Barbarism or Civility?

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Is it possible for atheists and theists to conduct civil conversation, or must we resort to disrespectful insult to get our points across? What does everyone think?

[Sher]

Yes ... It is possible to be civil ... there are several examples here of such conversations. The main thing, IMO, is to maintain a sense of humor ... and a strong dose of humility ... on both sides.

[Jin-Roh]

I've had discussion with AtheistArchon and a few others without name calling.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 02:11 AM post located here
Jin-Roh:

I've had discussion with AtheistArchon and a few others without name calling.

Good call. John Powell and Joe Alward (from what I've seen) are also good examples of polite skepticism.
Haven't posted to many threads in common with you, AtheistArchon, but you're okay!

I'm one who doesn't mind insult at all, so long as the conversation progresses aside from insult. The PC culture has had the unfortunate effect of making people ridiculously thin-skinned, imo.
Sometimes insult is substituted for content, and I can think of one atheist in this forum who relies very heavily on that substitution. No, I'm not referring to Farrell Till, actually.

[stevencarrwork]

[i]Today @ 01:26 AM

Is it possible for atheists and theists to conduct civil conversation, or must we resort to disrespectful insult to get our points across? What does everyone think?

I wrote a posting on Holding's knowledge of Greek on this board, simply because Holding updated an article to start attacking a sceptic who had helped him to correct a very minor error in his original article. If Holding attacks sceptics who try to help him, simply because they are sceptics, then why not point out Holding's faults?


http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/deb.htm has some debates between me and polite Christians, who do not resort to misrepresentation, distortion and personal abuse. If people want to see reasonable Christianity in action, then I can recommend these debates.

Sadly, there are some Christians on this list who resort to name calling and the most disgraceful misrepresentation of other people's writings.

For example, Sherbear's appalling attack in
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...6&pagenumber=3 is something that gives Christianity a bad name

If Christians stopped lying then there would be little need to call them liars. If they had intellectual integrity, there would be no need to call them for their lack of integrity. If they did not deliberate misrepresent what their opponents write, there would be no need to accuse them of misrepresentation.

For example, in my original posting I had written 'He changed tack 180 degrees and now claims that a vision is a real objective experience and cites 'The American Heritage Dictionary (an English dictionary!) to help JP decide what a Greek word meant!'

Most people with any integrity would regard my phrase 'a vision is a real objective experience' as a phrase defining what vision means.

However, Sherbear (who has now gone into my kill file) wrote 'And evidently you overlooked where I showed that you did NOT give a definition but rather incorporated that into a sentence.'

So , to try to manufacture a causus belli, Sherbear complains that I have incorporated the definition into a sentence (naughty atheist, bad boy!), and that, by some magical reason, means that I have not given a definition, so he or she can now accuse me of subterfuge for claiming that my original posting had a definition of vision.

There are too many Christians on this list who play word games rather than discuss the issues.

Why bother being polite to somebody like Sherbear who does not discuss issues, but prefers to concentrate on discrediting atheists by ranting that they incorporate definitions into sentences, rather than writing the definition out into seperate sentences?


I wouldn't mind if Sherbear actually discusses what was seen in this 'vision', but he or she refuses to discuss the issue of whether Moses and Elijah were bodily present. Not only is this highly relevant to a discussion of what 'vision' might mean in this context, it is also much more interesting.


However, this forum does serve a very useful purpose. Christians can see the rantings and ravings of their favourite apologists.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...&threadid=1585 has also been a very useful debate. It was interesting to see how polite Christians try to defend the problem of suffering.

[Sher]

Today @ 05:43 AM post located here
stevencarrwork:

For example, Sherbear's appalling attack in
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...p;pagenumber=3 is something that gives Christianity a bad name

Actually, Steven would rather resort to subversive tactics and ad hominem attacks than address the real issues ... which are the errors in his attack on JP. The thread ... from the beginning ... speaks for itself.

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 10:11 PM post located here
Captain Ochre:

... and I can think of one atheist in this forum who relies very heavily on that substitution.

Hmmm ...

(tick, tock ... ... tick, tock)

...


... Capt'n! =

[Ryokan]

I think one odf the best ways to keep things civil is to find a common ground. I may be an Atheist, but like Capt. Ochre, I have an interest in history, a mistrust of big government, and support the war.

[stevencarrwork]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...?threadid=1577

is another interesting thread , showing how Christians can start to abuse atheists simply for asking a question.

In that thread Socrates even went as far as to claim that in
1 Kings 3:7 "Now, O LORD my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David. But I am only a little child and do not know how to carry out my duties.' the words 'little child' actually mean 'young man' so that he could abuse me, for claiming that the words translated as 'little child' should be translated 'little child'.

[Sher]

This is what Socrates really said:

In CONTEXT, it MUST be youths, but don't expect context-phobic misotheists like Carr to know anything about that. It's like his fellow biblioskeptic Dan Barker, who might ask Jaltus if "hate" is a correct translation of miseo, getting a "yes" answer, and then concluding that Jesus couldn't possibly have meant it hyperbolically when he talked about "hating" one's family for His sake.

Note that King Solomon uses the same expression na'ar qatan to describe himself after his ascension to the throne in 1 Kings 3:7, so it certainly CAN refer to young men. And those are the only sorts of people who would be running around in a gang and challenging God's messenger like that.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 02:44 PM post located here
stevencarrwork:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...?threadid=1577

is another interesting thread , showing how Christians can start to abuse atheists simply for asking a question.

You simply received answers to your question until you announced your agenda: Substitute an acceptable translation of a word into a sentence where context should affect the translation.
You deserved to be blasted for that, afaics. You basically did a "set-up" for a fallacy of equivocation.
Good example of "bad atheist!".

[Faramir]

Today @ 10:38 AM post located here
Captain Ochre:

Good call. John Powell and Joe Alward (from what I've seen) are also good examples of polite skepticism.
Haven't posted to many threads in common with you, AtheistArchon, but you're okay!

I'm one who doesn't mind insult at all, so long as the conversation progresses aside from insult. The PC culture has had the unfortunate effect of making people ridiculously thin-skinned, imo.

Sometimes insult is substituted for content, and I can think of one atheist in this forum who relies very heavily on that substitution. No, I'm not referring to Farrell Till, actually.

Excellent point Cpt. O.

Today @ 10:38 AM post located here
Captain Ochre:

You simply received answers to your question until you announced your agenda: Substitute an acceptable translation of a word into a sentence where context should affect the translation.
You deserved to be blasted for that, afaics. You basically did a "set-up" for a fallacy of equivocation.
Good example of "bad atheist!".

Very similar to his tactics in these threads here, and

here.

IMHO, honest arguments deserve honest responses. Courteous arguments deserve courteous responses. Ridiculous arguments deserve ridicule.

I try very hard not to insult the person, but to insult the argument.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 03:38 PM
Captain Ochre:



You simply received answers to your question until you announced your agenda: Substitute an acceptable translation of a word into a sentence where context should affect the translation.
You deserved to be blasted for that, afaics. You basically did a "set-up" for a fallacy of equivocation.
Good example of "bad atheist!".

Of course, Captain Ochre has give nothing other than his assertion that the words translated everywhere else as 'little child', should not be translated 'little children', in 2 Kings, as almost all Bible translations do.

Including the very first Bible translation. The Septuagint has 'micro paidarion' there. 'Micro' means 'small' and 'paidarion' means 'lad' or 'boy', as can be seen by looking in the New Testament to see where the 'boy' was who brought the barley loaves to Jesus, or when Jesus talks about boys. So 'micro paidarion' in the Septuagint translation of 2 Kings 2 means 'small boys'.

But, of course, we bad atheists were responsible for telling Jews 2,000 years ago that the best translation was 'small boys' :-)

And our earliest and best examples of the Septuagint are early Christian Bibles like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Early Christian Bibles translated the words in 2 Kings 2 as 'micro paidarion' (small boys)

[Sher]

Capt'n ... if you want, I would be interested in what you think on that topic.

Why don't you reply on the thread which has been "resurrected"?

... I already have

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 05:11 PM post located here
stevencarrwork:

Of course, Captain Ochre has give nothing other than his assertion that the words translated everywhere else as 'little child', should not be translated 'little children', in 2 Kings, as almost all Bible translations do.

I'm trying to keep the thread sort of on topic.
Your strategy was wrongheaded for any term which has graded nuance of meaning. The greater the latitude of meaning, the more aggregious your error in figuring out a "proper" definition prior to placing the term in context. Context determines meaning. You were seemingly trying to undermine that concept by determining the meaning and then fitting the term into context.
Again, "bad atheist" I say, and doubly bad for trying to excuse the inexcusable.