Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A&A Feedback

12467…62

Comments

  • #92
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    there is a definite thing on here of "oh the religious are stupid people full stop."
    As above, this forum generally tries, as best it can, to stick to a mature discussion in the traditional dialectic sense so perhaps you can understand why it's a PITA when somebody comes along and delivers one or more posts which deny the dialectic that everybody else is taking part in.

    It's a bit like you're having dinner at home with a few friends, cracking the odd joke, making the occasional deeper point and generally letting conversation flow along smoothly as it would amongst friends. And then somebody arrives in through the open door from the street, produces a tupenny foghorn, parps it repeatedly, and then gets offended when somebody else asks them to stop being stupid and put it away.

    As mod of this forum for the last handful of years, I'd say at least 75% of the latter are religious posters and, again as above, they have a very hard time indeed distinguishing between a lecture and a discussion, perhaps because in religious terms, a lecture from the pulpit is as close to a religious discussion as they'll ever get. It's a discontinuity of expectation on the forum's part and theirs.

    You can, if you want to, distill this observation about the forum's expectation into a belief on your part that the regulars in A+A believe that all religious people are stupid. However, that's an inappropriate conclusion to draw, since it's at least equally plausible that a lot of the forum regulars believe that the majority of religious people are fundamentally honest people, but mislead.


  • #93
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Not to say that religious posters are particularlarly sensitive or anything. But there is a definite thing on here of "oh the religious are stupid people full stop."
    I would like to believe that atheist/agnostic people are no more insensitive than religious people. I think that the difference of opinion is enough that each side of the divide feels that the other is denying their belief, merely by strongly asserting it.

    I'll give the following as an example of something that I considered incredibly insensitive towards a person who had had an abortion, given that they might not have any belief in Jesus. To a catholic, it seems forgiving, I suppose. To acknowledge that this is both insensitive and forgiving is to say that there are different points of view, equally valid in different arenas, but you must choose your own beliefs.

    "Such an argument wouldn't cut much ice, if somebody had killed a born child ... and it isn't a much better reason for killing an unborn child either.
    Could I say that I am not judging you ... let he who is without sin and all that.

    Can I also say that your unborn child is likely in Heaven and has also likely forgiven you for what you did ... and Jesus loves you and will also forgive you if you believe on Him to Save you.

    Some of the most amazing pro-life people have had abortions themselves ... or performed thousands of abortions as doctors ... and now have reconciled themselves with God and with what they have done."


  • #94
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    robindch wrote: »
    As above, this forum generally tries, as best it can, to stick to a mature discussion in the traditional dialectic sense so perhaps you can understand why it's a PITA when somebody comes along and delivers one or more posts which deny the dialectic that everybody else is taking part in.

    It's a bit like you're having dinner at home with a few friends, cracking the odd joke, making the occasional deeper point and generally letting conversation flow along smoothly as it would amongst friends. And then somebody arrives in through the open door from the street, produces a tupenny foghorn, parps it repeatedly, and then gets offended when somebody else asks them to stop being stupid and put it away.

    As mod of this forum for the last handful of years, I'd say at least 75% of the latter are religious posters and, again as above, they have a very hard time indeed distinguishing between a lecture and a discussion, perhaps because in religious terms, a lecture from the pulpit is as close to a religious discussion as they'll ever get. It's a discontinuity of expectation on the forum's part and theirs.

    You can, if you want to, distill this observation about the forum's expectation into a belief on your part that the regulars in A+A believe that all religious people are stupid. However, that's an inappropriate conclusion to draw, since it's at least equally plausible that a lot of the forum regulars believe that the majority of religious people are fundamentally honest people, but mislead.

    Perhaps i'm being too hard on you and the forum, but just to go on what you've said in your last few posts, you seem to be over-generalising and creating a false barrier based on your own bias towards this forums regulars.

    I don't believe that you think religious people are dishonest; just a litle bit dim maybe or incapable of logical enquiry? That's the feeling i'm getting. Unfortunately. I feel that's a faulty generalisation.


  • #95
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Perhaps i'm being too hard on you and the forum, but just to go on what you've said in your last few posts, you seem to be over-generalising and creating a false barrier based on your own bias towards this forums regulars.

    I don't believe that you think religious people are dishonest; just a litle bit dim maybe or incapable of logical enquiry? That's the feeling i'm getting. Unfortunately. I feel that's a faulty generalisation.

    But I'd say generalising on A+A (and I don't think mod was) about religious people being incapable of logical enquiry would be the same as to say that on the christian thread people generally refer to "God's will" or "God's word" in answer to a plea for a logical answer (to a question from a non-religious person). It can get wearisome. I am generalising, but it happens. A lot. And I'm sure the religious are equally tired by the call for peer-reviewed scientific data. As you say, it is what it is.


  • #96
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    Obliq wrote: »
    But I'd say generalising on A+A (and I don't think mod was) about religious people being incapable of logical enquiry would be the same as to say that on the christian thread people generally refer to "God's will" or "God's word" in answer to a plea for a logical answer (to a question from a non-religious person). It can get wearisome. I am generalising, but it happens. A lot. And I'm sure the religious are equally tired by the call for peer-reviewed scientific data. As you say, it is what it is.

    :)Yeah. Well, actually he was making a big generalisation. It's there in black and white. But hey, it's only a silly discussion forum. No animals were harmed while we were chatting. And you're all really really nice people. Of that i have no doubt. Just a little biased that's all.;)


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Ha! Hello kettle? You're a big black fella. Signed, pot.
    Also, it's not a generalisation in a dismissive way, if it's generally true.


  • #98
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    :)Yeah. Well, actually he was making a big generalisation. It's there in black and white. But hey, it's only a silly discussion forum. No animals were harmed while we were chatting. And you're all really really nice people. Of that i have no doubt. Just a little biased that's all.;)

    Are you reading the same posts as I am?

    Can you point out, exactly, where robindch is making the generalisation that all religious people are "just a litle bit dim maybe or incapable of logical enquiry"?

    I, for one, can't see where he has said anything of the sort.


  • #99
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Perhaps i'm being too hard on you and the forum, but just to go on what you've said in your last few posts, you seem to be over-generalising and creating a false barrier based on your own bias towards this forums regulars.

    I don't believe that you think religious people are dishonest; just a litle bit dim maybe or incapable of logical enquiry? That's the feeling i'm getting. Unfortunately. I feel that's a faulty generalisation.

    It's perfectly possible to disagree with people on any number of topics and not think they are less intelligent than you. That said, I do think a lot of religious folk think atheists think they are stupid. I think it stems, at least partially, from the 'smug atheists' stereotype.


  • #100
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    gvn wrote: »
    Are you reading the same posts as I am?

    Can you point out, exactly, where robindch is making the generalisation that all religious people are "just a litle bit dim maybe or incapable of logical enquiry"?

    I, for one, can't see where he has said anything of the sort.

    I'm sorry but i'm not interested in dragging up posts as proof. I appreciate your desire to stand up for something or other but if you deny there isn't an element of..whatever.

    ..The less said the better tbh.

    There is definitely a certain snottiness towards religious people on the forum. I don't want to single out anyone. I just go by what people type and presume that's what they mean..

    That's ok. It just seems silly to deny there is a bit of..whatever.


  • #101
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    I'm sorry but i'm not interested in dragging up posts as proof. I appreciate your desire to stand up for something or other but if you deny there isn't an element of..whatever.

    ..The less said the better tbh.

    There is definitely a certain snottiness towards religious people on the forum. I don't want to single out anyone. I just go by what people type and presume that's what they mean..

    That's ok. It just seems silly to deny there is a bit of..whatever.

    Your response is a paragon of the antithesis of the dialectical method, which robindch discusses above. Ironic, eh?

    If you're going to accuse a person of making gross generalisations — and derogatory, insulting ones at that — then the least you can do is point out where the generalisation has been made.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    gvn wrote: »
    Your response is a paragon of the antithesis of the dialectical method, which robindch discusses above. Ironic, eh?

    If you're going to accuse a person of making gross generalisations — and derogatory, insulting ones at that — then the least you can do is point out where the generalisation has been made.


    Oh please. It's all religious people this and religious people that.

    If you can't see that, i'm sorry but i can't help you..

    As said, i have no interest in dragging up the numerous insulting generalised condescending posts on here. It's silly.

    You're post is a paragon of denial! :)


  • #103
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Holy crap J C is back! :eek:


  • #104
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Holy crap J C is back! :eek:

    Whatever dude..


  • #105
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Oh please. It's all religious people this and religious people that.

    If you can't see that, i'm sorry but i can't help you..

    Perhaps if you could point out a couple of examples, just a couple, people might take you seriously.
    As said, i have no interest in dragging up the numerous insulting generalised condescending posts on here. It's silly.

    I didn't ask you to do that. I asked you to point out where, in this exact thread, in only two posts, in fact, robindch expressed a generalisation about religious people, which you've claimed he had done. You can't do this because one doesn't exist; be honest.
    You're post is a paragon of denial! :)

    How witty.


  • #106
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Holy crap J C is back! :eek:

    Oh no! But no, I don't think so. Am currently keeping him too busy on the Christian forum. ;)


  • #107
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Whatever dude..

    Allow me to elaborate; your posts have taken a sudden and sharp turn away from dialectical discourse to the point of being eerily like a particular poster who was well known for such things right down to the, "no, you're a" response complete with smiley face. It's quite like deja vu actually.
    Call me a cynic, but I find a lot of posters tend to start doing that when they aren't arsed backing up their points, which is a shame really.


  • #108
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    gvn wrote: »
    I didn't ask you to do that. I asked you to point out where, in this exact thread, in only two posts, in fact, robindch expressed a generalisation about religious people, which you've claimed he had done. You can't do this because one doesn't exist; be honest.

    Robin said: "Lots of people get mixed up all the time between a dialectic discussion (what non-religious people think is happening) and a lecture (what religious people think is happening)."

    Wish you didn't question my recall tbf. Was trying to avoid it.

    Time for you to be honest. Is the above statement a generalisation about religious people or not?

    Yes or No please.


  • #109
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Allow me to elaborate; your posts have taken a sudden and sharp turn away from dialectical discourse to the point of being eerily like a particular poster who was well known for such things right down to the, "no, you're a" response complete with smiley face. It's quite like deja vu actually.
    Call me a cynic, but I find a lot of posters tend to start doing that when they aren't arsed backing up their points, which is a shame really.

    Ok. I've tried to remedy that.


  • #110
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    I'm sorry but i'm not interested in dragging up posts as proof......

    Yes, I'm sure.

    However the rest of us are interested in you "dragging up posts" to prove what you said was true, because coming on a forum and making unsubstantiated claims about things or other posters is frowned upon.

    Or you could retract the remark and apologise.


  • #111
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Robin said: "Lots of people get mixed up all the time between a dialectic discussion (what non-religious people think is happening) and a lecture (what religious people think is happening)."

    Wish you didn't question my recall tbf. Was trying to avoid it.

    Time for you to be honest. Is the above statement a generalisation about religious people or not?

    Yes or No please.

    On its face, yes, it is, though the point is qualified in his next post — in his experience, he says, on this forum 75% of those getting mixed up between a dialectic and a lecture are religious posters (which I would agree with). Perhaps Robin will clarify himself, but I don't believe he thinks your above, nit-picked quote to be true for all.

    But yes, I'll concede that the above, taken as is, without the context of the latter post, is a generalisation.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yes, I'm sure.

    However the rest of us are interested in you "dragging up posts" to prove what you said was true, because coming on a forum and making unsubstantiated claims about things or other posters is frowned upon.

    Or you could retract the remark and apologise.

    Apologise for what exactly nodin. Am i in the dog house now with Brown Bomber for crimes against the racist police of boards?

    Oh **** off mate.:rolleyes:


  • #113
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    To be fair to Bishop!, I like having a laugh at religion and i'm sure i'm not the only one.

    I'm not a prolific poster here but i think laughing at it is a good thing and if that comes across as exclusionist, then dress me in a, well, erm dress and put me in charge of a faith school.


  • #114
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Apologise for what exactly nodin. Am i in the dog house now with Brown Bomber for crimes against the racist police of boards?

    Oh **** off mate.:rolleyes:

    What on Earth are you talking about?


  • #115
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Apologise for what exactly nodin. Am i in the dog house now with Brown Bomber for crimes against the racist police of boards?

    Oh **** off mate.:rolleyes:

    Ah. I gave my youngest a week off the computer for saying something similar to me earlier.


  • #116
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    The Bishop! wrote: »
    Apologise for what exactly nodin. Am i in the dog house now with Brown Bomber for crimes against the racist police of boards?

    Oh **** off mate.:rolleyes:

    Oh wow, haven't seen the race card get pulled out in a while.

    129077972875498445.jpg


  • #117
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    gvn wrote: »
    On its face, yes, it is, though the point is qualified in his next post — in his experience, he says, on this forum 75% of those getting mixed up between a dialectic and a lecture are religious posters (which I would agree with). Perhaps Robin will clarify himself, but I don't believe he thinks your above, nit-picked quote to be true for all.

    But yes, I'll concede that the above, taken as is, without the context of the latter post, is a generalisation.

    As said, i really like most everyone on here. Robin included!

    It's just a bit ferocious sometimes. I'm not making any judgement or climbing on a high horse. It just seems to me there is a bit of condescending anti-religion apparent. It's silly to deny it.

    So sue me for observing that. I'm not saying it should be stamped out or changed or anything. Just saying that from the outside looking in, it comes across as biased sometimes. That's all. Sorry. No sweat like. I'm not interested in painting anyone into a corner about this.

    Actually.. you're all evil monsters! The lot of you!:pac:


  • #118
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    For some reason I can't take a poster seriously if they tell another poster to feck off. Seems entirely unnecessary. If a religious poster discusses rather than evangelising they get on fine tbh. A good proportion of religious posters seem to come around to the forum to say 'What if you're wrong?' or complaining about arrogant atheists. But then we've had other religious posters that don't behave like such, one thread that comes to mind is this.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056675649

    He was happy to discuss why he is religious but did not come out with rubbish about how we can't be in any way critical of religion etc. As a result, forum regulars got on far better with him. He didn't make the post for the purpose of irritating and wanted to actually discuss the topic at hand.


  • #119
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    Just to clarify things a bit ladies and gents. I feel i owe nobody an apology for expressing my opinions about the tone or intention of certain posts.

    If you're too wrapped up in backing each other up to not see the blatantly obvious theme on here by some posters that religious people are constantly denigrated by some as being substandard critical thinkers, then that's for you to think about.

    I'm not saying it about all atheists here, so the boards anti-discrimination police squad should maybe back off a bit there.

    Believe me the evidence is there. I just couldn't be bothered going down that road. Let's leave it at that instead of demanding apologies for character slurs and the like..


  • #120
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    The Bishop!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭The Bishop!


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    For some reason I can't take a poster seriously if they tell another poster to feck off. Seems entirely unnecessary. If a religious poster discusses rather than evangelising they get on fine tbh. A good proportion of religious posters seem to come around to the forum to say 'What if you're wrong?' or complaining about arrogant atheists. But then we've had other religious posters that don't behave like such, one thread that comes to mind is this.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056675649

    He was happy to discuss why he is religious but did not come out with rubbish about how we can't be in any way critical of religion etc. As a result, forum regulars got on far better with him. He didn't make the post for the purpose of irritating and wanted to actually discuss the topic at hand.

    Oh butter wouldn't melt.:rolleyes:


Advertisement