Adieu

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
who cannot hope to cogently describe why they continue frequenting the forum, and have to date refused/failed to do so

You remind me of an accounting partner I knew who once asked a trainee to explain an issue he wasn't familiar with and asked whether the trainee could prepare the partner "an idiot's guide that he could understand" on the issue.

The trainee thought long and hard and said "Yes, and no".

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Who are those "chaps" who have all the answers and have life and death all figured out? I have some questions for them.

By the way, we have another ~5.5 months to go, but already I think it's safe to say the "Dramaqueen-Of-The-Year-Award" goes to Suzianne. Congratulations, Suzianne!

Wait a minute Rat. Are you saying Suzianne doesn't have a legitimate cause for exiting this forum?

I thought Suzianne explained it quite thoroughly and justifiably too. Freaky is right as well. The atheists in this forum, but not all, but most seem to have nothing better to offer the discussion on any given topic than to assail those of faith by whatever means gets them off in their narrow, bigoted and biased minds.

Sounds to me like you're the drama queen wannabe. Try to be a bit more creative though. Lame post. I didn't even laugh till I got started with this ridiculous reply. 😉

Originally posted by josephw
Wait a minute Rat. Are you saying Suzianne doesn't have a legitimate cause for exiting this forum?

I thought Suzianne explained it quite thoroughly and justifiably too. Freaky is right as well. The atheists in this forum, but not all, but most seem to have nothing better to offer the discussion on any given topic than to assail those of faith by whatever ...[text shortened]... reative though. Lame post. I didn't even laugh till I got started with this ridiculous reply. 😉

I don't think my post really qualifies as being "Drama Queen-esque". But Suzianne is on "your side" and I am on the other side, so you'll use whatever attack you can come up with to defend "your side". Including the age old "I-know-what-you-are-but-what-am-I" reply.

Does she have a legitimate cause? No, I think it was a load of cry-baby bollocks. If I were to summarize it, it'd be something like "Aw, shoot, I don't like it when people offer logical replies to my set-in-stone beliefs. Therefore I will leave this place in a puff of smoke, and you'd better let me slam the door on my way out!" To top it off, she uses the lovely, over-theatrical "Adieu", to give it that little extra flavor of drama. It's like a scene from Gone with the wind.

I thought about looking back at Suzianne's post history to see how many of her "Spirituality" posts were aimed at atheists, or in threads started by atheists, or in threads discussing atheism and how many were actually not at all concerned with atheism but with her own faith, but so far I have always found something better to do than that. Like taking care of that itch I had been having for 20 minutes.

Freaky is right? That's a contradiction. Atheists have explained many times why they post here. The thread that comes to mind is one started by Divegeester, in which a number of atheists explain their presence here. They might not be the kind of reason you or Freaky or Suzianne or Divegeester would use to post on a forum, but they are reasons none-the-less. The thread is Thread 155395 if you can be bothered to read our reasons for posting. Probably not going to happen though, is it?

The most prominent atheists in this forum, Twhitehead, googlefudge, wolfgang and some others, actually do a damn good effort of explaining their problems with theism. Your "nothing better to offer the discussion on any given topic than to assail those of faith by whatever means gets them off in their narrow, bigoted and biased minds" is a pathetic attempt to insult those of whom you know very well that that is not what they do. Who's the one with the narrow, bigoted and biased mind?

The one thing that most if not all of the theists here have in common is a remarkable talent for victim playing and this thread by Suzianne is another fine example of this. It's the classic persecution complex showcasing itself time and time again.

And the beat goes on.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I don't think my post really qualifies as being "Drama Queen-esque". But Suzianne is on "your side" and I am on the other side, so you'll use whatever attack you can come up with to defend "your side". Including the age old "I-know-what-you-are-but-what-am-I" reply.

Does she have a legitimate cause? No, I think it was a load of cry-baby bollocks. If I ...[text shortened]... er fine example of this. It's the classic persecution complex showcasing itself time and time again.

"The thread is Thread 155395 if you can be bothered to read our reasons for posting." GKR, please read its first reply.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"The thread is Thread 155395 if you can be bothered to read our reasons for posting." GKR, please read its first post.

There are several reasons for atheists and agnostics to post here. There is no separate philosophy forum, since much of what would be discussed overlaps there is no point. Atheism represents a spiritual position and not automatically a negative one, I do not think that the word spirit automatically implies the supernatural. Some of the threads are interesting because of the historical aspects of the questions raised, for example in the thread about the Exodus, or the origins of the creation myths [1]. Also I do have to make the point that the atheists here aren't actually that rude, by comparison with the Debates forum this is all quite tame.

[1] A myth is not necessarily untrue, before anyone gets upset about my use of the word.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"The thread is Thread 155395 if you can be bothered to read our reasons for posting." GKR, please read its first reply.

I hate to think what you do to yourself every time you reference one of your own posts, but I'm sure it gives you a good opportunity to iron out some of the wrinkles.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I hate to think what you do to yourself every time you reference one of your own posts, but I'm sure it gives you a good opportunity to iron out some of the wrinkles.

There's no need for personality attack or animosity. You referenced an earlier thread by divegeester, to which I replied:

"In my online experience, since 2007, many avowed atheists here and elsewhere remind me of Doubting Thomas: highly intelligent, well read and thoughtful people with questions that won't be satisfied by superficial answers. I respect them."

Nothing has changed in my online experience or perspective of those who chose against God and His Son Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by DeepThought
There are several reasons for atheists and agnostics to post here. There is no separate philosophy forum, since much of what would be discussed overlaps there is no point. Atheism represents a spiritual position and not automatically a negative one, I do not think that the word spirit automatically implies the supernatural. Some of the threads are int ...[text shortened]... ame.

[1] A myth is not necessarily untrue, before anyone gets upset about my use of the word.

I'd suggest a desire to test the validity of the atheist and/or agnostic position is also in play. Manners vary by individual.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I would concede your point, DeepThought, if the threads didn't continually follow the same boring path.

Atheists (or, as I affectionately call them, the God-haters) are not on here to explore other paths of spirituality; they are here to shout down Christianity.

Take, for instance, twhitehead.
A very knowledgeable fellow, with a pretty impres ...[text shortened]... utcome... all the while accusing the theist of intransigence.
Heads, he wins.
Tails, you lose.

Translation: The reason atheists win all the debates here is not because they have better positions and better arguments, it is because they are dishonest (they are not atheist, but instead “God-haters&rdquo😉, cheaters (“The atheist refuses to stick with the rules&rdquo😉, better debaters (“He will win small, unimportant battles of semantics, most times against those seemingly less equipped in their style of word play or rules of engagement.&rdquo😉, and have bad motives (“His task is to destroy any and every foothold faith in God might find in the experience of man.&rdquo😉

When you lose every debate, but still don’t want to change your position, these are the types of things you have to lie to yourself about.

Originally posted by PatNovak
When you lose every debate, but still don’t want to change your position, these are the types of things you have to lie to yourself about.

This would be a perfect, spot-on observation if you were addressing theists.

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
This would be a perfect, spot-on observation if you were addressing theists.

Then it must have been a "perfect, spot-on observation," because I was addressing theists with that statement.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
There's no need for personality attack or animosity. You referenced an earlier thread by divegeester, to which I replied:

"In my online experience, since 2007, many avowed atheists here and elsewhere remind me of Doubting Thomas: highly intelligent, well read and thoughtful people with questions that won't be satisfied by superficial answers. I respe ...[text shortened]... in my online experience or perspective of those who chose against God and His Son Jesus Christ.

Actually there are a lot of reasons for personality attack and animosity.

Yes, I know what I referenced.
Yes, I know what you replied.
Yes, I know that nothing has changed in your perspective. No surprises there!

But your ego-stroking had absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote to josephw.

Originally posted by yoctobyte

Comically, the atheist fails at every attempt.
He will win small, unimportant battles of semantics, most times against those seemingly less equipped in their style of word play or rules of engagement.
However, the argument with the atheist (no matter how well equipped the theist) is forever a lose-lose proposition.
The atheist refuses to stick ...[text shortened]... cusing the theist of intransigence.
Heads, he wins.
Tails, you lose.

Very well put!

I'm sorry; who are you again?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I would concede your point, DeepThought, if the threads didn't continually follow the same boring path.

Atheists (or, as I affectionately call them, the God-haters) are not on here to explore other paths of spirituality; they are here to shout down Christianity.

Take, for instance, twhitehead.
A very knowledgeable fellow, with a pretty impres ...[text shortened]... utcome... all the while accusing the theist of intransigence.
Heads, he wins.
Tails, you lose.

Freaky: “Atheists (or, as I affectionately call them, the God-haters) are not on here to explore other paths of spirituality; they are here to shout down Christianity.”

That is a lie.

You have engaged with enough atheists on here to know that it is a lie - including Buddhists and Taoists and Vedantists, and some whose spiritual path, so far as I know remains undefined, but who have contributed to spiritual discussions that had nothing to do with atheism/theism at all. Bbarr (Vedantist), Taoman, blackbeetle, BosseDeNage, myself - for a few. LemonJello has both initiated and contributed to discussions of Zen Buddhism and - especially - Sufism. Even rwingett has contributed well-studied and well-presented material on pantheism, such as with the ancient Stoics.

And those examples are all of particular religious contexts; and spirituality is not confined to any particular religious context. Many nondualists (such as myself and a few of the aforementioned) accurately refer to themselves as nontheists or atheists vis-a-vis the notion of some kind of personal, supernatural god-entity. To most self-identified theists on here - and conventionally, in the Christian West anyway - that is the only (revisionist) use of the term theos that is acceptable. I suppose that, to you, such a deeply, deeply spiritual Christian thinker as Meister Eckhart is a “God-hater”.

The divide here is not between theists and atheists. It is between idolatrous (in the precise sense of the Jewish tradition - which includes the idolatry of fixed god-concepts) - idolatrous dogmatism, and any deconstructive threat to that dogmatism from any corner. Some of those dogmatists claim the mantle “Christian”; others (like Dasa) claim other religious mantles. And I have seen the dogmatists - including those claiming the mantle “Christian” - descend into snarky insults, fear-mongering and shrieking personal abuse on here more than I have seen it among atheists (though it happens on both sides - and intramurally within each camp).

And that is one reason why I no longer hang around here much.

_____________________________________________


Dogmatism - under any mantle - I see as really the enemy of spirituality. And there have been, and are, theists on here who preach their particular religion without demonstrating a shred of spirit in the process - as they denounce any deconstructive threat to their cherished theological dogma, and anyone who challenges that dogma. (You have not been one of them: RJHinds has been; Dasa has been; Darfius was - note the intentional use of past tenses there .)

Some of us struggle. We have to work at our particular spiritual path(s). We fail. My failures on here - when I have lashed out at others - is another reason that I have removed myself from the RHP community for extended periods. But I have been spiritually informed by many on here with whom I have disagreed (and do disagree) - both theists and atheists, both religionists and non-religionists, both Christians and non-Christians.

Here is a - quite accurate, if poetic - rendering of a favorite New Testament verse, that I once used as the basis for an entry into one of the old sermon contests on here, from a strictly Christic point of view:*

Spirit where it wishes blows.
You hear the sound of it but do not know
whence it comes nor where it goes.
All who are born of spirit wayfare so.

--As you know, this verse capitalizes on the meaning-play of the word pneuma, which can mean wind or spirit or breath. This is quite a metaphorical verse.

The dogmatist attempts to stifle the free range of spirit - and to silence spiritual wayfarers - often with layers of complex theology and mummy-wrappings of scriptural exegesis, all to keep spirit within defined doctrinal bounds. Various religions have various responses to this: The early Syrian Christians, for example, insisted that theology be expressed only in poetry; rabbinical Jews rely on the radical semantic openness of Biblical Hebrew, which disallows (as rabbi and scholar Marc-Alain Ouaknin put it) any “idolatry of the one right meaning”; Zen Buddhists use koans; Sufis also use poetry and story (parable); etc. etc. All of those responses to dogmatism are responses to the danger of idolizing the respective scriptures as well: Bible, Torah, Sutras and Qur’an.

Some theists - such as Rabbi Avraham Isaac Kook (orthodox), to name just one famous example - have recognized the value of atheism as a necessary response to the aforementioned idolatries; and have affirmed the arguments of atheists in that necessary deconstruction - rather than shallowly condemning atheists as “god-haters”. I doubt that the atheists I know on here would accept that as their purpose, or limit their atheism to that. But the point is well-made: it appears that “religionism” always faces the danger of internalizing its own idols, so that they are no longer recognized as such, but are vigorously defended as “right doctrine”.

_____________________________________________________

My wife just sent me the following, posted outside a Methodist church in New York:

“You can safely assume
that you’ve created God in your own image
when it turns out that God
hates all the same people you do.”

--Anne Lamott (http://i.imgur.com/N4G8XmJ.jpg)


______________________________________________________


There is likely nothing that I have written above that you have not seen presented on here before. That is partly what makes your descent into the gross lie so disappointing.

I like Suzianne. Her profile indicates that her departure is as much due to her own emotional reactions (including, perhaps, that expressed in the OP) as well as whatever she was reacting to. And so I will say no more about that.

______________________________________________________


* I say “Christic”, rather than “Christian”, because I could give a fig about who are or are not “True Christians™” according to other, self-proclaimed “True Christians™”.