Attitudes and behaviour.

[Shaker]

It is not insulting to state an all-to-obvious fact.  If you don't like it, mend your attitudes.

What a monumental hypocrite.

And it isn't a "fact" but your belief. I wish you lot would learn the bloody difference.

[BashfulAnthony]

It is not insulting to state an all-to-obvious fact.  If you don't like it, mend your attitudes.

What a monumental hypocrite.

And it isn't a "fact" but your belief. I wish you lot would learn the bloody difference.

No need to swear old fella:  you simply show yourself up, again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

You are talking a lot of hypothetical nonsense.  All very fine, but not in the real world of human frailties.  Everyone deserves to have their sensitivities respected.  You can talk all you like about the right to offend, but it does not fit in with a humane and concerned view of life and of others.

Including the sensitivities of the abusing priest?

Look, if you can't mount a counter-argument that's fine - fortunately for us all (you included) others have taken and continue to take a more enlightened approach to freedom of speech, and long may it remain so.

It is not insulting to state an all-to-obvious fact.  If you don't like it, mend your attitudes.

Oh I see. So in your head if you decide that someone is an idiot then it's ok to say so?

Fine: you're an idiot. 

[Shaker]

It is not insulting to state an all-to-obvious fact.  If you don't like it, mend your attitudes.

What a monumental hypocrite.

And it isn't a "fact" but your belief. I wish you lot would learn the bloody difference.

No need to swear old fella:  you simply show yourself up, again.

No I didn't. If you can't cope with people using robust language, and you clearly can't, go back to your other forum.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

You are talking a lot of hypothetical nonsense.  All very fine, but not in the real world of human frailties.  Everyone deserves to have their sensitivities respected.  You can talk all you like about the right to offend, but it does not fit in with a humane and concerned view of life and of others.

Including the sensitivities of the abusing priest?

Look, if you can't mount a counter-argument that's fine - fortunately for us all (you included) others have taken and continue to take a more enlightened approach to freedom of speech, and long may it remain so.

It is not insulting to state an all-to-obvious fact.  If you don't like it, mend your attitudes.

Oh I see. So in your head if you decide that someone is an idiot then it's ok to say so?

Fine: you're an idiot.

You are an idiot because you cannot differentiate between freedom of speech and licence.

[Gordon]

It seems to me that some theists, but not all, see their faith as being an attribute of themselves and not just something external that they have acquired and they now subscribe to.

These theists seem not only to interpret anyone challenging their faith as being a direct challenge to them as a person, which it isn't, they also expect others to tread carefully and respect their religious sensitivities which, thankfully, those of us who don't live in theocracies don't have to.

However, for as long as organised religion seeks to have an influence on society at large then they can expect to be robustly challenged: in that sense they are just as much fair game as are, say, political parties.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

You are an idiot because you cannot differentiate between freedom of speech and licence.

What difference do you think there to be, and who gets to decide where the line is in your view?

How about the offence the abusing priest might take for example? 

PS Given your authorship of the OP, how does that "you are an idiot" fit with the sentiment exactly? 

[BashfulAnthony]

It seems to me that some theists, but not all, see their faith as being an attribute of themselves and not just something external that they have acquired and they now subscribe to.

These theists seem not only to interpret anyone challenging their faith as being a direct challenge to them as a person, which it isn't, they also expect others to tread carefully and respect their religious sensitivities which, thankfully, those of us who don't live in theocracies don't have to.

However, for as long as organised religion seeks to have an influence on society at large then they can expect to be robustly challenged: in that sense they are just as much fair game as are, say, political parties.

It is more a question of respecting peoples' feelings, in this case religious, when they are such a central part of their very existence.  To attempt to disrobe a person's view on life and the universe, and their part in it, is pure fascism.

[Outrider]

Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made  -  the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals.  I experience this here:  the attacks made on Sassy and her beliefs, for example, are a disgrace.  Others come in for similar treatment.  Does it give the perpetrators some kind of buzz to denigrate and impinge so on a person's cherished thoughts and beliefs?  The oft-repeated suggestion that theist are in need of counselling, or have some kind of psychological aberrance is a prime example.

Firstly, you come here voluntarily. I don't want this to come across as a 'if you don't like it you can go away' comment, because I genuinely want everyone to feel comfortable here, but the reality is that you come here knowing that people will disagree with you.

In my experience, the commentary Sassy attracts is in part because of the absolute certainty with which she pitches some absolute nonses, and in part because of the nonsense itself - not because of who she is, or what she, but because of how she puts herself across.

I suspect it no more gives anyone a buzz to call into question people's religious beliefs than it does for believers to suggest things like - and I appreciate this isn't universal - we will suffer an eternity of torment or that we can have no moral structure and must all be depressive nihilists.

I suspect that the allegation isn't that 'theists' are in need of counselling, though I don't doubt it's been suggested to certain individual theists at times - we all have 'psychological aberrances' of one sort or another, believing in magical things for which we have no evidence is just one of them. That doesn't make you wrong, it just means the belief you hold has insufficient basis to justify it - that's why it's faith and not understanding.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

It is more a question of respecting peoples' feelings, in this case religious, when they are such a central part of their very existence.  To attempt to disrobe a person's view on life and the universe, and their part in it, is pure fascism.

So now we need to add "fascism" to the list of words you don't understand.

Look, it's simple enough: if someone has a personal belief - in anything - that's no-one's business but his own, and nor should anyone "disrobe" him of it. The moment though he demands special rights and privileges for that belief in the public square - to be taught as factually true to children for example - then damn right it should be challenged and critiqued, no matter how offended he might be by it.

[Shaker]

So now we need to add "fascism" to the list of words you don't understand.

He probably got that from Vlad.

Look, it's simple enough: if someone has a personal belief - in anything - that's no-one's business but his own, and nor should anyone "disrobe" him of it. The moment though he demands special rights and privileges for that belief in the public square - to be taught as factually true to children for example - then damn right it should be challenged and critiqued, no matter how offended he might be by it.

Hear hear.

[BashfulAnthony]

Fine, but you are not properly addressing the central point being made  -  the harm that attacks on their belief has on individuals.  I experience this here:  the attacks made on Sassy and her beliefs, for example, are a disgrace.  Others come in for similar treatment.  Does it give the perpetrators some kind of buzz to denigrate and impinge so on a person's cherished thoughts and beliefs?  The oft-repeated suggestion that theist are in need of counselling, or have some kind of psychological aberrance is a prime example.

Firstly, you come here voluntarily. I don't want this to come across as a 'if you don't like it you can go away' comment, because I genuinely want everyone to feel comfortable here, but the reality is that you come here knowing that people will disagree with you.

In my experience, the commentary Sassy attracts is in part because of the absolute certainty with which she pitches some absolute nonses, and in part because of the nonsense itself - not because of who she is, or what she, but because of how she puts herself across.

I suspect it no more gives anyone a buzz to call into question people's religious beliefs than it does for believers to suggest things like - and I appreciate this isn't universal - we will suffer an eternity of torment or that we can have no moral structure and must all be depressive nihilists.

I suspect that the allegation isn't that 'theists' are in need of counselling, though I don't doubt it's been suggested to certain individual theists at times - we all have 'psychological aberrances' of one sort or another, believing in magical things for which we have no evidence is just one of them. That doesn't make you wrong, it just means the belief you hold has insufficient basis to justify it - that's why it's faith and not understanding.

O.

Outrider,

I am not naive enough to believe that I, and others, will not be criticised.on here. If I did not accept that I would go, and stay away.  But the kind of criticism the OP is referring to is quite another thing, and I am surprised that a reasonable person like you seems unable to differentiate between fair and equable debate and contradiction, and personal, and often foul-mouthed, diatribe.

[Outrider]

You are talking a lot of hypothetical nonsense.

Surely you can appreciate, though, that to a lot of us your religious belief is, at best, 'hypothetical nonsense'?

All very fine, but not in the real world of human frailties.  Everyone deserves to have their sensitivities respected.

No, they don't. The minute something becomes 'taboo' or 'sacred', the minute you have areas that are beyond question or commentary, the instant you censor commentary on a particular area you make it priveleged, and that confers a status on it that's artificial.

If it's beyond question on its merits then the questions will all be answered, but if you need to protect it from questions then those questions need to be asked, however they're phrased.

There is no right not to be offended, your offence is your choice; I cannot make you offended, I can only offer up something and let you take offence if you choose.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

You are talking a lot of hypothetical nonsense.

Surely you can appreciate, though, that to a lot of us your religious belief is, at best, 'hypothetical nonsense'?

All very fine, but not in the real world of human frailties.  Everyone deserves to have their sensitivities respected.

No, they don't. The minute something becomes 'taboo' or 'sacred', the minute you have areas that are beyond question or commentary, the instant you censor commentary on a particular area you make it priveleged, and that confers a status on it that's artificial.

If it's beyond question on its merits then the questions will all be answered, but if you need to protect it from questions then those questions need to be asked, however they're phrased.

There is no right not to be offended, your offence is your choice; I cannot make you offended, I can only offer up something and let you take offence if you choose.

O.

I'm repeating myself again.  I have no objections to people stating their views on religion, why should I:  it is no skin off my nose.  But when that criticism is allied to personal abuse and denigration, it becomes unacceptable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

I'm repeating myself again.  I have no objections to people stating their views on religion, why should I:  it is no skin off my nose.  But when that criticism is allied to personal abuse and denigration, it becomes unacceptable.

You're shifting ground again: no-one thinks "personal abuse and denigration" - calling someone an "idiot" for example - is acceptable. What you attempted to argue before though was that criticising their beliefs is unacceptable if they are "offended" by it, and that doesn't wash. 

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

I'm repeating myself again.  I have no objections to people stating their views on religion, why should I:  it is no skin off my nose.  But when that criticism is allied to personal abuse and denigration, it becomes unacceptable.

You're shifting ground again: no-one thinks "personal abuse and denigration" - calling someone an "idiot" for example - is acceptable. What you attempted to argue before though was that criticising their beliefs is unacceptable if they are "offended" by it, and that doesn't wash.

Let me ask you:  why do you spend years and many hours of your time with your anti-religious postings and criticism  ?  I have yet to hear a sensible and credible explanation for this phenomenon!   Surely, enough is enough.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

Let me ask you:  why do you spend years and many hours of your time with your anti-religious postings and criticism  ?  I have yet to hear a sensible and credible explanation for this phenomenon!   Surely, enough is enough.

I find religion to be an interesting cultural phenomenon and enjoy discussing it.

Do you now understand the difference between criticising the person and criticising his beliefs?

[Aruntraveller]

Let me ask you:  why do you spend years and many hours of your time with your anti-religious postings and criticism  ?  I have yet to hear a sensible and credible explanation for this phenomenon!   Surely, enough is enough.

Of all the objections you have put up this is surely one of the weakest - why haven't you asked why do so many Christians spend so much of their time on here with their pro-religious postings? It's the same thing.

People choose to spend as much or as little time here as they wish. Yes you can argue we should all be doing something more productive with our time - but human beings don't really work like that. They concentrate on things they enjoy or are interested in. Sometimes you are lucky and can combine that enjoyment and interest with paid employment - more often you can't.

To try to suggest that people should stop - "enough is enough" - seems to miss the whole point of what is happening on here.

[ProfessorDavey]

I find that amazing! Any kind of personal attack should be unacceptable on a mature forum.  Perhaps that explains why so few people are members here!

But you just described people with particular views that you object to as 'abhorrence'. If thats isn't a personal attack I don't know what is. Either practice what you preach or change the record BA.

You totally miss the point.  I am saying such views are abhorrent, not the person making them.  Do you not understand?  I am not "preaching" I am making a perfectly reasonable point, and you are deperately trying to twist it round.

Wrong BA:

In response to me saying:

'But there are plenty of christians here who don't and engage is deeply personal insult, way beyond that which is possible by attacking a person's believe rather than their intrinsic sexuality.'

You replied:

'I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.' - note 'any who do are an abhorrence.' - that clearly refers too the person and not the belief.

Bump for BA.

Given your OP how can you justify describing Christians who engage in attacks on gay people as 'an abhorrence'.

Noting that this comment was clearly aimed at the person and not the view, hence:
'any who do are an abhorrence.'

I'll make it clear, to save you trying to catch me out:"people whose views are abhorrent." I can hardly be personally abusing people when I am talking in general terms about their views, not about any particular individual.

'any who do are an abhorrence' clearly refers to the people as an abhorrence not the views. If you meant the views you'd have said something like 'the vows of these people are an abhorrence' but you didn't - you referred to any who do (ie people) as the object of your abhorrence adjective.

So stop trying to reinvent history, to try to imply you didn't write something that you clearly did.

So the bottom line is that you are unable to live up to the standards you claim in your OP should apply universally on this MB.

All down to semantics; plus you trying to make gain a brownie point at my expense.  Pretty childish post, really.

It isn't all down to semantics actually. I fail to see how anyone would read:

'I don't, and any who do are an abhorrence.'

And conclude anything other that you are describing the people with a particular view as abhorrent, not the view.

But even if we accept you are talking about the view, this still isn't consistent with your OP. In this you inferred, through reference to another message board that religious views are so personal that an attack on the view is tantamount to an attack on the person. Note:

'When it comes to religious belief, what one believes is personal to them, it is what they base their lives and actions around, and in many respects defines who they are, based on their understanding and belief of Christianity, and how it pertains to them as individuals. In short: Their belief is an extremely important part in terms of their definition of who they are. In overtly attacking their beliefs, you are also attacking that member.'

So even if you are attacking the view as abhorrent, if this view is part of a person's strongly held religious belief under your OP that is also an attack on the person.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

Let me ask you:  why do you spend years and many hours of your time with your anti-religious postings and criticism  ?  I have yet to hear a sensible and credible explanation for this phenomenon!   Surely, enough is enough.

I find religion to be an interesting cultural phenomenon and enjoy discussing it.

Do you now understand the difference between criticising the person and criticising his beliefs?

I always have. And it is criticising the person, with undue ferocity and vitriol that I object to  (see, the OP.)

It seems to me that your "enjoyment" in discussing the phenomenon goes beyond the realms of what is a reasonable use of your time;  especially on such a small and pretty well inconsequential little back -water as this.  Have you really nothing else to occupy your interest?  It you have, you must spend precious little time on it. 

[Gordon]

It is more a question of respecting peoples' feelings, in this case religious, when they are such a central part of their very existence.  To attempt to disrobe a person's view on life and the universe, and their part in it, is pure fascism.

Which would be fine if religious people kept their feelings to themselves: but they don't, and in addition some of them at least expect the rest of us to take what they believe seriously and also pussy-foot around their sensitivities.

The solution is simple - let them treat their religion as a sort of private hobby to be shared only with their fellow enthusiasts: but no - some of them (but not all) seem to feel obliged to spread the 'good news' on the presumption that it is somehow vitally important to everyone, and in doing so they also expect to have a public platform by default and that their 'good news' should be 'respected'.

I'm quite happy for religious people to do their thing, on exactly the same basis that I'm happy for train-spotters to gather on the platforms of railway stations and do theirs: I know they are there, and I respect their wish to indulge in what satisfies them personally provided that they do so without harming others or expecting me to either engage with their hobby or to take it seriously or respectfully.

In this regard train-spotters keep themselves to themselves whereas organised religion seems to assume that what is important to them is important to everyone - and on this point they can expect to be challenged.

[BashfulAnthony]

It is more a question of respecting peoples' feelings, in this case religious, when they are such a central part of their very existence.  To attempt to disrobe a person's view on life and the universe, and their part in it, is pure fascism.

Which would be fine if religious people kept their feelings to themselves: but they don't, and in addition some of them at least expect the rest of us to take what they believe seriously and also pussy-foot around their sensitivities.

The solution is simple - let them treat their religion as a sort of private hobby to be shared only with their fellow enthusiasts: but no - some of them (but not all) seem to feel obliged to spread the 'good news' on the presumption that it is somehow vitally important to everyone, and in doing so they also expect to have a public platform by default and that their 'good news' should be 'respected'.

I'm quite happy for religious people to do their thing, on exactly the same basis that I'm happy for train-spotters to gather on the platforms of railway stations and do theirs: I know they are there, and I respect their wish to indulge in what satisfies them personally provided that they do so without harming others or expecting me to either engage with their hobby or to take it seriously or respectfully.

In this regard train-spotters keep themselves to themselves whereas organised religion seems to assume that what is important to them is important to everyone - and on this point they can expect to be challenged.

Christians post here on the Christian forum, and still the atheists latch on.  You cannot help yourselves:  you are obsessed, and it is a pretty unedifying scenario.

Anyway, dinner time.  Meg and I are starving.

[Gordon]

Christians post here on the Christian forum, and still the atheists latch on.  You cannot help yourselves:  you are obsessed, and it is a pretty unedifying scenario.

Nobody is forcing you to look, BA, and there is a Board that can be used for purely faith-based discussions.

This isn't a 'Christian' Forum.

[jakswan]

It is more a question of respecting peoples' feelings, in this case religious, when they are such a central part of their very existence.  To attempt to disrobe a person's view on life and the universe, and their part in it, is pure fascism.

Which would be fine if religious people kept their feelings to themselves: but they don't, and in addition some of them at least expect the rest of us to take what they believe seriously and also pussy-foot around their sensitivities.

The solution is simple - let them treat their religion as a sort of private hobby to be shared only with their fellow enthusiasts: but no - some of them (but not all) seem to feel obliged to spread the 'good news' on the presumption that it is somehow vitally important to everyone, and in doing so they also expect to have a public platform by default and that their 'good news' should be 'respected'.

I'm quite happy for religious people to do their thing, on exactly the same basis that I'm happy for train-spotters to gather on the platforms of railway stations and do theirs: I know they are there, and I respect their wish to indulge in what satisfies them personally provided that they do so without harming others or expecting me to either engage with their hobby or to take it seriously or respectfully.

In this regard train-spotters keep themselves to themselves whereas organised religion seems to assume that what is important to them is important to everyone - and on this point they can expect to be challenged.

Christians post here on the Christian forum, and still the atheists latch on.  You cannot help yourselves:  you are obsessed, and it is a pretty unedifying scenario.

Anyway, dinner time.  Meg and I are starving.

We have a faith forum for that purpose.

[King Oberon]

I have been away from here for a while, posting with sensible people.  I quote here from the rules of that forum, which I have advocated over a period of years for this place, with no sensible response

Sensible people? Is that ones that only agree with you BA?

There has been many people on here who despite everyone disagreeing with the complete nonsense they dribble out e.g. sassy, Vlad only seem to think everyone else has the problem and not them 

Yes I count you in that since I have spent many a time trying to engage with people like yourself as have others you can't see past your own opinions and of course can't see that much of what you say can't be backed up by those old things we like to call facts..

I had to take a break to get away from delusion pushers like yourself if you like the yes BA forum so much then bugger off to it... just a suggestion (or a hope)