TOT, you again can’t seem to get it through your head that your assumptions aren’t always right or even occasionally right. It’s become rather amusing, and disturbing to watch you ignore the arguments against your baseless claims. You continue on with strawmen arguments to support your increasingly nonsensical position.
I find it hilarious that you accuse me, again baselessly, of what “we” (you and the mouse in your pocket?) call, oooh, how edgy “trippin”.
No TOT, I’m sure you would wish this but again, your stretch of being wrong continues. And talk about the pot calling the kettle black, with your rants being up for all to see.
Yes, there are things being imposed, TOT, namely, someone’s assumption that I am okay with their religious nonsense and that I shouldn’t say anything about it. You consistently claim that an atheist who dares tell a thesit that they are wrong is “hurtful” but you evidently care not one whit about how an atheist might be hurt. And what good can be accomplished in that setting. Oh, how about this. Assume that the nurse was GG’s visitor. GG has told this woman that it is no acceptable to claim to pray for him. Now, do you think that if someone had confronted this nurse earlier, these grieving parents wouldn’t have had to go through that effort of telling her to keep her beliefs to herself? Would that have been good for them? Would you have wished that they didn’t’ have to go through defending their lack of faith from this idiot nurse in such a horrible time?
You have yet to demonstrate why educating someone, in such a setting, or anywhere else, is bad. This visitor wanted to engage if she bothered to talk to the patient. You should be asking why was she so “ready to engage, educate and confront in such a setting”? But you never consider that, it seems. You only want to accuse any atheists who dare confront such people with “contention” and now come up with more excuses. Oh, now it’s not enough time (really, where did you get that from?). So when will there be “enough” time, TOT. Again, you want to claim that a polite response from GG is “Venting”. Every single time, a new perjorative term for what was a polite and informative comment. And you now want to assume that this discussion will now magically “fail tremendously in such a setting”. Why should it fail, TOT? Again, you make assumptions you cannot support.
What we have hear, TOT, is not you calling a spade a spade. That would indicate you were demonstrating some truth. All we have here are your strawmen arguments and your baseless assumptions. You have yet to show why it is unnecessary or uncalled for, this reponse to a theist who has indicated that she thinks that praying for someone is acceptable no matter what. You try to compare a honest discussion to a fart
and are only concerned with the feelings of a theist whilst not caring about anyone else at all. Again, I see no definition from you on what “later” should be. You seem to want to limit the “comfortableness” of any discussion to only consider the theist. And that is at the very least, unfair. It seems that you think that all thesits should only be questioned if they ask to be questions, which means that the vast vast majority can remain in their blissful ignorance, and that doesn’t work if I want change. Again, my analogy to the klansman holds.
Also, I’m expecting an answer to a couple of my questions. Here they are again: IF you are not advocating giving religion a pass, I’ll ask you this: what would you say to a friend who came into your room and said “I’m going to kill a goat by cutting its throat so you get better.” or “I’m going to hook you up to this electroshock device so you get better.” (my grandfather had a great bit of medical quackery from the 19th century, a box that could build up quite a shock that was for “medical purposes”. Do you “say, sure go ahead” or do you say “no, please don’t, you are wrong.”??
You get a little testy when your questions are directly addressed I see, glad I have experience at home dealing with a lovely lady who feels much the same else I'd be even more bamboozled than I am now.Anyhow, to address these.........questionable questions......If a friend came into my room and approached my sick bed tellijng me that he'd kill a goat so I'd get better, I honestly would laugh because that would sound ridiculous as I had never heard of any common practice of healing that included goat sacrifice. After laughing at the unusual methods, I'd ask my friend not to hurt any animals and I'd definitely tell him that I will not be getting hooked up to any electroshock machine because shocking me would likely be painful and cause me to want to whip his ass after the fact. Frankly, unless he persisted, I very likely would not even address his beliefs, I just wouldn't let him test them on me because I or in the case of the goat sacrifice, an animal would be harmed. Such harming in my estimation would be uncalled for. However, if he said he'd "reach out" to whatever he thought his god to be on my behalf, whether the reaching out was via prayer, a rain dance, or licking honey off a manequin's big toe, as long as he did not expect me to engage in the reaching out with him, I'd have no problem.
No, I get annoyed when people like you try to construct strawmen and make baseless accusations and then ignore direct questions that would clarify things. Of course, you have to call my questions “questionable”. How quaint. But on to your responses. My my, we have you laughing at someone who professed a innocent and concerned intent about your welfare. Golly how “respectful” of you.
I guess it depends on the religion doesn’t it, TOT? You are such a hypocrite. But thanks for saying exactly what I expected from you. You couldn’t have hit your marks any better.
The line in my estimation is the part I made bold. As soon as they declined, the nurse should have respected their wishes and let it go. Asking a grieving couple about their religious faith or non faith is uncalled for and in my opinion over the line. In this setting, the nurse was attempting to force the grieving parents into participation and acceptance of her religion as opposed to the previous scenarion where the religious person was simply stating that they, the religious person, would pray for the hospitalized. Much different situations.
Ah, I knew you’d try to say that the situations were somehow magically “different”. You see, I find telling a person that you’ll pray for them is uncalled for because it does nothing but cause the atheist to just accept such nonsense “without rocking the boat” (this is what you want, right, TOT?) or daring to disagree, which you find unacceptable. It’s over the line, in any situation. It just as much forces the patient into accepting the visitor’s/nurse’s religion because in your world, the atheist should never say anything against it in this situation.
First off, when I stomp my feet, ain't nothin' 'little' hittin' the pavement! Secondly, what you seem to be doing is making an emotionally and slightly less than rational case using loosely and somewhat unrelated comparisons (aka strawmen) to back why a combative response is reasonable and called for. You then go on to say that you "personally have never seen a theist would accept that" which is strange to me because at one point in your life, you were a theist and you, like so many others on this very forum have come to accept the opposite.
ah, more baseless claims. You want to make them, support them, TOT. I can do the same for you. Shall I? And you evidently haven’t much awareness of how people become atheists or how I did. What I said was “You assume that people want to discuss things and have a nice little tea party. I personally have never seen a theist would accept that, and we dont’ see that again and again on this forum.” “that” being the theist told that they are wrong. I would not have appreciated being told I was wrong and I didn’t. I came to realization I was wrong and it stung. I came to accept I was wrong, but I know exactly how theists resist being told that. So, again, you are wrong in your claims.
oh and what do you have to say about this: No, sorry, they dont’ get the chance to spew their nonsense and then control who confronts them about it. That only allows their ignorance and idiocy to grow and be spread. Should we treat all people who are wrong like that? Gee Mr. Klansman, I’d like to discuss your racist attitude with you as long as it’s alright with you. It’s not, oh, gee, okay, I’ll go back home and just let you hang them negroes.”
Do we all them to spread their views with no counter?
I also find it funny that you accuse me of making "baseless assumptions that anything negative couldn’t possibly be on the theist’s minds" despite the fact that I said: asking me why a believer would feel they needed to pray for you is a question that I can't answer for someone as it is possible for the reasons to vary between individuals. Unless you as the person that is sick are able to objectively determine that the person saying those words is doing so for spiteful, just to purposely piss you off reasons or any type of malevolent reason, then responding in a rude and combative manner is definately uncalled for, yet you seem to want to imply the very opposite baseless assumption that there is in fact something negative on their minds; why?
TOT, did you or did you not start this whole thing with the assumption that the visitor had only good intentions?
Why Velkyn, why would you allow the sentiments of a well meaning believer bother you so much that you would respond to their well-meaning sentiment in a condescending and pseudo-polite manner?
Hmm, either way I should have used something other than “negative”, makes this question of mine harder to answer. I asked you know you knew and you responded with another assumption, “Assuming that a sibbling seeing their loved one about to go into surgery and telling them that they will be praying for them as well meaning intentions is hardly a stretch”. You as the person “not even there” assumes intent. Can one assume this? Yep, I even agreed back on #39. However, again, what makes her inviolate? Thoughtless good intentions? Sorry, that doesn’t give anyone the right to be thoughtless to me or to continue on their clueless way.
And your attempt at summarizing me fails and becomes one more strawman. A pity you have to lower yourself to this. *This* is the last paragraph I wrote:
“I'll pray for you because, whether you believe it or not, God hears my prayers and will even heal an unbeliever like you per my request,” is implicit in “I’ll pray for you.” No, they might not think of it in exactly those words, but the belief is that this is indeed the case. Again, you make baseless assumptions that anything negative couldn’t possibly be on the theist’s minds. I have to wonder, since you seem unable to decouple from theism, do you *need* to think that theists are totally innocent because that would reflect on you personally? Theists need to realize that their religion and their belief are “straws” that can be dropped and that they are not innocent until proven guilty since their beliefs directly hinge on the idea that they are superior by their belief in this god. And yes, superior, in that they can get prayers answered, that they have some bogeyman at their shoulder to enforce their desires etc, a divine approval for all of their self-declared “Christian” actions.
Not your convenient “interpretation” of it.
"believers in god think they are better than non believers, so whenever I feel they are expressing what I believe to be that sentiment in my presence, I feel it my duty to give them a reality check by letting them know how deluded and guilty they are."
It’s sad when you feel the need to lie to support your claims, and attempting to cast me and everyone else as unreasonable extremists. Atheists range all over the board on how we react. Happily this is a written medium where the authors are right here to explain exactly what they meant and not have to rely on people like you.
So sorry to tell you that no, I’m not attempting to make myself “judge, jury or executioner”. I’m telling someone that their beliefs are wrong. I have the evidence and the facts to back me up. Nothing arrogant about that at all. With your line of reasoning, gee, how arrogant I am if I tell a klansman he’s wrong too! If I don’t teach someone, who will, TOT? Who is acceptable to you? Your whine about “what gives you the privilege being the self-appointed educator of the religiously deluded” could be, and has been, applied to *anyone* dares disagree with the theists. And oh I do love the personal attack with the “real housewives” reference.
ps. Those words that I emblazened in red that are your accusations levied against me, when did I say those things?
Oh here we go. You are sure your position is the right one yes? That when someone confronts a theist in way you don’t like, we are wrong and you are right?
So, when you say that someone who doesn’t exactly as you do: isn’t “respectful”or with “tact” or “kind”, or with “self-control” or “appreciation of your fellow man”, etc this would indicate that you think you are the only one with those traits. If you need your posts, #42 and #52 are good ones.