Author Topic: Would you be offended?  (Read 3734 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +407/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #87 on: October 29, 2011, 11:08:42 AM »
Alternative scenario: imagine the believer is in hospital, and the atheist visits, and says "I hope you get well - I won't pray, because your god doesn't exist, but I still sincerely wish you well."  Inappropriate?  Why?  In what way is this different from the believer saying they WILL be praying?

This scenario is inappropriate and is NOT an apples to apples comparison. The reason why it is inappropriate is because in this scenario the atheist deliberately and without reason attacks the known believes of the sick individual directly! The appropriate thing for them to say would have been "I sincerely wish you well" and leave it at that. What was the purpose and intent of the "because your god doesn't exist" comment? Inserting that comment would be preaching and an invitation to debate and hard feelings because it directly attacks their beliefs. Telling someone that you will pray for them whether the prayer is offered to YHWH, Allah, Baal, etc., does not attack the person's beliefs and is not at all confrontational.

Except it is, and it does.  Someone who says to me - when they know I am an atheist - that they will pray for me is doing just that, telling me explicitly that my beliefs are wrong.  That they know better.  That what I may happen to think about the subject is irrelevant, and they will just patronise me and let me know that "despite what you believe, god loves you and will take care of you".  It IS patronising, it IS offensive.

Someone who does NOT know I am an atheist is, of course, not deliberately doing all the above.  For such a person, I probably would just leave it with "thanks - but I'm an atheist".  My beef is only with those who know my opinion but who nonetheless feel that in such a situation, expressing their view is more important than my comfort.  One might even say they are "deliberately and without reason attack(ing) the known believes of the sick individual directly".

If you don't feel that it is an issue you feel strong enough about to make into a big deal, then fine - I'm honestly pleased for you....and somewhat jealous: your life is probably a lot less complicated than mine!   ;D  But that's the point: for some people, such as myself, such as Velkyn, such as many, many others in the world....having their beliefs ignored and dismissed in such a thoughtless matter IS a big deal.  We really DON'T like it.....and to return to my original question, "Who is the most important person there?"  As you rightly agreed, it is the patient. 

Which means that, in that situation, the person in the wrong is the person who brings religion into the frame.  As you say, the "appropriate thing for (the visitor) to say would have been "I sincerely wish you well" and leave it at that."  If the visitor choose not to do so and instead chooses to make me uncomfortable, then (to borrow your phrase), THEY need to GTFO.

Ultimately, is all comes down to whether the visitor knows the patient's views, and - if so - whether they choose to respect those views in what they choose to say, or whether they choose not to respect the patients views and comfort and bring their god into the conversation. 

Sadly though, a lot of people are simply that thoughtless, and believe that because THEY like/are something, then everyone else does/should too.  Like the person who says "oh, I never have trouble sleeping" when you mention your insomnia; like the person who says "you should get a dog, they're great company" when they know you hate the creatures.....when you know someone's views are in opposition to your own, you DON'T bring your views into the conversation - however obliquely - when you are visiting them at their lowest, in an alleged attempt to make them happier and more comfortable.

When you visit an atheist in hospital, don't mention god.  It's just polite.  And being honest, if someone is mpolite to me when I'm feeling rough then they are likely to find me being impolite right back.

That's all. 
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #88 on: October 29, 2011, 11:31:10 AM »
For the most part, Anfauglir, it sounds as if we agree and only have some minor points of disagreement and lack of understand of POV. For certain individuals whose beliefs have been as you described, "ignored and dismissed," it seems that such a scenario can be the perverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. I can get that, but still would caution against directing the wrath that "longsuffering" frustration has kindled upon the person who very likely inadvertantly dropped a straw they didn't realize they were carrying.

For those that know how you feel, I can agree that the standard they are held to will be different but, agin my caution is to not be so quick to jump on them because if the person is someone that you know genuinely cares for you and is not the type of person to kick people when they are down, then very likely, them saying "I'll pray for you" is no more than Freudian slip that occured because of subconscious triggers possibly without them even realizing it. That person very likely is by no means telling you explicitly that my beliefs are wrong and that they know better, so letting yourself get angry or responding in anger, both of which you can control, uselessly and negatively affects the situation, your mood, and possibly even a relationship you both value. All in all, in most cases it ain't worth it, (unless you value putting someone in their place above human relationships). Howeva, if the person says something like: "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," then have at the SOB because in that scenario, they are being rude, insensitive, condescending, and assholes.

For me, and I know there are differnt strokes for different folks, but me, I ain't got time to allow small stuff to get me all bent outta shape, life is too short. And if I were in a hospital bed, in my mind I'd have way bigger concerns or worries than if someone verbalized that they wanted to pray for me, provided that they didn't expect me to bow my head and join in, I could care less. I can however, understand how letting ignorance and disinfo getting a pass can be irritating, so I'd probably respond at that time, no stratch that, at a later date by telling the person that I'd like to discuss their faith with them (you know believer believe they should share their faith so they'd very likely accept my request). Once they say it's cool, then I'd feel free to expose fallacies, point out inconsistencies, and tell them how utterly mistaken their beliefs were with regard for truth and facts above feelings.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2011, 11:39:18 AM by Truth OT »

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4638
  • Darwins +512/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #89 on: October 29, 2011, 05:49:27 PM »
Here's a way to look at it.  What's the only foolproof way to never risk offending anyone?  Answer, live alone, stay in your house, have everything delivered into a dropbox that you can get to from inside, and never talk to anyone.

We can't tell how someone we don't know will react to something we say.  But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to never say anything meaningful to someone unless we know them, because we can't really get a gauge of the kind of person someone is without talking about something more meaningful than the weather.

It takes two people to get in a fight, but it takes three stages to turn it into one.  The first stage is the initial statement, which may or may not have been intended offensively.  The second is the other person's upset reaction to the initial statement.  The third is the first person reacting in a similar fashion.  Basically, even if it was offensive - even if it was intended to be offensive - the other person can still defuse the situation by not reacting badly to it.  If they do react badly, and the first person was intentionally being offensive, then the other one is basically playing into their hands.

In other words, if you think someone is trying to get your goat, why give them the satisfaction of giving it to them?

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12032
  • Darwins +622/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #90 on: October 31, 2011, 09:17:24 AM »
Let me play devil's advocate here.

... telling me explicitly that my beliefs are wrong.  That they know better.

Of course they think your (non)beliefs are wrong.  Why is that a problem?  Why should that bother you?  We do that to theists on a daily basis.  In fact, everyone does that to some degree. People mostly only get torqued over that when their religious beliefs are called into question[1].  Would you be as upset if someone implied your thoughts on economics might not 100% reflect reality?  Or if your understanding of the internal combustion engine was incomplete?  Probably not.  So why are you bothered about this one specific class of belief?

It seems to me, one of our biggest criticisms of the religious is that public criticism or discussion of (their) stupid religious beliefs is off the table.  They are grotesquely offended when anyone suggests they may be wrong.  But is that not what you are saying above?  People cannot be critical of your religious (non)beliefs?  I think if we want to dish it out, we should be able to take it.  We should be mentally and emotionally tougher than that.  Otherwise, we are behaving in the exact same way as them.


 1. douglas adams gave a little talk about that http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #91 on: October 31, 2011, 09:28:56 AM »
Of course they think your (non)beliefs are wrong.  Why is that a problem?  Why should that bother you?  We do that to theists on a daily basis. ...

It'd be pretty low of us to try to do it when they're an injured, captive audience.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #92 on: October 31, 2011, 09:41:50 AM »
Why would someone feel the need to tell a sick person that they will be praying that they get better in a scenario like the one up for discussion? They are a number of reasons and those varying reasons may or may not have benevolent motivations. That means that 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.
Yep, there you go.  So we know right now that your insistence that the theist in question could have a multitude of reason and your insistence that they are always innocent and well meaning was *wrong*.  You now try to claim that I can’t possibly ask y ou their motivations, but you sure had no problem telling me what they were before. Honestly, TOT, do you think before you post?   As the patient, I don’t need to know their motivation, I only need to know that they need educated which I would do in any event, and this education is what you seem to have a problem with, them being told that they are wrong.  And again, we have you calling anything you don’t like “rude and combative” where GG’s response was anything but.  And again, show me when a theist doesn't see any implict attack when an atheist says that they are wrong. 

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.”??   

TOT, I want you to read the following and then tell me how you would react:
Quote
a nurse came in to talk to us about ‘coping with our loss’. We were understandably upset and in a bit of shock, and I wasn’t really listening to everything she was saying, but I did hear her ask if she could call a priest, or some equivalent, for spiritual guidance. Being atheists we declined her offer, but she persisted and asked how we could possibly cope without religion in our lives. I politely assured her we would be fine, but she was not content to drop it. She sighed and told us that it would “be much harder to manage without God’s help” and she promised to pray for us.
  It’s from P.Z. Myers’s website where he’s publishing various “why I’m an atheist”, http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/10/29/why-i-am-an-atheist-cathy-oliver/ 

Now, we have an atheist in a hospital and we have a thesit saying that they’ll pray for them.  By your claims, she was just being innocently concerned.   Got your ansewr?  Good.

Now here’s the details that preceded the bit above:
Quote
I was 18 weeks pregnant when my water broke. My husband rushed me to the hospital and the doctor told us we had less than a 5% chance of things working out well. Indeed, the next day an ultrasound showed that both babies had died, and the following day labour would be induced.
About an hour after I gave birth to my babies
Now, that you’ve read the details, was the nurse just innocently concernd and did she have *any* right to do what she did?  Should the parents been politely accepting of her “innocent concern?  Where’s the line, TOT?

Again, I see you making swipes at people for daring to be bothered by the “small stuff”, which you in your arrogance decide that your opinion is the only true and honest one here.  You might not be a classic Christian but you sure can be just as much of a arrogant jerk. You are as thoughtless as any Christian can be with your declarations that you and you alone are the only respectful and tolerant person here. You are that “thoughtless” person in Anfauglir’s post.  You have called anyone who doesn’t agree with you names and stomped your little feet and threw a cursing fit.  You then think that the only time that an atheist can tell a believer that they are wrong is “after” they say “it’s cool.”.   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.”  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.  Your scenario doesn’t seem to happen every and this is amusing as hell to see you have this as evidently the *only* way you find it acceptable to confront a theist about their nonsense, only if they are “cool” with it. 

“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.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12032
  • Darwins +622/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #93 on: October 31, 2011, 09:52:40 AM »
It'd be pretty low of us to try to do it when they're an injured, captive audience.

I agree.  Is that the point Anfauglir is making?  Are they trying to push buttons?  If so, then I misunderstood.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #94 on: October 31, 2011, 10:01:07 AM »
I don't know.  It's the context of the thread, but I'm not sure how strictly Anfauglir is speaking within that context.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #95 on: October 31, 2011, 11:11:37 AM »
TOT:

Quote
So to be clear, what I'm saying and have continually said follows:

Quote
1. It's not about believer vs. non believer, it's about how one deal should with things one hears when what one hears are things they don't like.

Yes exactly. And one has every right to respond to what one hears, and especially if the content of what is being said is offensive or insulting to the one hearing it. It's not my responsibility to try and discern ones intentions and then mistakenly give the benefit of the doubt to the comments and show leniency towards the offensiveness that they show towards me.

Quote
2. Someone saying something to you that you disagree with is oftentimes NOT intended as nor is it an invitation to start a discussion, an argument, or a solicitation of your "better" understanding.

My speculations on intent are irrelevant. What matters is that the comment has been made and it is automatically and invitation to either discuss, argue, or solicit a response. Yes disregarding the comment is an option, but only at the discretion of the one being offended by the comment. It's not about better understanding--it's about offence, and the fact that the person needs to know that they have said something that is offensive to the hearer and therefore can avoid it in the future with that particular person. Would you not want to know, as a responsible and caring person, if you were saying things that were offensive to someone ?? Of course you would !
If you really care about the person you would want to know that what you were saying is insulting to them and then you can refrain from making these types of comments in the future. What might be a nice comment to you, may not be nice to another--religious or not.

Quote
3. You are reading way more into the scenario than need be, and doing so changes the discussion from that of an innocent and harmless personal expression of concern to one of uninvited preaching. The two are vastly distinct subjects that allow for vastly distinct and vastly differing acceptable responses.

Are we ? Again, we cannot completely know what the intention is of such comments and only have the responsibility of making it known that they are offensive to us. Whether they be harmless or preaching is not the issue, it's all about whether the comments are encouraging or insulting to the individual that they are being directed at and the fact that the one hearing them has a right to respond as they see fit.

Quote
4. People that respond to everything that they dislike or don't believe in in certain scenarios come across as petty, self serving assholes that are specialists in how to lose friends and alienate people.

Oh they do ? Oh they are ? Would you include yourself ?

This is all just your opinions. But there are things I'm sure of:-- first time offenders will always be told that I disagree with them and disbelieve that prayer works:-- that I'm more than happy to lose those as friends who would have the nerve to make such insulting to my intelligence and irrational prayer statements to me, and especially when they know better:-- And I'm more than happy to alienate myself from such people of nonsense.

I guess being responsible in this way makes me a petty and self serving asshole then.

Coming from you though, that opinion just doesn't rock my world   &)
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #96 on: October 31, 2011, 11:34:15 AM »
Yep, there you go.  So we know right now that your insistence that the theist in question could have a multitude of reason and your insistence that they are always innocent and well meaning was *wrong*.  You now try to claim that I can’t possibly ask y ou their motivations, but you sure had no problem telling me what they were before. Honestly, TOT, do you think before you post?   As the patient, I don’t need to know their motivation, I only need to know that they need educated which I would do in any event, and this education is what you seem to have a problem with, them being told that they are wrong.  And again, we have you calling anything you don’t like “rude and combative” where GG’s response was anything but.  And again, show me when a theist doesn't see any implict attack when an atheist says that they are wrong.

Again, unless one has reason to believe the person commenting was NOT attempting to be genuinely well meaning, then responding in a combative, I'm gonna educate your deluded behind manner is uncalled for in the scenario we have been discussing.
Your issue is that you equate the comment with imposing something on you when in fact nothing is being imposed. You are what we call "trippin'" and overreacting. Why are you so ready to engage, educate, and confront in such a setting? Seriously, what good can be accomplished in that setting? You only will be able to start contention as time and the locale do not permit a full on discussion to ensue, so basically all you are doing in venting because you are frustrated. Your venting in such a manner can be hurtful and is at best illconceived as it fails tremendously in such a setting of accomplishing your claim of educating the deluded prayer offerrer.
What we have, my dear Velkyn is me calling a spade a spade. I'm calling the rude and combative behavior in such a setting unnecessary and uncalled for as it, much like flagulation at a dinner table, will serve to make everyone there uncomfortable and it would be best to hold it in until later.
When I came on this forum and my views were attacked, I didn't think anyone was wrong for attacking them. In certain settings like this forum, "implicit attacks" are perfectly fair and oftentimes necessary while in other settings, such are totally uncalled for.

 
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.

TOT, I want you to read the following and then tell me how you would react:
Quote
a nurse came in to talk to us about ‘coping with our loss’. We were understandably upset and in a bit of shock, and I wasn’t really listening to everything she was saying, but I did hear her ask if she could call a priest, or some equivalent, for spiritual guidance. Being atheists we declined her offer, but she persisted and asked how we could possibly cope without religion in our lives. I politely assured her we would be fine, but she was not content to drop it. She sighed and told us that it would “be much harder to manage without God’s help” and she promised to pray for us.
  It’s from P.Z. Myers’s website where he’s publishing various “why I’m an atheist”, http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/10/29/why-i-am-an-atheist-cathy-oliver/ 

Now, we have an atheist in a hospital and we have a thesit saying that they’ll pray for them.  By your claims, she was just being innocently concerned.   Got your ansewr?  Good.

Now here’s the details that preceded the bit above:
Quote
I was 18 weeks pregnant when my water broke. My husband rushed me to the hospital and the doctor told us we had less than a 5% chance of things working out well. Indeed, the next day an ultrasound showed that both babies had died, and the following day labour would be induced.
About an hour after I gave birth to my babies
Now, that you’ve read the details, was the nurse just innocently concernd and did she have *any* right to do what she did?  Should the parents been politely accepting of her “innocent concern?  Where’s the line, TOT?

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. 

Again, I see you making swipes at people for daring to be bothered by the “small stuff”, which you in your arrogance decide that your opinion is the only true and honest one here.  You might not be a classic Christian but you sure can be just as much of a arrogant jerk. You are as thoughtless as any Christian can be with your declarations that you and you alone are the only respectful and tolerant person here. You are that “thoughtless” person in Anfauglir’s post.  You have called anyone who doesn’t agree with you names and stomped your little feet and threw a cursing fit.  You then think that the only time that an atheist can tell a believer that they are wrong is “after” they say “it’s cool.”.   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.”  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.  Your scenario doesn’t seem to happen every and this is amusing as hell to see you have this as evidently the *only* way you find it acceptable to confront a theist about their nonsense, only if they are “cool” with it. 

“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.   

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.
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?

Velkyn you seem to have summed up your point of contention in the last paragraph you wrote that in a nutshell says, "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."
By doing that and reacting in the manner you describe, you in a sense make yourself judge, jury, and to an extent executioner. So the question naturally becomes, what gives you the right to act that arrogantly and what gives you the priviledge being the self designated educated of the religiously deluded? Such a reaction would only be fitting if you were auditioning for Real Housewives of WWGHA's. :police:

ps. Those words that I emblazened in red that are your accusations levied against me, when did I say those things?
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 11:54:01 AM by Truth OT »

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #97 on: October 31, 2011, 01:25:16 PM »
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 :D  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.”??
   

Quote
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.     

Quote
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. 

Quote
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?

Quote
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?
Quote
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:
Quote
“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.
Quote
"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.&)
   


Quote
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.   

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #98 on: October 31, 2011, 02:26:15 PM »
Again, unless one has reason to believe the person commenting was NOT attempting to be genuinely well meaning, then responding in a combative, I'm gonna educate your deluded behind manner is uncalled for in the scenario we have been discussing.

we never said anything about being combative or angry, merely stating a that we are offended by it, with the hopes it will be left at that. If they choose to carry on, that is their prerogative.

 
Quote
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...

Congratulations, you have insulted your imaginary friend's beliefs. Are you proud of yourself? Goats were made by the allmighty Bamboo Stick to be sacrificed, and you've now insulted him by laughing at his honest proposal to ask the Great Bamboo Stick to heal you.

For shame, TOT, for shame!


Quote
TOT, I want you to read the following and then tell me how you would react:
[...]

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.

But this is what we're talking about; The other person has said something that offends us, and we are declining/telling them we find that offensive, or shooing them away. All your arguments up to this point tell us you think the lady who just gave birth to two stillborns was in the wrong for declining in the first place, so that the nurse's faith would not be offended, and that is why we are taken aback by your approach. Should she have just accepted it? After all, it wouldn't have escalated if she had.

"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #99 on: October 31, 2011, 02:53:49 PM »
Again, unless one has reason to believe the person commenting was NOT attempting to be genuinely well meaning, then responding in a combative, I'm gonna educate your deluded behind manner is uncalled for in the scenario we have been discussing.

we never said anything about being combative or angry, merely stating a that we are offended by it, with the hopes it will be left at that. If they choose to carry on, that is their prerogative.

AofB, I can't say that you ever said anything about being combative or angry, you may merely have wanted to do nothing more than express your offense. Though I cannot understand why such a comment would be offensive, I can respect your right to say "I am offended." The issue I have is not that expression, rather it is the the need to educate and put the expresser in their place right then and there. Doing that is rather rude IMO. 

Quote
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...

Congratulations, you have insulted your imaginary friend's beliefs. Are you proud of yourself? Goats were made by the allmighty Bamboo Stick to be sacrificed, and you've now insulted him by laughing at his honest proposal to ask the Great Bamboo Stick to heal you.

For shame, TOT, for shame!.

Maybe I should control my silly sense of humor better then I guess despite wanting to laught when I hear something funny.

Quote
TOT, I want you to read the following and then tell me how you would react:
[...]

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.

But this is what we're talking about; The other person has said something that offends us, and we are declining/telling them we find that offensive, or shooing them away. All your arguments up to this point tell us you think the lady who just gave birth to two stillborns was in the wrong for declining in the first place, so that the nurse's faith would not be offended, and that is why we are taken aback by your approach. Should she have just accepted it? After all, it wouldn't have escalated if she had.

How do you come up with the conclusion that I have implied that the grieving would be parents were wrong for declining the offer call a priest, or some equivalent, for spiritual guidance?
It's not about offending a person's faith or lack thereof, it's about how to speak to and interact with other people. As I said in my response to Velkyn, the nurse was wrong for her persistance and the patients had every right and were by no means wrong for declining the nurse's initial suggestion. If the nurse were to have been offended by them saying no, then she needs to grow thicker skin and get over herself.

It seems to me that the issue some are making or implying is that I am somehow advocating that the theist should have a special pass when in fact that is by no means the case. I don't know how to be any clearer than that.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +407/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #100 on: November 01, 2011, 09:28:52 AM »
It'd be pretty low of us to try to do it when they're an injured, captive audience.

I agree.  Is that the point Anfauglir is making?  Are they trying to push buttons?  If so, then I misunderstood.

Yep, pretty much -

Ultimately, is all comes down to whether the visitor knows the patient's views, and - if so - whether they choose to respect those views in what they choose to say, or whether they choose not to respect the patients views and comfort and bring their god into the conversation. 

We do indeed challenge believers here - but it isn't as if they are stumbling on the site expecting some good old Christian counselling and love.  What you "should" say depends very much on the situation.  It's one thing to bring up my godless state when I'm hale 'n' hearty, quite another when I'm sick and down.  I wouldn't go visit a theist frind in hospital and open debate on whether there is an afterlife, and I expect the same courtesy in return.

In the case of the nurse, it went right over the line.  I agree with ToT - its reasonable for a hospital employee (who, let's face it, doesn't know you) to ask if you would like a priest when you have been bereaved.  But when they have been told "no", its well over the line to keep banging on.  If a nurse had done that after our miscarriage I would have told her to F Off in no uncertain terms, and probably later made a formal complaint.  NOT about the original innocent enquiry, to make it clear, but about the continued unwelcome intrusion at our most vulnerable time.

But then, isn't that the way most religions work?  Catch 'em when they're vulnerable? 
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #101 on: November 01, 2011, 10:17:42 AM »
How do you come up with the conclusion that I have implied that the grieving would be parents were wrong for declining the offer call a priest, or some equivalent, for spiritual guidance?
It's not about offending a person's faith or lack thereof, it's about how to speak to and interact with other people. As I said in my response to Velkyn, the nurse was wrong for her persistance and the patients had every right and were by no means wrong for declining the nurse's initial suggestion. If the nurse were to have been offended by them saying no, then she needs to grow thicker skin and get over herself.

It seems to me that the issue some are making or implying is that I am somehow advocating that the theist should have a special pass when in fact that is by no means the case. I don't know how to be any clearer than that.
It is getting a little tedious showing you your own posts.  Because of what you said earlier:

Quote
Why do you allow the sentiments of believers, especially a believer like your sister that obviously cares for you, to bother you so much that you would respond to her sentiment in such a condescending and "politely" mean manner?
You may in fact "know better" than the believer, so with that in mind, why not act better by holding yourself to a better standard of behavior than what your response indicated? She was expressing concern for you, and you responsed to her expression by saying something that obviously and seemingly was deliberately hurtful to her. Such a response is very similar to a child's temper tantrum and for those of us that know better, be ought to do better than that.

Does this apply or not in this situation, where the nurse asked about sending a priest/pastor *and* told them that she thought they needed this god?  You see, I don’t see the two bits as separate as you would make them.  Why isn’t the nurse in this case showing her “innocent concern”?  This is my point, how do *you* decide when something is “innocent” and when something isn’t?  And why are you right about this determination when insisting that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong in theirs?

You again say that it’s “about how to speak and interact with people’.  But again, you have not shown me when it would be okay to tell them that they are wrong?  Why can’t you address my question about my example of the klansman, TOT?  It would go a long way to demonstrate just how far your particular tolerance goes for questionable ideas.  You also might want to explain on how discussing with someone will magically fail in certain settings. Andn for good measure, again who would be acceptable to you as a teacher to the theists, TOT? 

And I find it hilarious that you can make fun of and question religious practices when you find them funny but oh, can’t possibly laugh at *and* question practices that you are still holding inviolate for some reason.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #102 on: November 01, 2011, 11:05:11 AM »
Maybe I should control my silly sense of humor better then I guess despite wanting to laught when I hear something funny.

So you wouldn't mind if we laughed at Christians who promise to ask (pray to) their Giant Sky-Fairy (God) for a magical cure (divine intervention) to my (or anyone else's) ailment(s)?

The offensive part is the lack of respect for my (lack of) beliefs while I'm in a weakened state.
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #103 on: November 01, 2011, 12:28:59 PM »
Maybe I should control my silly sense of humor better then I guess despite wanting to laught when I hear something funny.

So you wouldn't mind if we laughed at Christians who promise to ask (pray to) their Giant Sky-Fairy (God) for a magical cure (divine intervention) to my (or anyone else's) ailment(s)?

The offensive part is the lack of respect for my (lack of) beliefs while I'm in a weakened state.

I can see how it could be funny.

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12032
  • Darwins +622/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #104 on: November 01, 2011, 02:47:14 PM »
But then, isn't that the way most religions work?  Catch 'em when they're vulnerable?

You could say that's how I work too.

Ages ago I had a friend who was dating very xian girl.  To get in good with her, he became more religious.  Unfortunately, he'd not had a lifetime of practice at self-deception.  The contradictions built up to a critical point and then boiled over.  He smashed his stereo with an electric guitar.  We chatted about his theological crisis and I explained why I did not believe in gods. 

He was at a vulnerable point and I most definitely was trying to convince him of something.  But at the time, I just saw it as helping out a friend who was upset, confused and in need.  Was that wrong?



Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #105 on: November 01, 2011, 03:01:02 PM »
I can see how it could be funny.

So, given that I do in fact find the beliefs funny; would laughing at them be acceptable to you? I think you might find that most people would find that more offensive than simply informing them that I am offended by what they said.

He was at a vulnerable point and I most definitely was trying to convince him of something.  But at the time, I just saw it as helping out a friend who was upset, confused and in need.  Was that wrong?

Yes, unless he's the one who started on that topic with you. Then it's entirely your call whether to continue or not.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2011, 03:06:19 PM by Avatar Of Belial »
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #106 on: November 01, 2011, 03:37:51 PM »
Quote
Quote from: Truth OT on Today at 12:28:59 PM
I can see how it could be funny.

So, given that I do in fact find the beliefs funny; would laughing at them be acceptable to you? I think you might find that most people would find that more offensive than simply informing them that I am offended by what they said.

Seriously, we're going down this road, seriously? We're adults and as adult we know that laughing in someone's face at their beliefs is in most cases something we avoid doing for kindness sake. Now if the stuff is hilarious and surprises us, then I'd have to apologize for laughing in their face cause I likely would have a hard time holding back my laughter.

As I said in my direct earlier response to you, "I can respect your right to say "I am offended." The issue I have is not that expression, rather it is the the need to educate and put the expresser in their place right then and there." As you can see, I have very little problem with one stating their offense at something, the problem I have is when the one jumps all over the person and does more than mere state their offense.

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #107 on: November 01, 2011, 04:03:21 PM »
Seriously, we're going down this road, seriously? We're adults and as adult we know that laughing in someone's face at their beliefs is in most cases something we avoid doing for kindness sake.

Yes, that's correct. That's what I'm getting at, you seemed to have a double standard when you said you'd laugh at someone who believes in goat sacrafice, which is far more offensive than telling them that you're offended by their words, while complaining about "putting the expresser in their place" which I find equally offensive to laughing at them (both are about the same severity when compared with simply expressing your offense).

Both are condescending, ass-holeish things to do, although both options are essentially given to you when they make the comment. So when you complain about one, but your immediate reaction (as you stated to the goat sacrafice scenario) is at least equally bad, it really should come as no surprise our reaction to you here.

EDIT: I think I may have been slightly misleading as to what I was getting at in the previous post, I probably should have said "I think you might find that most people would find that equally offensive to 'putting them in their place'."
« Last Edit: November 01, 2011, 04:08:48 PM by Avatar Of Belial »
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +407/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #108 on: November 02, 2011, 05:19:42 AM »
Seriously, we're going down this road, seriously? We're adults and as adult we know that laughing in someone's face at their beliefs is in most cases something we avoid doing for kindness sake.

Yes, that's correct. That's what I'm getting at, you seemed to have a double standard when you said you'd laugh at someone who believes in goat sacrafice, which is far more offensive than telling them that you're offended by their words, while complaining about "putting the expresser in their place" which I find equally offensive to laughing at them (both are about the same severity when compared with simply expressing your offense).

To be fair, ToT said this (my bold)

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.

So he is laughing at the unusualness, rather than the innate ridiculousness.  Praying, being pretty common, would not raise a chuckle.  And is that not the point?  That we have become so used to the Christian ridiculousness all around us that we no longer find it - no longer feel able to find it - as stupid and ridiculous as it really is?

Just because millions of people share the same mental idea, should we not find it as hysterical as the lone whacko in the tinfoil hat who leaves jellybeans out for Shub-Niggurath?  That's what interests me - that our culture leads us to think that "praying" is such a natural and normal and logical thing to do that we DON'T just laugh and laugh and laugh when a grown adult tells us that's what they are going to do.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #109 on: November 02, 2011, 09:40:28 AM »
I can see how it could be funny.

So, given that I do in fact find the beliefs funny; would laughing at them be acceptable to you? I think you might find that most people would find that more offensive than simply informing them that I am offended by what they said.

He was at a vulnerable point and I most definitely was trying to convince him of something.  But at the time, I just saw it as helping out a friend who was upset, confused and in need.  Was that wrong?

Yes, unless he's the one who started on that topic with you. Then it's entirely your call whether to continue or not.

Agreed, that's why I said
Quote
Quote from: Truth OT on October 31, 2011, 02:53:49 PM
Maybe I should control my silly sense of humor better then I guess despite wanting to laught when I hear something funny.

 in a previous post.

Now, what's your beef?

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #110 on: November 02, 2011, 09:47:11 AM »
To be fair, ToT said this (my bold)

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.

So he is laughing at the unusualness, rather than the innate ridiculousness.  Praying, being pretty common, would not raise a chuckle.  And is that not the point?  That we have become so used to the Christian ridiculousness all around us that we no longer find it - no longer feel able to find it - as stupid and ridiculous as it really is?

Just because millions of people share the same mental idea, should we not find it as hysterical as the lone whacko in the tinfoil hat who leaves jellybeans out for Shub-Niggurath?  That's what interests me - that our culture leads us to think that "praying" is such a natural and normal and logical thing to do that we DON'T just laugh and laugh and laugh when a grown adult tells us that's what they are going to do.

I see you got the point.

Throughout human history, deity worship has been common and the norm as opposed to an oddity. Because that has been the case, prayer has never been considered funny or ridiculous. Those things that an untainted and culturally objective observer would find stupid, weird, or funny are not generally funny to the sane masses because the practice of things like prayer, speaking to a deceased love one at their grave site, and singing praises to an unprovable god are the norm and widely accepted as such.
Therefore laughing at someone praying is like laughing at a man for pisssing while standing up, it's kind of silly and weird.

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #111 on: November 02, 2011, 10:10:10 AM »
So he is laughing at the unusualness, rather than the innate ridiculousness.  Praying, being pretty common, would not raise a chuckle.

Ok, point taken; that's the part I missed.

Therefore laughing at someone praying is like laughing at a man for pisssing while standing up, it's kind of silly and weird.

Standing up? Really? Hahaa.... who would do such a crazy thing?
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12032
  • Darwins +622/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #112 on: November 02, 2011, 10:11:26 AM »
Then prayer has to be made obviously preposterous.  The jellybean offering is a good start.  I like Sam Harris' point about god talking to George Bush though a hair dryer.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #113 on: November 02, 2011, 12:20:57 PM »
Seriously, we're going down this road, seriously? We're adults and as adult we know that laughing in someone's face at their beliefs is in most cases something we avoid doing for kindness sake. Now if the stuff is hilarious and surprises us, then I'd have to apologize for laughing in their face cause I likely would have a hard time holding back my laughter.
Seriously?  You use that nice little attempt to ridicule others concerns again? &)  I do love  how you are so shocked that you are being called on your claims that it would be okay to ridicule someone, aka laughing at them.  So what if you never heard of a “as I had never heard of any common practice of healing that included goat sacrifice.”  Gee, it’s strange and doesn’t have anything to support it in your estimation so let’s laugh at it. 

Let’s apply this to the original situation.  Are we not all adults and know that adults can take being told they’re wrong?   It seems that if I outright laughed at the ignorance of a Christian telling me that their speaking to an invisible being will help me this would be better than saying “Thanks but you’re wrong”?  That’s simply bizarre and quite self-serving on your part. It’s okay if *you* do it and okay if *you* apologize but darned if it’s acceptable to politely tell someone that they are wrong.  So, TOT, if we have our original scenario and it’s just after the patient tells the theist they are wrong.  What next?  If the theist is horrified that we dare say anything, is it okay if we apologize?  Would it make any differences?  As I’ve said before, I’ve yet to see a theist graciously accept ever being told they are wrong by a atheist.   
Quote
As I said in my direct earlier response to you, "I can respect your right to say "I am offended." The issue I have is not that expression, rather it is the the need to educate and put the expresser in their place right then and there." As you can see, I have very little problem with one stating their offense at something, the problem I have is when the one jumps all over the person and does more than mere state their offense.
  And you have yet to tell me when an appropriate time other than then and there is, other than it be totally controlled by the theist.  And yet again, you want to claim that a polite comment is “jumping all over the person”.  Your strawmen are still piling up. 
Quote
Throughout human history, deity worship has been common and the norm as opposed to an oddity. Because that has been the case, prayer has never been considered funny or ridiculous. Those things that an untainted and culturally objective observer would find stupid, weird, or funny are not generally funny to the sane masses because the practice of things like prayer, speaking to a deceased love one at their grave site, and singing praises to an unprovable god are the norm and widely accepted as such.
Therefore laughing at someone praying is like laughing at a man for pisssing while standing up, it's kind of silly and weird.
I see this as just one more excuse from you to give religion a free pass.  It’s like how theists get all shocked and bothered when someone compares their religion to a “cult” when they have no differences at all.  *I* find prayer funny and ridiculous, as ridiculous as an adult all giddy with anticipation that Santa is coming!  Same way with the “Ooooh, God is coming!” crap from Christians. 

Your argument has become nothing more than “it’s been around so we can’t make fun of it”.  Of course, I’m sure you’d make fun of anyone who claimed the “humors” were still valid medical science too, again, just more hypocrisy. 
« Last Edit: November 02, 2011, 12:25:08 PM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #114 on: November 02, 2011, 12:59:17 PM »
Velkyn you just looking for stuff to argue about now. Damn, chica!
Additionally, you fail in your ragged attempts to paint me as being hypocritical when you ignore things I said like "Maybe I should control my silly sense of humor better then I guess despite wanting to laugh when I hear something funny." See Velkyn, that is me saying, 'I get the point, laughing at someone for their beliefs can be hurtful and is generally not cool.'

To put a bow on this for you my dear, I you or I hold a personal belief that the other feels is wrong and wishes to address the other about said belief, then ask for the forum to do so! See, it ain't that hard. "But Truthy, what if they deny me the forum?" you ask.  Then access denied, to bad, so sad! How about simply letting THEM HAVE THEIR BELIEFS and instructing them to not force those beliefs on you as doing so would offend and bother you? Is that too much too ask?

You then go on to say that my argument has become "nothing more than it’s been around so we can’t make fun of it”. Wrong AGAIN madam! What my statements DID indicate was that things that have been around a while, are common, and are widely accepted as normal behaviors are generally not very funny to us. IS that a point you wish to contend with or will you create yet another strawman to to attempt to tear down?

Online Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6460
  • Darwins +470/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Would you be offended?
« Reply #115 on: November 02, 2011, 01:11:13 PM »
So, I just heard that someone I know was in a car accident. I don't know their religios affiliation, but if they were atheist (and I didn't know it), would it be offensive to say something like:

I’ll be praying for your full and quick recovery . . .

?
What would you do if he/she replied, "Yes, I would like you to pray to Shiva."?
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce