What explains your inability to distinguish criticism of a subject from those who espouse it?
Oh wait - think I had that covered in a previous post...
What explains your inability to distinguish criticism of a subject from those who espouse it?
I can see the difference.
What I am trying to explain is that the way YOU do it, there is implicit criticism of the person when you criticise the belief.
It's not what you are doing, it's the way you're doing it that's the problem.
What I am trying to explain is that the way YOU do it
I know what you're trying to explain, I'm not stupid.
You're wrong. You're creating a link where there isn't one.
All you're achieving is a derailment of the thread in pursuit of your obsessive little agenda.
You're wrong. You're creating a link where there isn't one.
You might not intend there to be a link - but there is. You might not see it that way, but everyone else seems to. That's why people are criticising you and calling you insulting. It's not just me.
Bit of advice - listen to other people.
I'm beginning to get upset, so I'm going to leave this one now.
I bet I know what happens next!
Actually - I'm back, but on-topic 🙂
The Julian Baggini article is great. Being an atheist preacher sounds pretty cool...
DezB - Member
I bet I know what happens next!
Were you right?
The Julian Baggini article is great. Being an atheist preacher sounds pretty cool...
Agreed. A really good read, and goes to show that you don't have to be a joyless, ranty, aggressive and binary thinker just because you're atheist! Sadly a tiny vocal minority of atheists behave as if that's the case, much like a tiny vocal minority of people of varying religious persuasions act unpleasantly too. From that, I'd deduce there's unpleasant bellends in all walks of life, each hell bent on "proving" everyone else is wrong, rather than just thinking "live and let live" and focusing on enjoying life in their own bubble.
There was an excellent "fly on the wall" doc about a (London) East End pub called the Lord Nelson in which a pithy and, to the misanthropic amongst us, wholly acceptable philosophy was propounded.
Sounds like a Derek & Clive sketch.
From that, I'd deduce there's unpleasant bellends in all walks of life,
Aren't there.
Sounds like a Derek & Clive sketch.
Yes and we know which one, eh.
Much more wide-ranging and profound, though! 😀
PS: What's the worst job you ever had? 😉
The Julian Baggini article is great. Being an atheist preacher sounds pretty cool...
Agreed. A really good read, and goes to show that you don't have to be a joyless, ranty, aggressive and binary thinker just because you're atheist! Sadly a tiny vocal minority of atheists behave as if that's the case, much like a tiny vocal minority of people of varying religious persuasions act unpleasantly too. From that, I'd deduce there's unpleasant bellends in all walks of life, each hell bent on "proving" everyone else is wrong, rather than just thinking "live and let live" and focusing on enjoying life in their own bubble.
Indeed.
Many of my issues with religion are based on the excessive influence it has (head of state/church, seats in the Lords, faith schools, etc) rather than what individuals choose to believe. It's entirely possible to be against these issues and to be religious.
The interesting part of that article, to me, was the difference between the opinions/beliefs of the higher-ups in the church compared to the general congregation. I don't think sermons in church focus enough on how people who've studies theology interpret the texts.
For example, the church round the corner from me had a family service on Sunday afternoon, where they looked at the story of Noah's Ark. I'm pretty certain nobody will have said "there wasn't an actual flood" at any point.
"there wasn't an actual flood"
What do you mean there wasn't an actual flood?!? 😯
I thought that was how the dinosaurs died out and Pangea broke up.
[i]Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views.
The original statement of the adage, by Nathan Poe, was: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article."[/i]
Oh shit.
😉
Dinosaurs never existed. The bones were planted by God to wind up scientists.
Are you mocking someone's beliefs there, Mol?
Might be.
Any creationists on the thread? If so I apologise for offence.
But I will take up that particular argument.
So, you're offending actual people, then.
Gosh.
No, I wasn't. But it was better than I thought
