Originally posted by FreakyKBHAh, again now I see.
[b]Unfortunately, you did not explain that!
Actually, I did.
Even though my post was a direct response to BDP, it went through a very detailed explanation of why his post lacked the material to hold any water.
The link didn't come until a later post.
Why it wasn't clear to you is uncertain, since the concepts in my post mirrored those found [i]on ...[text shortened]... thereof.
You atheists certainly are good at feigning misunderstanding an awful lot, aren't you?[/b]
That was several posts after you first mentioned that thread and to just post a link without a comment such as "Here's the thread I was talking about earlier" did set it up for misunderstanding. It was around a day and a half after the previous mention of the thread.
I think my suggestions would still be good advice if you want to post links in future:
1) Explain which tactic the link is an example of
2) Link to specific posts, not to an 8-page conversation (or say which posts on which page)
3) Say why the posts you are linking to are examples of the tactic.
Don't just assume we will realise that a link with no other explanation is intended to go with posts from days previously.
Now back to your suggestion that the thread provided an example of atheists using tactic #2. The initial posts of the thread were simply a list of attributes taken from the bible, with no explanation of what you wanted to debate about those attributes. So you can't legitimately say we are trying to use tactic #2 for the following reasons:
#2. Obfuscate.
a. Misdirect the course of the discussion. Well the discussion did not have any particular course to disrupt. You simply quoted the bible and gave various attribute of the god of the Bible. So we just criticised the reliability and veracity of your source. Nothing 'off topic' there.
b. Get off topic at all costs. Again, there was no specific topic.
c. Dodge the point. There was no point to dodge.
d. Go back to #1. #1 is belittling the poster. Well I don't think we belittled you specifically, just the source you were quoting.
---Penguin.
Originally posted by Penguin"...and to just post a link without a comment such as "Here's the thread I was talking about earlier" did set it up for misunderstanding. It was around a day and a half after the previous mention of the thread.
Ah, again now I see.
That was several posts after you first mentioned that thread and to just post a link without a comment such as "Here's the thread I was talking about earlier" did set it up for misunderstanding. It was around a day and a half after the previous mention of the thread.
I think my suggestions would still be good advice if you want to ...[text shortened]... ll I don't think we belittled you specifically, just the source you were quoting.
---Penguin.
I can see why you would be confused, especially in light of the fact that when I did post the link, it was in direct response to your offer of discussing a topic without the usual tactics.
If you go back and look at the post of mine with the link, you'll notice your words quoted directly above it.
This is the method most people (myself included) have employed to aid in keeping the discussions moving about with minimal confusion as to who is speaking to whom, and/or the topic in sight.
Clearly (as you stated), had I simply posted a link without any reference to any particular conversation, great assumptions would be required of the reader.
Thankfully (and as I have stated and shown now multiple times), this was not the case.
Curiously, despite following your oh-so-helpful etiquette points for profitable conversation via the internets in advance of your thoughtful offering of the same, you were confused.
The initial posts of the thread were simply a list of attributes taken from the bible, with no explanation of what you wanted to debate about those attributes.
Actually, the initial post of the thread stated exactly what was to follow; namely
"...this thread will attempt to delineate the attributes of God in an outline fashion."
According to the stated intent of these public forums...
"The forums are the core of the 'Immortal Game' community.
Feel free to just read, but please consider posting a comment.
Most posts will develop into a conversation (called a thread), so be sure to check back and follow up on any of your earlier posts."
Pretty simple stuff, if you give it a second to sink in.
One bloke posts [whatever] and another two or four come by and intone their impressions, for/against/undecided.
The chief tongue-in-cheek intention of this thread, for instance, claims that atheists on this forum regularly engage in activities unrelated and dissimilar to an actual conversation--- at least, not one which is about the topic(s) raised.
Although it's already been stated, take, for instance, the thread for which I provided a link.
There was no conversation about the topic (attributes of God), but rather toward topics ancillary to the topic.
Obfuscation, in other words.
Even misdirection, if you will.
'We won't discuss [whatever], but instead, we will discuss [whichever].'
Again, there was no specific topic.
There was no point to dodge.
I hope you're seeing the error of your statements by this point.
There emphatically was a topic: the attributes of God.
Well I don't think we belittled you specifically, just the source you were quoting.
I certainly don't take any of what happens on these forums personally, but you are wrong again.
The second post wondered how long it would be before I tired of the topic.
The third suggested if let alone to rant, I might come to my senses.
The fifth mockingly depicted me as a possible prophet were I (a rambling buffoon) able to time-travel.
And so on and so forth.
When challenged on the point of the presentation, I put it clearly:
"However, it seems your efforts would be better served in pointing out the weakness of the presentation (or, better, in the gaps of logic in the ideas themselves), than debasing your position with ineffectual similes."
No takers.
No surprise.
04 Jul 14
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOk, fair enough, I can see the progression and I am having to narrow my criteria here and bring in extraneous reasons to justify my confusion. I retract the claim that you were using tactic #2 in posting the link.
[b]"...and to just post a link without a comment such as "Here's the thread I was talking about earlier" did set it up for misunderstanding. It was around a day and a half after the previous mention of the thread.
I can see why you would be confused, especially in light of the fact that when I did post the link, it was in direct response to your offer ...[text shortened]... mselves), than debasing your position with ineffectual similes."[/i]
No takers.
No surprise.[/b]
My narrower criteria are that the post you replied to when posting the link was not one that was asking you to do so, although I agree it was in that sub-thread. The post you are replying to was actually moving on and suggesting a clean thread where we both make conscious efforts to avoid the tactics. By the way, in case you jump on this as being an example of #2 itself, I maintain that it was a logical progression of what had gone before rather than an attempt to derail or obfuscate.
My extraneous reasons to explain the confusion are that I have a day job and a young family. I get maybe 30 minutes a day to waste on here and don't have the time to fully revisit a threads history. This is not uncommon on internet forums and can easily give rise to such confusions if we are not very careful to make context clear.
I also agree that there is some of #1 in the thread from the atheists.
I am going to defend my assertion that it is not a good example of #2 though. In analysing the attributes of god, I think it is perfectly legitimate and on-topic to discuss how those attributes are ascertained and so the reliability and veracity of the source is of prime relevance.
--- Penguin.
04 Jul 14
Originally posted by PenguinQuit wasting that half hour here.
Ok, fair enough, I can see the progression and I am having to narrow my criteria here and bring in extraneous reasons to justify my confusion. I retract the claim that you were using tactic #2 in posting the link.
My narrower criteria are that the post you replied to when posting the link was not one that was asking you to do so, although I agree it was i ...[text shortened]... rtained and so the reliability and veracity of the source is of prime relevance.
--- Penguin.
Your family needs you more than you need this drivel.
26 Jul 14
Originally posted by josephwWhy would an atheist waste his or her time frequently debating in an online spirituality forum? What's the objective?
#1. Attack the individual.
a. Ridicule
b. Belittle
c. Insult their intelligence
#2. Obfuscate.
a. Misdirect the course of the discussion
b. Get off topic at all costs
c. Dodge the point
d. Go back to #1
#3. Do not have a sense of humor.
a. Be angry at those of faith because they are the cause of all the wars
b. Do not use smiley faces
c. S ...[text shortened]... hat you really believe.
b. Go back to #2
#5. Do not have a sense of humor.
a. Go back to #3
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWhy would you ask this question again and again, get answers from atheists again and again, ignore their answers again and again, and then ask the same question again and again? What's the objective? 😀
Why would an atheist waste his or her time frequently debating in an online spirituality forum? What's the objective?
26 Jul 14
Originally posted by FMF"Spirituality Forum: Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after." -Russ
Why would you ask this question again and again, get answers from atheists again and again, ignore their answers again and again, and then ask the same question again and again? What's the objective? 😀
Because it's still perplexing. An agnostic I could easily understand; if I were an atheist, atheist forums would appeal.
26 Jul 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyMaybe if you engaged these fellow posters genuinely and with sincerity instead of your incessant resort to passive aggressive tricks then you might learn something about people with different beliefs from you. The fact that you say you would prefer to talk to atheists if you were an atheist says a lot about your apparent lack of intellectual curiosity. 🙂
Because it's still perplexing. An agnostic I could easily understand; if I were an atheist, atheist forums would appeal.
26 Jul 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou copy paste this quite frequently and it demonstrates the narrowness of your perspective. There are those who believe that spirituality does not ~ and does not need to ~ involve "the supernatural". There are those who believe that "religion" is just spirituality misdirected and disempowered. There are those that believe that dogma and wishful thinking about "the life after" is a squandering or anaesthetizing of spiritual capacity and potential. For all these kinds of people, this forum can be exactly the right place to come.
"Spirituality Forum: Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after." -Russ
26 Jul 14
Originally posted by FMFSuum cuique.
You copy paste this quite frequently and it demonstrates the narrowness of your perspective. There are those who believe that spirituality does not ~ and does not need to ~ involve "the supernatural". There are those who believe that "religion" is just spirituality misdirected and disempowered. There are those that believe that dogma and wishful thinking about " ...[text shortened]... and potential. For all these kinds of people, this forum can be exactly the right place to come.
26 Jul 14
Originally posted by FMF"The fact that you say you would prefer to talk to atheists if you were an atheist says a lot about your apparent lack of intellectual curiosity." -FMF I wouldn't even consider becoming an atheist until my intellectual curiosity was fully satisfied.
Maybe if you engaged these fellow posters genuinely and with sincerity instead of your incessant resort to passive aggressive tricks then you might learn something about people with different beliefs from you. The fact that you say you would prefer to talk to atheists if you were an atheist says a lot about your apparent lack of intellectual curiosity. 🙂
26 Jul 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyBut by your own admission, if you did become an atheist, you would then rather talk to other atheists. The point about your inability or unwillingness to engage people who are different from you in their beliefs is well made, by you yourself, albeit perhaps unwittingly.
I wouldn't even consider becoming an atheist until my intellectual curiosity was fully satisfied.