Religion
Related: About this forumAre different rules of logical discussion in effect in this group?
I seem to have trouble following some discussions here. Maybe it's just me, but I don't normally have such difficulties.
Apparently, I am supposed to read through the entire thread multiple times so I will be aware that edits have been made to earlier posts. I'm not used to doing that. It seems like that would take far more time than is worthwhile.
Perhaps I have returned here in error after a lengthy absence. I will consider...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If I do, it's usually something entirely innocuous like a grammar/spelling issue. If it makes a material change or addition to the post, I clearly place a "Edit:" at the bottom and describe the change.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)I do correct typos, of course, without notification, as you said.
But, I normally only read threads chronologically, in the order the posts and replies are written. I almost never go back upthread to see if someone has changed something in a previous post.
I don't really have time to do that. Nor any inclination to do that.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I believe that would lock the subthread. I could be wrong. I don't know that I've had to do that in this venue.
Girard442
(6,085 posts)What if somebody changes, "I like to pet the kitty" to "I like to {redacted} the kitty"?
True Dough
(17,331 posts)That's all you really need to know, and you can't go wrong!
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)If I wrong someone, I will tell that person I am sorry and hope to be forgiven. If I can make amends in some way, that is also an option.
That's the only kind of repentance I do. It's the only kind that actually has the potential to have some effect, I think.
The sort of third-party repentance seems without value to me. If I repent to some third party for having wronged someone else, what is accomplished? Now, if the person I have wronged is not available to hear my apology and request for forgiveness, I will have to just deal with my bad behavior within myself. But telling someone else I'm sorry for it seems not to be worthwhile, even if it is someone I can see and talk to face-to-face.
Otherwise, I'm just anonymously repenting, and that doesn't seem of much use, really.
True Dough
(17,331 posts)And say the rosary three times. It will keep you well.
Thoughts and prayers,
True Dough
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Because it's the Religion group.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)It's a different sort of logic, eh? OK. That's still difficult when it comes to discussions, isn't it?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Solving the world's religious conflicts isn't going to happen here.
BigmanPigman
(51,632 posts)I am newish to DU and try to stay out of discussions where I may get accused of trying to stir things up (I asked a question about Bernie once and was called a troll for some reason). I get confused about thread titles. There is the Religion Group, the Atheist Group, the Christian Group and I never know where and how the appropriate reply should be written without being misconstrued/misinterpreted so I usually hold back and let others who can express themselves far better than I ever could reply first.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Some groups are restricted to like-minded individuals.
BigmanPigman
(51,632 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I posted about the Womens' Conference inviting Sanders to speak and some of the replies were heated.
BigmanPigman
(51,632 posts)This is only on DU as far as I have experienced. When I speak to other Dems who are friends and strangers (people I meet at anti-moron resistant rallies/marches) Bernie's name has never once come up in the past 11 months.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I also have attended numerous marches and events. I see the occasional Bernie button.
sprinkleeninow
(20,263 posts)Aaannnd,
Very good!
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You are free to voice your opinion - don't listen to their hatred and nastiness!
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)I assume this Forum is for polite discussions regardless of viewpoints.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)As the group statement says, "Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome."
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Because when I first got on this site, I had to not let the anti-religion haters not get me down.
Okey doke!
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)You tell someone not to let haters get them down and yet I make a similar comment, and you think it's funny. Could you please explain? I seem to have missed something?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Take care.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)You take care too
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)So why shouldn't there be different ways of 'Logic' as well...
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)One time, a few months ago, a frequent poster in the religion group made a comment referencing all of the posts wherein theists were allegedly attacking atheists.
I responded that I personally saw far more of the reverse, and asked for links to the posts. The frequent poster responded that it was my responsibility to do my own research. Another one or two posters responded with their own stories of the frequency with which theists attacked non-theists. To date, I still have received no links to any posts supporting the contention.
So when someone earlier asked for "proof" of what I said about the numerous posts which claim that theism is dying, I responded by reminding the poster of the earlier exchange.
Second, if I post that I can only define Christianity for myself, and I am accused of attempting to define Christianity, what exactly am I supposed to think of this response?
So yes, there apparently are different rules for different groups.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Then go on to define it for everyone else. You also attempt to define atheism for all Atheists as well. That's where your issue lies.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I define it for myself.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)However, it can be confusing for everyone who uses those words in the usual way. Since you don't use the standard definitions that are found in dictionaries, please consider posting a glossary of Words Defined by Guillaumeb for Himself. It would make discussion with you much more productive.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It must be easy to always depend on another's definition for all of your positions.
Do you really feel that every person of faith has the identical definition of what that faith is?
Mariana
(14,861 posts)Sometimes there really isn't a word for the idea one wishes to express, that's a fact. When that happens to me, I describe my idea. I don't just assign that idea to some word that means something else, and call it MY definition of that word. That's not how language works.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And research to find the posts that are claimed to exist that are literally calling atheists demons.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=118200
Here's another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=138535
And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=110476
And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=138839
And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=109896
And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=109892
And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=109805
And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=110075
And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=118005
And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=118018
And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=118235
I shall await your apology and retraction.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)If that is an example of your proof, I will not bother with the others.
Really a weak attempt.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Anyone else can inspect those links and see if they support my true claim, or your false one.
Your humiliation and self-vilification will only continue.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Okay, another glorious victory for t.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But to be honest, they've all been too easy.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Here is the original post:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=109853
The usage of the word demons by the poster refers to psychological issues. The humorous use of the word demons follows that, but the poster never claims to be a theist.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And I never claimed it was theists calling us demons.
Keep it up, this is awesome stuff. You are stuck in your own web.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It amazes me, and probably others here. Have fun with the demon issue.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You take care, and let me know when you are going to try and defend your latest false claim!
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)But you are incorrectly defining others, regardless of other claims. Once you start sharing it with others, and also labeling them, saying "it's just for me" isn't a valid excuse.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)You previously said that I define Christianity. In spite of my numerous statements saying that I can only define it for myself.
So which reality have you decided to side with? Your statement, or mine?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)"I Define Christianity For Myself" might look nice slapped on a bumpersticker, but it's a patently absurd statement to make. In defining the word you ipso facto craft a yardstick by which the Christianity of others is measured, implicitly if not explicitly.
Spare us the solipsistic nonsense. It is not possible to define the word just for yourself.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Perhaps you are confused about this, but I am not. And the yardstick that you insist I am creating is utter nonsense.
Define Democrat, or progressive, or feminist, in a way that all will agree with.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)That's not the point.
The point is you've established a criteria, and whether you acknowledge it or not you judge how "Christian" people are based on that criteria. The criteria by definition cannot apply solely to yourself.
If you believe Christianity necessarily entails X,Y, and Z, then you cannot believe people who deny X, Y, and Z are Christians.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)you are defining their views on religion.
When you incorrectly call atheism a belief system, you are attempting to define it for others.
This thing where you jump back aghast when you are called on this behaviour saying "It's only for myself" doesn't fly like you think it does.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)one is generally described as a literalist.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)To take one example, that whole Adam and Eve/Garden of Eden thing. There are problems with taking it literally, but if you don't take it literally then "original sin" doesn't exist and some major plot holes show up later in the story. Sometimes you kind of have to make calls in bunches.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,965 posts)And once you stop taking every word of a religious text literally, then you are on shaky ground because you are just randomly not following what you don't like or agree with. And how do we know that the "Jesus is the son of god" part shouldn't be taken literally.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)ISTR something like three different stories where the Jehovah character gives the same plot of land to the same family three different times. Now, I can explain that by pointing to the plagiarized composite nature of the character. Somebody else might simply conclude judeo-christians worship a god who is clearly insane. But ISTM that a christian has to have some mechanism for deciding which is true. Obviously, a literalist would decide they're all true even though they contradict each other. How does a non-literalist pick and choose which of these stories he wants to believe?
Thoughts?
Mariana
(14,861 posts)Several people on this board have asked variations of that question over and over and over again. No Christian has seen fit to answer it. Of course, they usually refuse to answer any questions about their specific beliefs at all. I have no idea if they don't know what they believe, or if they're ashamed of their particular beliefs, or what.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)We're you not being honest about it before?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I can believe either.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)where you claim to not define anyone's religion, then explain how you define other's religion.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)that support your allegation.
Good luck doing so.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You've driven us around in circles rather than answering a question. I've almost forgotten what's being talked about because of all the tangents and non-sequiturs.
You also have the lingering question of defining your god so we can continue that conversation, but you instead went off on several tangents and several new threads to distract from that question.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)You made a claim.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them particularly verbs: they're the proudest adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But it does not relate to another mischaracterizing my position when anyone can read my actual position.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)Impenetrability, I say! By all means, keep defining things without regard to what they mean.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)By all means, keep your deflection screens powered.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)Take "deflection" for example. I'm not deflecting anything, by any conceivable definition of the word. I'm pointing out that you explicitly insist on deliberately mis-communicating by making up your own definitions in a scene stolen from Alice in Wonderland. And you call my observation, "deflection." You invent a new definition for a word to object that people complain when you invent new definitions for words.
It's like watching Monty Python performing Alice in Wonderland.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Ludwig Dodson would approve.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)Monty Python on acid performing Alice in Wonderland.
"Words mean what I want them to dead parrot on the telly."
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But when people mischaracterize what I say, whether deliberately or not, I might respond to that mischaracterization.
So, for example, if I say that I can only define Christianity for myself, that does not mean that I am insisting that my definition of Christianity is the correct one. And that is the mischaracterization that prompted my response.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)You also explicitly arrogate the right to define everybody else's position for them incorrectly and for your own convenience (strawman, much?) and over their repeated objections. As you just threw "belief" out yet again. That's...well, that is what it is, and you get the respect you earned for it.
Even with your own, we're not talking about defining your personal recipe for spaghetti marinara. With certain institutions, membership is clearly defined by certain tenets. You ignore what you don't like as Bronze Age fiction, then insist that we take seriously exactly the buffet items you like, but which you never even take the trouble to identify.
Between your invented words and your unclear position, you're doing an impression of Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland. At least own it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And that all theists must have identical viewpoints?
What institution do you feel I belong to? Please enlighten me so I can become a better theist.
Please link to some proof for this bizarre assertion that one suspects was apparently made to justify your own personal definition of theists.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)Your response to a complaint that you refuse to make your position clear is to demand that I guess what you believe. Farce is alive and well here.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)What is not, however, flourishing in your posts, is any systemic attempt at logic.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)And that the return on investment for taking you seriously does not justify the effort. Nor will it as long as you insist on defining every position but your own. So, I say again: Impenetrability!
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Uncanny.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Why do you believe it?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)If something is true, it is true for everyone. If you speak only for yourself, you are not speaking of something other people do or ought to be believe, you are speaking only of your own opinion. If it's only your own opinion, then it is no more true than my opinion that butter pecan is the best of all ice cream flavors.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Agreed?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I believe the earth revolves around the sun. That is a statement of what is true and what therefore everyone ought to believe.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)One can see that fresh water freezes at 0C at sea level. It is not necessary to believe what is known.
But many philosophical concepts do require belief.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)"an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exist."
I accept that it is true that fresh water freezes at 0 degrees C at sea level.
What is your definition?
Mariana
(14,861 posts)because of a few posters who refuse to engage in honest discussion.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But please, do not name anyone because it could be seen as a violation of the TOS.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,965 posts)Iggo
(47,571 posts)You read it like this:
Mm-hmm
Mm-hmm
Yep
Heard it
Heard it
Oh hey! There's a new one!
Yep
Yep
Heard it
Etc.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)Therefore, it allegedly trumps all rational argument.
In a way reminiscent of Donald Trump.
Response to MineralMan (Original post)
Wwcd This message was self-deleted by its author.