"Why Are Atheists Always Attacking Christians?"

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
An economy of words and selective replies to relevant target questions echoes the silences in the face of self serving agenda questions of the Man who once let His detractors ramble on mindlessly in an open forum while He quietly wrote in the sand.

You're no Jesus Christ. 😕

Originally posted by FMF
And yet in our conversation 24 hours ago you did not seem to be treating Papuan people as individuals [they were mere "rice Christians" according to you] or Christian missionaries as individuals whose ministries in PNG you just condemned wholesale as "amateur" and engaged in "bribing" people. I saw very little evidence of you "simply viewing them as human" or as "individuals" yesterday.

again this is not actually addressing the point FMF, its simply some kind of an attempt to discredit me personally, which amounts to nothing but a logical fallacy. Saying that we must treat people as individuals and then claiming that they are religionists cannot be done.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Tried that. I believed for many years, and I asked for many years. Nothing happened.

dude you gotta become a TV evangelist if you want the cars, chicks and money. There's no use praying for them and writing javascript!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
again this is not actually addressing the point FMF, its simply some kind of an attempt to discredit me personally, which amounts to nothing but a logical fallacy.

It is addressing the point, head on. I have no problem with the way I use the terms "religionists" and "atheists". I also have no reason to think that I have any problem seeing people in terms of them being individuals.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Saying that we must treat people as individuals and then claiming that they are religionists cannot be done.

Of course it can. My neighbour is [1] a religionist,[2] a mother of two, [3] she is very community-minded, and [4] she has a successful afternoon food stall. One of my clients is [1] an atheist, [2] unmarried,[3] and wasting his talents in his current job. The term "religionist" is a descriptor that we can use to talk about both groups or individuals. It means something pretty specific, so it is a pretty useful bit of vocabulary.

Originally posted by FMF
It is addressing the point, head on. I have no problem with the way I use the terms "religionists" and "atheists". I also have no reason to think that I have any problem seeing people in terms of them being individuals.

I am sorry but if you are going to use those terms then you are simply bundling large swathes of people into some container and then assigning to them values as if they were part of some great algorithm. I cannot endorse such a policy.

Originally posted by FMF
Of course it can. My neighbour is [1] a religionist,[2] a mother of two, [3] she is very community-minded, and [4] she has a successful afternoon food stall. One of my clients is [1] an atheist, [2] unmarried,[3] and wasting his talents in his current job. The term "religionist" is a descriptor that we can use to talk about both groups or individuals. It means something pretty specific, so it is a pretty useful bit of vocabulary.

and you dont think there is a danger that in doing so it may diminish ones willingness/ability to view people as individuals? what is wrong with human? your neighbour is a human being?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and you dont think there is a danger that in doing so it may diminish ones willingness/ability to view people as individuals? what is wrong with human? your neighbour is a human being?

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

and you dont think there is a danger that in doing so it may diminish ones willingness/ability to view people as individuals?

No, not at all. Does it diminish your ability to view Papuan Christians as individuals when you refer to them as "rice Christians".

what is wrong with human?

Nothing is wrong with the term "human". It just wasn't the right vocabulary to discuss what I was discussing which was "atheists" and "religionists".

your neighbour is a human being?

Sure. We agree on this. Did my description of my neighbour make you think she wasn't "human"?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

I am a human

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am sorry but if you are going to use those terms then you are simply bundling large swathes of people into some container and then assigning to them values as if they were part of some great algorithm. I cannot endorse such a policy.

Your endorsement is not being asked for. "Religionists" are people who subscribe to various packages of "spiritual answers" and beliefs in "life after death" laid out in the tenets of various "religions". "Atheists" and "non-religionists" don't. These are crystal clear vocabulary items for talking about the topics they pertain to.

Originally posted by FMF
[b]and you dont think there is a danger that in doing so it may diminish ones willingness/ability to view people as individuals?

No, not at all. Does it diminish your ability to view Papuan Christians as individuals when you refer to them as "rice Christians".

what is wrong with human?

Nothing is wrong with the term "human". It just wasn't th ...[text shortened]...

Sure. We agree on this. Did my description of my neighbour make you think she wasn't "human"?[/b]

then perhaps i also need to make a reappraisal of my use of all encompassing appellations which confine swathes of people to a single designation rather than looking upon them as individuals. Does it make me think that she is not human, no, but it might depending upon the tone of the designation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
then perhaps i also need to make a reappraisal of my use of all encompassing appellations which confine swathes of people to a single designation rather than looking upon them as individuals. Does it make me think that she is not human, no, but it might depending upon the tone of the designation.

I described my neighbour as [1] a religionist,[2] a mother of two, [3] she is very community-minded, and [4] she has a successful afternoon food stall.

What was it about my description of her that made you ask me if she was was "a human being"?

Originally posted by FMF
Your endorsement is not being asked for. "Religionists" are people who subscribe to various packages of "spiritual answers" and beliefs in "life after death" laid out in the tenets of various "religions". "Atheists" and "non-religionists" don't. These are crystal clear vocabulary items for talking about the topics they pertain to.

whether it is being asked for or not i am giving it for its a valid point. When I am going from house to house it helps immensely to think of people as individuals and it always pains me when they have a ready made appellation. I sometimes hear. I am a Muslim? I always think, no you are first and foremost a human being, that you profess belief in Islam should not diminish that, surely? Perhaps I am splitting hairs here but i dont think so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
then perhaps i also need to make a reappraisal of my use of all encompassing appellations which confine swathes of people to a single designation rather than looking upon them as individuals.

In that case,why don't you now go to Thread 158965 and explain there that you have decided not to refer to the Papuan Christians as "rice Christians" any more?