A Month Without Atheists

Originally posted by josephw
That's my point.

Unfortunately debate amongst Christians falls into disarray for one simple reason. If it were understood that God's Word is the final authority on all matters of life, living and spirituality, there would be more unity and less debate.

Not to be confused with the concept of iron sharpening iron. Open and honest debate can be beneficia ...[text shortened]... ity to demonstrate The Lord Jesus Christ to the extent as He is formed in us to the whole world.

I don't think that's the debate among Christians, Joe.

The debate is how should the Word of God be interpreted. Because some of the most hardcore here get it wrong on occasion, too.

It doesn't always mean what some here think it means. That's the debate.

Originally posted by JS357
Speaking as one who lacks belief in deity, I wonder what it would be like to have a month without atheists posting (as such) on this forum. There does seem to be a low level of dialogue/repartee/jousting at present. Not too hard to envision a moment of opportunity. Anyone up for it? Say, September? Just lurk. At most.

"Speaking as one who lacks a belief in ethnic equality..."

Something tells me there's another term for that, but I can't put my finger on it.
Anyone able to help me out?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
"Speaking as one who lacks a belief in ethnic equality..."

Something tells me there's another term for that, but I can't put my finger on it.
Anyone able to help me out?

Who is it you claim to be quoting?

Originally posted by FMF
Who is it you claim to be quoting?

It's not a quote, but a reworking of the OP.
I think it's just so darn cute the lengths atheists will go to torture the language.
Reminds me of the raging debate on abortion.
Abortionists were loathe to have the debate frame them in such a negative light, so they re-worked their position in order to make it more public-friendly.
Who could possibly be against freedom of choice, right?
So they went from referring themselves as pro-abortion to pro-choice.
My concern here is not with the question on either topic.
It is with the tortured use of language in the everyday vernacular.

That's all.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's not a quote, but a reworking of the OP.

How so?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
"Speaking as one who lacks a belief in ethnic equality..."

Something tells me there's another term for that, but I can't put my finger on it.
Anyone able to help me out?

Racism?

Unlike FMF, I don't need to know who said it before I decide what to say.



Edit: I'm glad to see no one actually said it.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Racism?

Unlike FMF, I don't need to know who said it before I decide what to say.



Edit: I'm glad to see no one actually said it.

I was interested in why FreakyKBH directed the question at JS357. FreakyKBH even put the words in quotation marks. Nobody actually said it.

"Speaking as one who lacks belief in deity, I wonder what it would be like to have a month without atheists posting (as such) on this forum..."

Speaking as one who lacks belief in belief-in-lack-of-deity, I wonder where the Christians here would pidgeonhole me and whether my comments are welcome or not welcome. If unwelcome, I shall bow out forthwith.

Statement of position: I do not believe there is a personal savior (not for me anyway, though I grant there may be a savior or saviors for others); I do believe we are here for a purpose which can be known.

My Buddhist friends say I am a Buddhist, though I claim no special training or initiation in this religion/philosophy.

Originally posted by FMF
I was interested in why FreakyKBH directed the question at JS357. FreakyKBH even put the words in quotation marks. Nobody actually said it.

I see it as an oblique point about whether my statement qualifies me as an atheist in the same way as the "quote" would qualify someone as a racist. As if that's important for ya'll to decide about me.

Originally posted by JS357
I see it as an oblique point about whether my statement qualifies me as an atheist in the same way as the "quote" would qualify someone as a racist. As if that's important for ya'll to decide about me.

I was curious about what point FreakyKBH thought he was making but it turns out he was just lashing out incoherently. I was not making an 'importance claim'. 😀

Originally posted by FMF
I was curious about what point FreakyKBH thought he was making but it turns out he was just lashing out incoherently. I was not making an 'importance claim'. 😀

...it turns out he was just lashing out incoherently.
I don't think that word means what you think it does.
You got the point, as did others.
The statement was logically connected and consistent to/with the OP and totally relevant to the message.
It was not concerned so much with OP's position as it was with the convoluted and nonsensical redefined use of a term widely known.
It seems as though there are some among the small camp who are just silly with fear to be seen in the light of common sense.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]...it turns out he was just lashing out incoherently.
I don't think that word means what you think it does.
You got the point, as did others.
The statement was logically connected and consistent to/with the OP and totally relevant to the message.
It was not concerned so much with OP's position as it was with the convoluted and nonsensical ...[text shortened]... some among the small camp who are just silly with fear to be seen in the light of common sense.[/b]

You are being incoherent. You may well have something coherent in your mind but it's not coming out right. I get that you are calling someone or some people "silly". I get that. But I don't think there's much else in what you are saying.

Originally posted by FMF
You are being incoherent. You may well have something coherent in your mind but it's not coming out right. I get that you are calling someone or some people "silly". I get that. But I don't think there's much else in what you are saying.

Again, if I was incoherent, no one would be able to ascertain the point--- and yet the evidence says otherwise: some did understand the point exactly.

The point isn't multifaceted.
Nor is the statement incoherent... to anyone but you, it appears.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Again, if I was incoherent, no one would be able to ascertain the point--- and yet the evidence says otherwise: some did understand the point exactly.

The point isn't multifaceted.
Nor is the statement incoherent... to anyone but you, it appears.

Why don't you just state your point again. JS357 wondered what it would be like to have a month without atheists posting on this forum. And then you said "I think it's just so darn cute the lengths atheists will go to torture the language." If you have a point, go ahead and reiterate it.

Originally posted by FMF
Why don't you just state your point again. JS357 wondered what it would be like to have a month without atheists posting on this forum. And then you said "I think it's just so darn cute the lengths atheists will go to torture the language." If you have a point, go ahead and reiterate it.

Gosh, FMF. I guess I can do you a solid and spell it out for you, since you've always been so accommodating over the years.

The thread title is "A Month Without Atheists" and it appears as though the main thrust of the thread is for all of the atheists to take a month long hiatus from the forum, ostensibly to demonstrate the lack of vitality which would be obvious in the ebb of their dialogue.
Just so.

However, right out of the gate, the OP uses the very first sentence to (once again) try to re-work the meaning of the term 'atheist.' Perhaps "A Month Without Those Lacking of Belief in a Deity" wouldn't fit in the space provided, but it makes one wonder why the OP felt it necessary to use that very first sentence to insert the convoluted absurd substitute phrase that was used--- as though the phrase used and the term 'atheist' were one an the same... which they are clearly not.

This, in turn, raised the comment regarding the send-up: why use a phrase that only a small subset of an already small group of people can identify with, when the larger label is so widely known... unless, of course, as I suggest, this was just another effort (conscious or otherwise) by that small subset to re-frame the label in terms with which those few are more comfortable.