Keep The Reason wrote:Rian wrote:KTR - I was the polite one here. You're the one that blew up your own thread with your anger.
Ok, I'm done with you. This is idiotic beyond words.
Aaron wrote:Keep The Reason wrote:Rian wrote:KTR - I was the polite one here. You're the one that blew up your own thread with your anger.
Ok, I'm done with you. This is idiotic beyond words.
LOLOLOL! Was this thread pre-planned? This is funny, that's all I have to say.
Could you give me a summary of why you think they (we) are angry? Be brutally honest with me, I want to know exactly what you think about their (our) Anger? Do you think its unfounded? I honestly don't know why more people are not angry, or at least more vocal about their anger. The injustices I see in the name of religion are disgusting to witness and to hear about. To top it off its based on faith driven belief, and all undemonstrated garbage that you find in the top world religions.Rian wrote:...Maybe some others will join in if they're interested, but I don't think I need to listen to it, because I've heard over and over and OVER why they're angry....
mitchellmckain wrote:Discussion boards are for DISCUSSIONS, not posting links.
mitchellmckain wrote:Well since nobody has responded I thought I would just mention that I read the article after you pointed it out and told my pastor that he should read it too.
Keep The Reason wrote:The lack of integrity from a number of members of this board is ... Well, hell, I was going to say "startling" but we all know it's just the way forums operate. Reason To Follow was young and immature and so maybe has an excuse, but you, Rian, and humanguy don't. But, you are who you are.
Dr Mundo wrote:I hope we get back to commenting more on topics that pertain to the discussions and that we see less dickishness. KTR has provided us with an interesting topic would anyone like to discuss it? I Know how internet personalities can get, Its easy to loose yourself behind a keyboard I suppose. But we are adults, and should probably act like it, No?
Aaron wrote:I guess I didn't realize this thread was actually seriously considering the anger of atheists, I thought it was a joke, you know one of those common misconceptions finally put right or something (that's why I thought it was funny humanguy, I assumed KTR was trying to make the case that atheist are cool, level headed people who know how to deal with anger and then when he blew up at Rian (whether justified or not I won't speculate) I found it funny).
I probably should have watched that video of KTR's but I'm with Jim, short attention span....
KTR wrote:The issue is valid, and so is the follow up discussion of "what is appropriate reaction to anger?" In your case, you answer it by controlling it, which is a good trait to have (channeling it productively is what others, like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc. have done).
KTR wrote:I find this kind of astonishing. "Short attention span" is floated as a viable reason to not investigate issues you're all willing to spend time debating and arguing. I spent years reading the bible, listening to lectures from theists, watching videos, investigating, learning, understanding... not seeking approval, just pointing it out.
That seemed to me like the kind of muddled thinking you might hear from a bright sixth former so I asked a bright sixth former to confirm for me that this was nonsense which they did and explained why. So I had assumed that to be making that kind of mistake she must be a lot younger than she is. Once you get behind the rhetoric of which there is an awful lot her argument seems to be the same one we have heard over and over again from Keep the Reason and Dr. Mundo that religion has no reality checks and so cannot be verified. As neither of them has so far responded to the simple questions I keep asking about why we should accept this kind of epistemology I don't suppose KTR will answer for that now. Just to check though. Can you see why Greta Christina's view as given above is nonsense and if so can you wee why the epistemological basis of her critique of religion does not hold? And that seems to me to be the case; I understand what she is saying and I think it could be developed into a challenging argument but I think it flounders because religious believers are not the only people who must hold beliefs that are not solely based on objective evidence or as she would call it proof.'It cannot be shown to be false therefore it cannot be shown to be true, therefore it's worthless.'
JustJim wrote:When I say I try to control my anger, I in no way mean I try to stuff it, or ignore it, or just let it fester. I always attempt to control my anger by re-directing it's energies into positive things that release my tension in appropriate ways - not unlike Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al.
I also have spent years reading the Bible (btw, it's grammatically incorrect to fail to capitalize the first letter of Bible, even if you think it's a pile of rubbish), listening to lectures by theists AND atheists, watching videos, investigating, learning, attempting to understand, etc. As far as I'm concerned, I'm as sure as I can be that I've heard it before. I'm 65 years old, well-educated, well-read, and really, really smart. I have an excellent memory, and an extremely high reading retention and comprehension rate. I'm sure Greta Christina had many good things to say about "angry atheists," but I'm equally confident she didn't say anything I haven't already heard in different words from other people. So, if I don't want to spend an hour listening to things I've probably already heard, that's my business. I may be wrong, and maybe she said some things I haven't heard before, but I really don't give a shit. I'm not interested enough to spend an hour finding out. I don't mean to dismiss your interest in what she had to say, since that's your business, but I'm not going to let your interest coerce me into being interested, when I'm really not. And very importantly, I won't address what she had to say, since I didn't listen to it. But I WILL address what people on this forum have to say about it, since I HAVE read what they've said. That's my prerogative. You don't decide what I read or listen to. I do.
I think it's more accurate to say Aaron objects to watching the video, while I don't "object" to watching it, but rather have decided I don't want to watch it because it's probably not worth my time (even though I could be wrong). Aaron's objections are the same as humanguy's, I think. They've both decided the author is a jerk not worth listening to. That's not at all why I'm not listening to it.
Anyhow, I agree that theists frequently tend to play the "angry atheist" card as a way of excusing themselves from addressing the issues atheists raise. They attack the 'anger' they misperceive, rather than answer the points the atheists make. In my opinion, that's because they don't HAVE any good answers....
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest