Got bread and cheese?

Originally posted by FMF
Should Christians ever reflect on whether their approach is counterproductive, in your view?

I think anyone, anywhere, and at any time should 'suffer' the pains of introspection and self-examination.

The underlying point of my previous post was to point out that:
• no matter the poster
• no matter the topic
• no matter the approach
if it came from a Christian, it is simply not received by the atheist.

I seriously kicked around the idea to PM one of the atheists herein with an eye on testing my hypothesis; namely, each of us would construct an innocuous post of whatever constitution, swap the same and put the other's post out with our name on it to gauge the results/reactions.

Why didn't I?
I couldn't come up with a single atheist who I felt would accept the challenge!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The underlying point of my previous post was to point out that:
• no matter the poster
• no matter the topic
• no matter the approach
if it came from a Christian, it is simply not received by the atheist.

And vice versa? Is that your point?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Candidly, I really don't recall a single time over the last nine years wherein any atheist showed any type of conciliatory acceptance toward a Christian's message/delivery.

Not even someone like JS357?

Originally posted by FMF
Not even someone like JS357?

I'm more than willing to run the experiment...

Originally posted by FMF
And vice versa? Is that your point?

To a degree, yes.

But I think it's far heavier weighted the other way.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm more than willing to run the experiment...

That's not what I'm talking about. You've been reading JS357's posts for years but you reckon not a single one of them showed any type of conciliatory acceptance toward a Christian's message/delivery?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
To a degree, yes.

But I think it's far heavier weighted the other way.

And you'd count yourself as being one of the totally unyielding Christians, yes?

Originally posted by FMF
And you'd count yourself as being one of the totally unyielding Christians, yes?

Abso-freaky-lutely.



Wait...

Originally posted by FMF
That's not what I'm talking about. You've been reading JS357's posts for years but you reckon not a single one of them showed any type of conciliatory acceptance toward a Christian's message/delivery?

Now that you mention it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Now that you mention it.

Because I'd venture to say that there are maybe hundreds of occasions when JS357 showed "conciliatory acceptance toward a Christian's message/delivery". And yet it didn't stop your hyperbole about not recalling "a single time over the last nine years wherein any atheist" demonstrated such a thing. Don't you think your own brand of hyperbole might just be part of the problem you're talking about?

Originally posted by FMF
Because I'd venture to say that there are maybe hundreds of occasions when JS357 showed "conciliatory acceptance toward a Christian's message/delivery". And yet it didn't stop your hyperbole about not recalling "a single time over the last nine years wherein any atheist" demonstrated such a thing. Don't you think your own brand of hyperbole might just be part of the problem you're talking about?

I'd really have to go back and look at more than just a small sampling.
The fact that JS357 stands out in your mind whereas my memory wasn't even blipped makes me want to double-check.

And--- if I am wrong--- does one person in the contrary really register enough to define a "brand of hyperbole?"
I hardly think so.
One person is an oversight.
Regrettable, but really, just an unintended oversight.

Now, if you could find several of the regular posters who fell into the same category, I'd say you're on to something.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And--- if I am wrong--- does one person in the contrary really register enough to define a "brand of hyperbole?"

Your "oversight" involves hundreds of posts by one of the forum's long standing stalwarts. Your "brand of hyperbole", I suppose, is the one that bandies about stuff like there not being even "a single time" that you can recall, and there having not been "any atheist" that has been doing something you think they ought, and there having not been "any type of conciliatory acceptance" ever, as if you didn't even have 10 seconds spare to cast an eye down the list of forum regulars in an effort to filter out a little bit of the hyperbole from your "brand of hyperbole". 🙂

Originally posted by FMF
Your "oversight" involves hundreds of posts by one of the forum's long standing stalwarts. Your "brand of hyperbole", I suppose, is the one that bandies about stuff like there not being even "a single time" that you can recall, and there having not been "any atheist" that has been doing something you think they ought, and there having not been "any type of conci ...[text shortened]... lars in an effort to filter out a little bit of the hyperbole from your "brand of hyperbole". 🙂

Hyperbole much?

as if you didn't even have 10 seconds spare...
Did I not say I would be willing to double-check?

And if JS didn't stand out in my mind, is that really outside the bounds of reasonable?
Perhaps I have had more interactions with others than with him in the ensuing years.
Or maybe I didn't read his posts with others.
Or fill-in-the-blank.

You offered one, solitary (and thus far unsubstantiated) poster as an exception to my rule.
If this one poster proves to be the exception, how good does that really make the atheist's rule of wholesale antagonism and confrontation very diluted, percentage-wise?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If this one poster proves to be the exception, how good does that really make the atheist's rule of wholesale antagonism and confrontation very diluted, percentage-wise?

Here's an idea. As a sample, why not just compare, say, you ~ a Christian ~ and your level of open mindedness and spirit of "conciliation" to that of, say, JS357 ~ an non-theist ~ and his level of open mindedness and spirit of "conciliation", and look at this problem of inflexibility and partisan stubbornness on this forum through the prism the two of you provide.

Originally posted by FMF
Here's an idea. As a sample, why not just compare, say, you ~ a Christian ~ and your level of open mindedness and spirit of "conciliation" to that of, say, JS357 ~ an non-theist ~ and his level of open mindedness and spirit of "conciliation", and look at this problem of inflexibility and partisan stubbornness on this forum through the prism the two of you provide.

Not to toot my own French horn, but...

I have to admit that I felt a scosh bad at your offering of JS357.
That was emphasized by your under-exaggeration on the amount of time that went into my thinking: ten seconds is nowhere near how long this idea has been formulating in my head.

But your point was well-taken, because even after you mentioned JS357, I couldn't tell you too much about him.
So I just spent over two hours researching and trying to figure out why this very reasonable person hadn't registered in my hyperbolic generalization of the whole atheist group.

JS357 joined 12.28.08
First post was in the Help Forum on 01.02.09.
Two years and a little over a month later, on 02.09.11, he and I had a couple interactions in the Debates forum, both respectful.
Conciliatory, even.

JS357's first Spirituality Forum was later that same month on 02.20.11... with good ol' Dasa.
He had a notably insightful post the next month, entitled "What Took You So Long," as well as continued other posts on the forum.
Our first interaction on the Spirituality Forum occurred 04.05.11 and then again on 07.01.11--- all respectful.
(I stopped after some forty pages of research, considering this a better sampling group.)

In the ensuing years--- to the best of my research ability to uncover--- despite his many contributions to various forums which include the Spirituality Forum--- we've had very little interactions.

Why?
Because he was usually engaged either with folks to whom I give very little attention, or on topics which offer little to no interest to me.
I'm saying all of that to say this: it was not an intentional oversight of the ONE regularly contributing atheist (although I don't know that I found a post in which this was self-described) who has a proven track record of respectful interactions with theists; it had more to do with having very little interactions with him in comparison to all others.