always tell us what not to do, what posts are bad, without showing us the light and demonstrating the good. They are the takers, and what they take away is the sense of community they try so hard to control.
Thanks for taking the time to explain the image problem, bugbread. You're the only one who bothered; you're a good answer to your own "interesting side question." Thanks.
posted by breezeway at 1:09 PM on March 29, 2005
breezeway : "you're a good answer to your own 'interesting side question.' Thanks."
Except, you'll notice (to my shame) I've yet to make a FPP. Bad consequence of relying on MeFi as my link source: I have no cool links to introduce to MeFi (actually, I had one, which never occurred to me to post until someone else posted it first).
Regarding the images, the only problem (and I hate to bring it up, since you seem to have found peace with my answer) is that it doesn't really explain what's wrong with them, other than "Matt doesn't like too many images being used".
As for people emailing Matt, and him emailing you, I'd actually consider myself lucky if I were you. You're a long-time lurker, so you know as well: It all comes down to Matt in the end, and he's a nice, reasonable guy. If people complain to him, and he emails you, you can have a calm, reasoned discourse by email. In this case, in the end, it comes down to Matt personally not liking too many images, so you'd be bound to lose the debate, but at least it would be civil. The alternative, of course, is for someone to post in the grey about it, which would have the same result (Matt being notified, and Matt making his will known to you), but be accompanied by a big heap of abuse and piling-on. While I love my pile-ons (not a big snarker, but the drama of the grey can be mighty amusing), being the target of a pileup would probably be a lot less fun. So, in the end, if people contact the sysop, the result is the same as a post in the grey (with just as much opportunity for you to rebut the arguments), but with a lot less dr*ma.
If it was a matter of great urgency (time-wise), or if there were multiple sysops, it would be a different story, of course.
And it warms the cockles of my heart to hear someone using the phrase "sysop" again. I think I'm going to start using the word "handle" instead of "user name" again.
posted by Bugbread at 1:28 PM on March 29, 2005
Except, you'll notice (to my shame) I've yet to make a FPP. Bad consequence of relying on MeFi as my link source: I have no cool links to introduce to MeFi (actually, I had one, which never occurred to me to post until someone else posted it first).
Regarding the images, the only problem (and I hate to bring it up, since you seem to have found peace with my answer) is that it doesn't really explain what's wrong with them, other than "Matt doesn't like too many images being used".
As for people emailing Matt, and him emailing you, I'd actually consider myself lucky if I were you. You're a long-time lurker, so you know as well: It all comes down to Matt in the end, and he's a nice, reasonable guy. If people complain to him, and he emails you, you can have a calm, reasoned discourse by email. In this case, in the end, it comes down to Matt personally not liking too many images, so you'd be bound to lose the debate, but at least it would be civil. The alternative, of course, is for someone to post in the grey about it, which would have the same result (Matt being notified, and Matt making his will known to you), but be accompanied by a big heap of abuse and piling-on. While I love my pile-ons (not a big snarker, but the drama of the grey can be mighty amusing), being the target of a pileup would probably be a lot less fun. So, in the end, if people contact the sysop, the result is the same as a post in the grey (with just as much opportunity for you to rebut the arguments), but with a lot less dr*ma.
If it was a matter of great urgency (time-wise), or if there were multiple sysops, it would be a different story, of course.
And it warms the cockles of my heart to hear someone using the phrase "sysop" again. I think I'm going to start using the word "handle" instead of "user name" again.
posted by Bugbread at 1:28 PM on March 29, 2005
The vocal (valued?) contributors seem to have poisoned his ear via secret channels, and my "pointless" and "random" pictures are shunted without defense.
I think maybe you're overreacting a wee bit. I can't imagine emailing Matt to complain about anything (well, ok, I emailed him once when he used "constraint" where he meant to say "restraint," but you can see how troubling something like that could be), but if numerous people were emailing to complain, then you were getting a reputation for something that you probably don't want to have a reputation for. There are a few posters here whose contributions I can identify without having to see their handle/user name, and that's almost always a bad thing. You don't want to become "the picture guy."
posted by anapestic at 1:51 PM on March 29, 2005
I think maybe you're overreacting a wee bit. I can't imagine emailing Matt to complain about anything (well, ok, I emailed him once when he used "constraint" where he meant to say "restraint," but you can see how troubling something like that could be), but if numerous people were emailing to complain, then you were getting a reputation for something that you probably don't want to have a reputation for. There are a few posters here whose contributions I can identify without having to see their handle/user name, and that's almost always a bad thing. You don't want to become "the picture guy."
posted by anapestic at 1:51 PM on March 29, 2005
I get the feeling that too many images slows page downloads. I imagine that could be a dealbreaker for folks using slow connections, older technologies, or space-age cell telephones to read MeFi.
While I'm sure none of the pictures I post could possibly be construed as offensive (except for the occasional NSFW Boris Vallejo fantasy painting), I can see how, if I'm encouraged to post pictures all the time, then others might do the same with less discretion. This BBS would in no time be overrun with images safe and not-so-safe.
What I would like, though, is for the decision to stop me posting images, if it is a sysop decision, to be presented as his. And if it is a consensus, for it to be presented as such, somewhere, so I can see how the consensus came about. If that consensus is reached over my criticism-riddled body, so much the better. Then I know it applies.
These questions I have are mooted by my understanding, with your help, the real reasons behind the demand. But they beg one last, large, rhetorical, and alas, moot question:
How is my filling a thread with images is more damaging to the site than someone else telling another user to shut up? Does Matt tell them to knock it off, too?
posted by breezeway at 2:05 PM on March 29, 2005
While I'm sure none of the pictures I post could possibly be construed as offensive (except for the occasional NSFW Boris Vallejo fantasy painting), I can see how, if I'm encouraged to post pictures all the time, then others might do the same with less discretion. This BBS would in no time be overrun with images safe and not-so-safe.
What I would like, though, is for the decision to stop me posting images, if it is a sysop decision, to be presented as his. And if it is a consensus, for it to be presented as such, somewhere, so I can see how the consensus came about. If that consensus is reached over my criticism-riddled body, so much the better. Then I know it applies.
These questions I have are mooted by my understanding, with your help, the real reasons behind the demand. But they beg one last, large, rhetorical, and alas, moot question:
How is my filling a thread with images is more damaging to the site than someone else telling another user to shut up? Does Matt tell them to knock it off, too?
posted by breezeway at 2:05 PM on March 29, 2005
breezeway : " What I would like, though, is for the decision to stop me posting images, if it is a sysop decision, to be presented as his. And if it is a consensus, for it to be presented as such, somewhere, so I can see how the consensus came about.
That makes sense. You might want to email Matt about the issue.
breezeway : "How is my filling a thread with images is more damaging to the site than someone else telling another user to shut up? Does Matt tell them to knock it off, too?"
Well, unfortunately, this is where the Barney Fife situation comes up.
Barney Fife: Well, today's eight-year-olds are tomorrow's teenagers. I say this calls for action and now! Nip it in the bud! First sign of youngsters going wrong, you've got to nip it in the bud.
Andy Taylor: I'm going to have a talk with them. What else do you want me to do?
Barney Fife: Well, don't just mollycoddle them.
Andy Taylor: I won't.
Barney Fife: Nip it! You go read any book you want on the subject of child discipline and you'll find every one of them is in favor of bud-nipping.
Frequent image posting is a very rare phenomenon here (that is, if someone said "posts lots of images", I'd have thought, until now, "breezeway", whereas when you say "telling people to shut up", I think...oh, so many people. So very many), so you're in an easy position to be budnipped. The battle for shutup is much harder, as bud-nipping hasn't been done. So, no, they don't get the same treatment, even though they deserve it, because the problem is vast, and deep-rooted, and attempts to nip it past the bud phase will result in lots of calls of censorship and the like.
It's unfortunate, of course. I'd rather 100 pictures than 10 snarks or "shut ups!", but reality makes it much easier to stop those 100 images than to stop the 10 snarks.
posted by Bugbread at 2:15 PM on March 29, 2005
That makes sense. You might want to email Matt about the issue.
breezeway : "How is my filling a thread with images is more damaging to the site than someone else telling another user to shut up? Does Matt tell them to knock it off, too?"
Well, unfortunately, this is where the Barney Fife situation comes up.
Barney Fife: Well, today's eight-year-olds are tomorrow's teenagers. I say this calls for action and now! Nip it in the bud! First sign of youngsters going wrong, you've got to nip it in the bud.
Andy Taylor: I'm going to have a talk with them. What else do you want me to do?
Barney Fife: Well, don't just mollycoddle them.
Andy Taylor: I won't.
Barney Fife: Nip it! You go read any book you want on the subject of child discipline and you'll find every one of them is in favor of bud-nipping.
Frequent image posting is a very rare phenomenon here (that is, if someone said "posts lots of images", I'd have thought, until now, "breezeway", whereas when you say "telling people to shut up", I think...oh, so many people. So very many), so you're in an easy position to be budnipped. The battle for shutup is much harder, as bud-nipping hasn't been done. So, no, they don't get the same treatment, even though they deserve it, because the problem is vast, and deep-rooted, and attempts to nip it past the bud phase will result in lots of calls of censorship and the like.
It's unfortunate, of course. I'd rather 100 pictures than 10 snarks or "shut ups!", but reality makes it much easier to stop those 100 images than to stop the 10 snarks.
posted by Bugbread at 2:15 PM on March 29, 2005
Oops, should've previewed.
Great point, anapestic. I used to want to become "the picture guy," because in-thread response to it was quite positive. That's why I was blindsided by the report that many folks were annoyed by it, and that Matt personally thought they were pointless.
I don't like private emails on a public site. I would prefer to be pilloried on MeTa for my misbehavior than to have recriminations and explanations not available to all users. I don't list my email for this reason.
On the other hand, I hate having brought up something from private correspondence. But I didn't get much explanation there, so I followed my next recourse.
I assume Matt will eventually look at this, and I'd like him to know that I'm satisfying my own curiosity about his decision and not trying to undercut his authority or piss on the grey (if that's even possible).
But thanks for the tip about the "picture guy" thing. I'll make my mark some other way.
And on preview this time, bugbread, yeah, I know (thanks for the Barney Fife, he's the greatest ever), that's why I described the question as both rhetorical and moot.
How many questions have you heard that the asker told you beforehand were rhetorical and moot? Maybe that's how I'll make my mark....
posted by breezeway at 2:23 PM on March 29, 2005
Great point, anapestic. I used to want to become "the picture guy," because in-thread response to it was quite positive. That's why I was blindsided by the report that many folks were annoyed by it, and that Matt personally thought they were pointless.
I don't like private emails on a public site. I would prefer to be pilloried on MeTa for my misbehavior than to have recriminations and explanations not available to all users. I don't list my email for this reason.
On the other hand, I hate having brought up something from private correspondence. But I didn't get much explanation there, so I followed my next recourse.
I assume Matt will eventually look at this, and I'd like him to know that I'm satisfying my own curiosity about his decision and not trying to undercut his authority or piss on the grey (if that's even possible).
But thanks for the tip about the "picture guy" thing. I'll make my mark some other way.
And on preview this time, bugbread, yeah, I know (thanks for the Barney Fife, he's the greatest ever), that's why I described the question as both rhetorical and moot.
How many questions have you heard that the asker told you beforehand were rhetorical and moot? Maybe that's how I'll make my mark....
posted by breezeway at 2:23 PM on March 29, 2005
breezeway: the MetaFilter wiki has lots of the sort of information you're asking about (what is consensus, etc.). I don't think there's a page on "inline images" but you could write one if you want. Or me.
Note that the wiki is frequently spammed—I just this minute undid a bunch of spam on the home page.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:32 PM on March 29, 2005
Note that the wiki is frequently spammed—I just this minute undid a bunch of spam on the home page.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:32 PM on March 29, 2005
Thanks, EB, that's a good idea. I'll look into writing that page tomorrow. The work day is done, and I'm off to become my real-life alter-ego.
posted by breezeway at 2:38 PM on March 29, 2005
posted by breezeway at 2:38 PM on March 29, 2005
breezeway : "I'll look into writing that page tomorrow."
Too late.
posted by Bugbread at 2:57 PM on March 29, 2005
Too late.
posted by Bugbread at 2:57 PM on March 29, 2005
You on your little moral high horse
All else aside, it doesn't do much for the "high horse" imagery to modify it with "little".
posted by cortex at 3:10 PM on March 29, 2005
All else aside, it doesn't do much for the "high horse" imagery to modify it with "little".
posted by cortex at 3:10 PM on March 29, 2005
I don't like private emails on a public site. I would prefer to be pilloried on MeTa for my misbehavior than to have recriminations and explanations not available to all users. I don't list my email for this reason.
Well, if your goal is really to be pilloried, I suggest starting a MeTa post where you call yourself out for self-linking while starting a thread about force-feeding pancakes to Terri Schiavo.
I tend to think not listing one's email is a bad idea. I think there's a wide range of things that probably merit some feedback but don't merit a MeTa post.
posted by anapestic at 3:13 PM on March 29, 2005
Well, if your goal is really to be pilloried, I suggest starting a MeTa post where you call yourself out for self-linking while starting a thread about force-feeding pancakes to Terri Schiavo.
I tend to think not listing one's email is a bad idea. I think there's a wide range of things that probably merit some feedback but don't merit a MeTa post.
posted by anapestic at 3:13 PM on March 29, 2005
I think there is some possibility that the people who emailed mathowie did so in a desire to avoid the inevitable pileup, and might have emailed you directly, breezeway, had you an email address available. Not having one would put them into the position of choosing pileup or emailing Matt, and, since we don't all have a record of who would prefer pileups and who would prefer other means, I don't think we (they) can be fairly blamed for choosing the option that it turns out you would have preferred avoided.
Along similar lines, a lot of people don't fill in their gender, which leads to these weird passages where "he" or "she" is best, but can't be selected. I have a tendency to unconsciously use "he", because statistically it's more likely, and that puts me in the position of possibly choosing the wrong word. I can't say it's their fault, per se, for not putting their gender in their profile, but again their choice has made my faux pas more likely, and from a utilitarian standpoint could be more easily avoided by putting their gender in the profile.
(Substitute "sex" for "gender" if you're a linguistic purist)
posted by Bugbread at 3:47 PM on March 29, 2005
Along similar lines, a lot of people don't fill in their gender, which leads to these weird passages where "he" or "she" is best, but can't be selected. I have a tendency to unconsciously use "he", because statistically it's more likely, and that puts me in the position of possibly choosing the wrong word. I can't say it's their fault, per se, for not putting their gender in their profile, but again their choice has made my faux pas more likely, and from a utilitarian standpoint could be more easily avoided by putting their gender in the profile.
(Substitute "sex" for "gender" if you're a linguistic purist)
posted by Bugbread at 3:47 PM on March 29, 2005
Good Lord, this thread has been lively during my commute! Let me take these one at a time. dirtynumbangelboy:
No, you twit,
Well, I must say, on the “castigation and denigration” front, I think I’m coming in a distant second at the moment. But that’s by the by.
m=y beliefs--which are not Christian, as a matter of fact
Well, I wish you’d said that earlier. Then I wouldn’t have had to carefully qualify my statements about what your beliefs might be and what beliefs you appeared to be defending. My initial comment on this thread was a general defence of attacking religious beliefs. You chose to take it personally. So long as you persist in taking my comments personally yet not spelling out for me precisely what your personal beliefs are, I’m at something of a disadvantage here.
--do not affect you in the slightest.
Well, I did qualify my response with: “I don't yet know what your personal delusions might be. But if they're religious delusions - particularly if they're Christian delusions - I assure you they very probably do have a bearing on my life and they most certainly affect me, and in a very negative way at that”
A few “ifs” and a “probably” in there, you’ll note. The “certainly” was a guess and possibly too much of a leap, I'll grant. Let’s just say I’d be willing to bet that if either of the “ifs” are met (and I know now that one isn't), they’d affect me. But again: until I know what your beliefs are, I can’t enlarge on that, can I? I'm working on assumption and inference, as I freely conceded.
You on your little moral high horse are fundamentally no different than the extremists who are trying to take over the USA.
Yes, and I probably support Saddam because I opposed the war, right? Your statement is as fatuously unjustified as that notion and just as insulting. Not that I mind being insulted, please be sure of that; but also be sure that you are doing most of the insulting in this exchange, which is interesting since it was you who initially took offence at “castigation and denigration” from atheists. You might want to ponder that. Or possibly not.
Like them, it is entirely pointless trying to have any sort of reasoned conversation with you
Is it really? Don't you feel we’re having a reasoned conversation now? If not, might I respectfully suggest that statements such as one comparing me with extremists trying to take over the USA might be something to do with that?
Am I entirely failing to clarify my position for you? If so I apologise and will try to do better. Again: it will help me to do this if you actually tell me what your beliefs are. Then I can explain my position in relation to them.
you have your narrow little worldview, you're the only one who's right, and everyone else be damned.
And that is an intemperate and unreasonable statement. I have said nothing to suggest I believe I am the only one who is right – I agree with many of the comments from other people on this thread, for instance. Neither have I said anything to justify your assertion that I believe everyone else should be damned. For someone who takes such exception to being criticised I'd venture to suggest you're a little too ready with the unjust condemnation.
I am done with you.
Well, I appreciate your patience and tolerance. Perhaps we’ll do better next time.
posted by Decani at 4:00 PM on March 29, 2005
No, you twit,
Well, I must say, on the “castigation and denigration” front, I think I’m coming in a distant second at the moment. But that’s by the by.
m=y beliefs--which are not Christian, as a matter of fact
Well, I wish you’d said that earlier. Then I wouldn’t have had to carefully qualify my statements about what your beliefs might be and what beliefs you appeared to be defending. My initial comment on this thread was a general defence of attacking religious beliefs. You chose to take it personally. So long as you persist in taking my comments personally yet not spelling out for me precisely what your personal beliefs are, I’m at something of a disadvantage here.
--do not affect you in the slightest.
Well, I did qualify my response with: “I don't yet know what your personal delusions might be. But if they're religious delusions - particularly if they're Christian delusions - I assure you they very probably do have a bearing on my life and they most certainly affect me, and in a very negative way at that”
A few “ifs” and a “probably” in there, you’ll note. The “certainly” was a guess and possibly too much of a leap, I'll grant. Let’s just say I’d be willing to bet that if either of the “ifs” are met (and I know now that one isn't), they’d affect me. But again: until I know what your beliefs are, I can’t enlarge on that, can I? I'm working on assumption and inference, as I freely conceded.
You on your little moral high horse are fundamentally no different than the extremists who are trying to take over the USA.
Yes, and I probably support Saddam because I opposed the war, right? Your statement is as fatuously unjustified as that notion and just as insulting. Not that I mind being insulted, please be sure of that; but also be sure that you are doing most of the insulting in this exchange, which is interesting since it was you who initially took offence at “castigation and denigration” from atheists. You might want to ponder that. Or possibly not.
Like them, it is entirely pointless trying to have any sort of reasoned conversation with you
Is it really? Don't you feel we’re having a reasoned conversation now? If not, might I respectfully suggest that statements such as one comparing me with extremists trying to take over the USA might be something to do with that?
Am I entirely failing to clarify my position for you? If so I apologise and will try to do better. Again: it will help me to do this if you actually tell me what your beliefs are. Then I can explain my position in relation to them.
you have your narrow little worldview, you're the only one who's right, and everyone else be damned.
And that is an intemperate and unreasonable statement. I have said nothing to suggest I believe I am the only one who is right – I agree with many of the comments from other people on this thread, for instance. Neither have I said anything to justify your assertion that I believe everyone else should be damned. For someone who takes such exception to being criticised I'd venture to suggest you're a little too ready with the unjust condemnation.
I am done with you.
Well, I appreciate your patience and tolerance. Perhaps we’ll do better next time.
posted by Decani at 4:00 PM on March 29, 2005
bugbread:
I would also appreciate it if you refrain from telling me that what I think does or does not affect you. Okay? I don't like to waste time dealing with foundationless statements.
To the best of my recollection, bugbread, I haven't said a single thing to you on this thread. I have told someone else that if (note qualification) his beliefs are of a certain type then they will very likely affect me. This does not strike me as unreasonable or foundationless.
Your behaviour is boorish and childish.
Well, I'm honestly at a loss to see where I've been childish on this thread. Boorish... possibly the initial comment was somewhat boorish. But childish? Why? Where?
And I'm somewhere between being an atheist and an agnostic.
Which is relevant... how?
Decani: "Again: you demonstrated nothing of the kind. You merely claimed it, unjustifiably."
Well, then, you're both riding the same pony. Where is your evidence that any individual person's beliefs affect you?
I don't think so. As I pointed out to dirtynumbangelboy, I did qualify my assertion about his beliefs with two very crucial "ifs". And I have asked him to clarify the nature of his beliefs so I can better explain my qualified statement. Not quite the same "pony" as his wholly unjustified and unqualified assertion, I think.
posted by Decani at 4:10 PM on March 29, 2005
I would also appreciate it if you refrain from telling me that what I think does or does not affect you. Okay? I don't like to waste time dealing with foundationless statements.
To the best of my recollection, bugbread, I haven't said a single thing to you on this thread. I have told someone else that if (note qualification) his beliefs are of a certain type then they will very likely affect me. This does not strike me as unreasonable or foundationless.
Your behaviour is boorish and childish.
Well, I'm honestly at a loss to see where I've been childish on this thread. Boorish... possibly the initial comment was somewhat boorish. But childish? Why? Where?
And I'm somewhere between being an atheist and an agnostic.
Which is relevant... how?
Decani: "Again: you demonstrated nothing of the kind. You merely claimed it, unjustifiably."
Well, then, you're both riding the same pony. Where is your evidence that any individual person's beliefs affect you?
I don't think so. As I pointed out to dirtynumbangelboy, I did qualify my assertion about his beliefs with two very crucial "ifs". And I have asked him to clarify the nature of his beliefs so I can better explain my qualified statement. Not quite the same "pony" as his wholly unjustified and unqualified assertion, I think.
posted by Decani at 4:10 PM on March 29, 2005
well, except for hubris, obviously.
I don't recall stating that I included hubris among the things I believe are bad for humanity, quonsar. :-)
posted by Decani at 4:16 PM on March 29, 2005
I don't recall stating that I included hubris among the things I believe are bad for humanity, quonsar. :-)
posted by Decani at 4:16 PM on March 29, 2005
Decani : " To the best of my recollection, bugbread, I haven't said a single thing to you on this thread. I have told someone else that if (note qualification) his beliefs are of a certain type then they will very likely affect me."
My apologies. When you said "well, I don't yet know what your personal delusions might be. But if they're religious delusions - particularly if they're Christian delusions - I assure you they very probably do have a bearing on my life and they most certainly affect me, and in a very negative way at that", I didn't realize that they were a special case for dirtynumbangelboy only. I'm curious why that statement would be true for dirtynumbangelboy and not for anyone else reading the statement, though.
Bugbread : "And I'm somewhere between being an atheist and an agnostic."
Decani : "Which is relevant... how?"
Well, you seem to find personal beliefs of individual poster(s) extremely relevant to discussing whether anyone's religious beliefs, whether shared by that poster or not, affect you, so I figured I should get it out of the way.
Decani : "As I pointed out to dirtynumbangelboy, I did qualify my assertion about his beliefs with two very crucial 'ifs'."
True. My disagreement came with the unqualified "they most certainly affect me" part.
posted by Bugbread at 4:24 PM on March 29, 2005
My apologies. When you said "well, I don't yet know what your personal delusions might be. But if they're religious delusions - particularly if they're Christian delusions - I assure you they very probably do have a bearing on my life and they most certainly affect me, and in a very negative way at that", I didn't realize that they were a special case for dirtynumbangelboy only. I'm curious why that statement would be true for dirtynumbangelboy and not for anyone else reading the statement, though.
Bugbread : "And I'm somewhere between being an atheist and an agnostic."
Decani : "Which is relevant... how?"
Well, you seem to find personal beliefs of individual poster(s) extremely relevant to discussing whether anyone's religious beliefs, whether shared by that poster or not, affect you, so I figured I should get it out of the way.
Decani : "As I pointed out to dirtynumbangelboy, I did qualify my assertion about his beliefs with two very crucial 'ifs'."
True. My disagreement came with the unqualified "they most certainly affect me" part.
posted by Bugbread at 4:24 PM on March 29, 2005
EtherealBligh:
You're just way out of line, Decani.
Well, we'll have to agree to differ on that one, I fear.
If your intolerance is motivated by your exasperation that so many people believe absurdities,
No, as I believe I said elsewhere, it's motivated by my observation that absurd religious belief does so much harm
But I'd point out that there are a lot more common absurd beliefs than just theism.
Really? More common than belief in god, or gods? A lot, you say? Care to name a few?
I'd point out that there are a lot more forms of oppression than religious oppression.
Indeed. And I don't believe I said anything to imply I believed otherwise.
But your expression of them, very likely your nurturing of those feelings, are disproportionate and unjustified.
Good God - have I realy said something here so very "disproportionate" and "unjustified"? What, exactly?
That makes you pretty much like any other person with a chip on their shoulder
Well, it might do if it were true, yes. But I don't think it is.
And that makes you a jerk.
I see. And how nice to have that pointed out by such a well-mannered individual who is clearly sensitive about making statements which might offend others.
posted by Decani at 4:26 PM on March 29, 2005
You're just way out of line, Decani.
Well, we'll have to agree to differ on that one, I fear.
If your intolerance is motivated by your exasperation that so many people believe absurdities,
No, as I believe I said elsewhere, it's motivated by my observation that absurd religious belief does so much harm
But I'd point out that there are a lot more common absurd beliefs than just theism.
Really? More common than belief in god, or gods? A lot, you say? Care to name a few?
I'd point out that there are a lot more forms of oppression than religious oppression.
Indeed. And I don't believe I said anything to imply I believed otherwise.
But your expression of them, very likely your nurturing of those feelings, are disproportionate and unjustified.
Good God - have I realy said something here so very "disproportionate" and "unjustified"? What, exactly?
That makes you pretty much like any other person with a chip on their shoulder
Well, it might do if it were true, yes. But I don't think it is.
And that makes you a jerk.
I see. And how nice to have that pointed out by such a well-mannered individual who is clearly sensitive about making statements which might offend others.
posted by Decani at 4:26 PM on March 29, 2005
Decani : " Really? More common than belief in god, or gods? A lot, you say? Care to name a few?"
Superiority of males to females?
Superiority of any given race to any other given race?
Belief in supporting ones' friends / family / country, "right or wrong"?
posted by Bugbread at 4:41 PM on March 29, 2005
Superiority of males to females?
Superiority of any given race to any other given race?
Belief in supporting ones' friends / family / country, "right or wrong"?
posted by Bugbread at 4:41 PM on March 29, 2005
"Those who claim that Christianity is responsible for all the conflict and wars of the last two thousand years are also refusing to acknowledge the important point that it is not the religious philosophy itself which is responsible for the wars and conflict, it is the deliberate perversion of these by people seeking to use the power engendered by faith that is responsible."
Bullshit!!!!!
The people who kill in Christianity's name aren't perverting it, their being true to it. The bible after all, encourages and promotes such wonderful things as geonicide, rape, pillage, slavery, and on and on. Organized religion in general, but Christianity in particuliar, is the greatest evil ever visited upon this world.
posted by berek at 10:09 PM on March 29, 2005
Bullshit!!!!!
The people who kill in Christianity's name aren't perverting it, their being true to it. The bible after all, encourages and promotes such wonderful things as geonicide, rape, pillage, slavery, and on and on. Organized religion in general, but Christianity in particuliar, is the greatest evil ever visited upon this world.
posted by berek at 10:09 PM on March 29, 2005
berek : " Bullshit!!!!!
The people who kill in Christianity's name aren't perverting it, their being true to it. The bible after all, encourages and promotes such wonderful things as geonicide, rape, pillage, slavery, and on and on."
I think that was a typo. The proper spelling is:
"No bullshit!!!!!
The people who kill in Christianity's name are perverting it, not being true to it. The bible after all, encourages and promotes such wonderful things as turning the other cheek, not casting the first stone, and on and on."
I can understand how you mispelled it, it's an easy mistake to make.
posted by Bugbread at 1:28 AM on March 30, 2005
The people who kill in Christianity's name aren't perverting it, their being true to it. The bible after all, encourages and promotes such wonderful things as geonicide, rape, pillage, slavery, and on and on."
I think that was a typo. The proper spelling is:
"No bullshit!!!!!
The people who kill in Christianity's name are perverting it, not being true to it. The bible after all, encourages and promotes such wonderful things as turning the other cheek, not casting the first stone, and on and on."
I can understand how you mispelled it, it's an easy mistake to make.
posted by Bugbread at 1:28 AM on March 30, 2005
Therefore shitting in AskMefi threads about Christianity -- even those started by unbelievers -- is perfectly justified? That's the issue, you know.
posted by brownpau at 6:30 AM on March 30, 2005
posted by brownpau at 6:30 AM on March 30, 2005
W00T! OFF THE FRONT PAGE AND INTO JIM JONES LAND WE GO. BREAK OUT THE KOOL-AID AND CRUCIFIXES ALL OF YOU BECAUSE IT'S TIME FOR A MAGICAL RIDE INTO A WONDERWORLD OF FANTASY AND RAPTUROUS DELIGHT!!!!!!!!
posted by brownpau at 11:51 AM on March 31, 2005
posted by brownpau at 11:51 AM on March 31, 2005
LOL i can't tell if berek is being a troll or if he earnestly believes his own infidels-inspired rant about Christianity and "organized religion." One thing's for sure: he pulls out all the stops on the use of trite secularist tripe. Duh.
posted by brownpau at 12:24 PM on March 31, 2005
posted by brownpau at 12:24 PM on March 31, 2005
Forgive me, andrew cooke! I understand what you meant about Foucault's Pendulum, and "a bit" was just filler text because the sentence seemed incomplete without some kind of concluding interjection. Oh, forgive me!
posted by brownpau at 8:02 PM on March 31, 2005
posted by brownpau at 8:02 PM on March 31, 2005
BTW, that theory about pubic shaving preferences and first exposures to pornography? I don't buy it. My first exposure to porn was late 80s Playboys, with various bushes and runway strips, and my personal preference is still smooth and shaved.
posted by brownpau at 7:08 PM on April 5, 2005
posted by brownpau at 7:08 PM on April 5, 2005
DEITIES ARE LIKE PARALLEL UNIVERSES THEY DON'T EXIST SO STFU
posted by brownpau at 2:45 PM on April 7, 2005
posted by brownpau at 2:45 PM on April 7, 2005
>> I don't know if there's a place in ask metafilter for hypotheticals that exist as pure fantasy. Seems like things have to have the slightest grounding in reality and that was asking for opinions on something that doesn't exist, which is at least a couple steps removed from anything concrete or real.
You -- and a lot of vocal Metafilter users seen above -- don't believe in God. Why do you keep religious threads up? God doesn't exist, right? He's just magical invisible friend skypixie talking to insane brain-damaged religious right-wingers, isn't he? The question should have stayed.
posted by brownpau at 6:29 AM on April 8, 2005
You -- and a lot of vocal Metafilter users seen above -- don't believe in God. Why do you keep religious threads up? God doesn't exist, right? He's just magical invisible friend skypixie talking to insane brain-damaged religious right-wingers, isn't he? The question should have stayed.
posted by brownpau at 6:29 AM on April 8, 2005
We're going to lose IMG tags. We're going to lose them and it's all your fault. ALL OF YOU.
posted by brownpau at 12:52 PM on April 11, 2005
posted by brownpau at 12:52 PM on April 11, 2005
Ratzinger / Benedict:
"and Mary His Very Saint Mother is on our side."
The papists still worship the mother rather than God. Same old, same old. I wonder how many years this one will last?
posted by brownpau at 2:32 PM on April 19, 2005
"and Mary His Very Saint Mother is on our side."
The papists still worship the mother rather than God. Same old, same old. I wonder how many years this one will last?
posted by brownpau at 2:32 PM on April 19, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by brownpau at 7:31 AM on March 28, 2005