Norm's Honest Questions About Screwballs

[Xmansmommy]

Thanks for the links, Spiny. Gonna go check them out. I did check my library and there are none at my local nor is it listed at any in the co-op, so I don't know if I can get a paper copy.

[jpholding]

Why not simply because love bears all things? Does shame always have to be the motive?

There's no social parallel to or precedent for silence being used as an expression of love, especially before accusers. To claim this you need to find such an instance in the records of the period.

I wasn't looking to provide a study. I was asking if you would consider the possibility personally.

I do.

You determine relevancy though, yes?

Yes, but it's not that hard to tell when someone says "I like your humor and writing style" or "Your writing style and insults stink" what they are talking about.

Why if you're completely satisfied with it?

1) I got bored with complainers and decided to use it as a test and also as a new challenge to see if I could make them happy. My personality type likes taking on challenges even when we don't have to.
2) I enjoyed having a new outlet for my art.

Oh you can rest assured I had no intentions of lining anyone's pocket. Do you have some material you'd like to lend or even a website that would suffice?

I'd loan you the book but someone else paid for it for me. The one Norm linked to is a starter to learn who the guy is.

You might try interlibrary loan for the book.

[Soundsurfr]

Hi all. Hope you don't mind if another atheist joins the conversation. This one fascinates me.

Right, - that's it (and, what Darth says later, though I wrote this before he posted).

The thing to remember is that the people being shamed are not innocent. They're certainly not 'seekers', but more than that, they're not even 'honest skeptics'. They are hard-hearted haters of God and they are guilty of the terrible crime of convincing others to abandon faith.

So do all of you believe that atheists who challenge the veracity of the bible in a public forum are criminals? Or is Tuck in the minority here?

That's a terrible, awful crime, and it needs to be stopped.

Luckily for humanity in general, attempts to stop this "crime" have been reduced over the years from burning heretics at the stake to creating "screwball of the month" threads. Just my opinion.

When jph, or anyone else, uses strong language to shame someone, they're not doing it just for the sake of being mean, and they're not doing because they have some 'personality flaw'. They're doing it very intentionally to stop the person from destroying any more souls.

So bottom line, this is the underlying reason for certain caustic remarks that are made and the monthly screwball thread, then. It stops evil atheist criminals from destroying souls.

I hope you'll pardon me for admitting that I find that unbelievably funny.

And you know what? After writing all that, and reading it over again, and thinking it through... I still don't like rudeness or insults. I'd love everyone to love everyone. I'd even like to argue that we should always be nice. But if I force myself to think harder about it, I realize that we just can't let people who hate God tear other people down. So I dunno.

Well, the underlying assumption in your paragraph above is that NOT insulting or ridiculing certain people is tantamount to "letting people who hate God tear other people down."

Food for thought - that might not be a 100% true assumption.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I didn't notice this post until whosy quoted it. Gosh it's a doozie.

Right, - that's it (and, what Darth says later, though I wrote this before he posted).

The thing to remember is that the people being shamed are not innocent. They're certainly not 'seekers', but more than that, they're not even 'honest skeptics'. They are hard-hearted haters of God and they are guilty of the terrible crime of convincing others to abandon faith. That's a terrible, awful crime, and it needs to be stopped. We're not playing a game, where afterwards everyone gets to be friends again - people's souls are being destroyed.

I find that terribly and unbelievably inane. Hard-hearted hater of God? How in the world can that be true? If someone doesn't believe that god(s) exist, how is it possible to even hate your particular god?

Can we say 'well, yeah, sure, I know that guy was dragging others down into the pit, but... that wasn't an excuse to be rude to him!'?

You are making some unbelievably huge assumptions here.

Would we be so kind to a murderer or rapist, whose crimes - in the eyes of God, not society - are arguably lesser than the crime of dragging someone to hell (I see Dee Dee has mentioned that in the OT, encouraging apostasy was a capital offense)? Would we say, 'gee, I'd like it if that guy'd stop raping people, but I'm not going to be rude to him in order to get him to stop!'?

I'm speechless... and apparently among a group who are the most evil in the world.

I think when I was a very new Christian, I would've been turned off by this sort of thing, too. But then, when I was a new-but-not-brand-new Christian, before I knew enough to think things through for myself, I was helped by it - seeing stupid arguments get put in their place really helped me to see that Christianity does, frankly, have the best case.

"The best case"? A case can be made as well as the person making it. How in the world would Kent Hovind have the following he developed on utter foolishness if he wasn't a skilled speaker? Salesmen make a living off of making "the best case" regardless what the truth is. In the Middle East, "the best case" is convincing people to strap explosives onto themselves and kill innocent civilians.

The best case? An argument's persuasiveness is not necessarily proportional to the truth of said case. And if name calling and acting childish is a tool in order to make "the best case"...

And you know what? After writing all that, and reading it over again, and thinking it through... I still don't like rudeness or insults. I'd love everyone to love everyone. I'd even like to argue that we should always be nice. But if I force myself to think harder about it, I realize that we just can't let people who hate God tear other people down. So I dunno.

This is the exact stuff I'm talking about, what makes it so hard sometimes to be an atheist. We are guilty of the worst crime in Islam and according to Tuck, we are deceivers who don't not believe in god(s), but rather desire to pull people from followship of his God.

[Mountain Man]

So do all of you believe that atheists who challenge the veracity of the bible in a public forum are criminals? Or is Tuck in the minority here?

The difference between someone trying to understand our faith and someone trying to destroy it is usually pretty obvious. If you can't tell with their first post, it's usually clear by the second or third. I believe Tuck is talking about the latter rather than the former.

[Sparko]

Wow Soundsurfr and Jimmy sure do make a compelling argument for JP's stance on riposte, don't they?

[Soundsurfr]

The difference between someone trying to understand our faith and someone trying to destroy it is usually pretty obvious.

I wish that were true for all involved. In my experience, attempts that I make to have others understand my worldview (which, by definition, is diametrically opposed to your faith), are very often taken as "attempts to destroy your faith".

If you can't tell with their first post, it's usually clear by the second or third. I believe Tuck is talking about the latter rather than the former.

Some questions - Can you illustrate what the difference is between someone who argues against your faith and someone who clearly "wishes to destroy it"? Is there a difference?

And, is it not true that most of you would be happy to and would actively seek to destroy MY beliefs? How would you react to the suggestion from our side that this should be a capital offense?

[Soundsurfr]

Wow Soundsurfr and Jimbo sure do make a compelling argument for JP's stance on riposte, don't they?

Thanks for your insightful comment, Sparko.

Here's another of my favorite euphemisms employed by the Screwball crowd.

Calling someone an idiot in response to a challenge = "riposte".

[Sparko]

Sounsurfr. he was not talking about those who have civil discussions regarding faith and atheism. He was talking about certain people who have an active agenda to tear down and destroy Christianity. They are on a mission. They could care less about debate or discussion. They just want to come in, stir up trouble and pick fights. They toss out inane "contradictions" and when called on it, do not respond with logic, but merely start another thread on another "contradiction" - they hurl insults like spears. They HATE Christians and want to see it destroyed.

I can give you some examples if you wish but I think you know some who are like that.

Those are the people Tuck was talknig about. Not all are atheists nor are all atheists like that. And in fact some who do act in that fashion are theists themselves.

[Soundsurfr]

Sounsurfr. he was not talking about having civil discussions regarding faith and atheism. He was talking about certain people who have an active agenda to tear down and destroy Christianity. They are on a mission. They could care less about debate or discussion. They just want to come in, stir up trouble and pick fights. They toss out inane "contradictions" and when called on it, do not respond with logic, but merely start another thread on another "contradiction" - they hurl insults like spears. They HATE Christians and want to see it destroyed.

I can give you some examples if you wish but I think you know some who are like that.

Those are the people Tuck was talknig about. Not all atheists.

Well, I appreciate the response, but I would rather hear you address my specific questions on that issue.

I have another one. Do those of you who engage in the screwball vote and/or the ad-hom attacks on certain people around here, limit that tactic to those who "HATE Christians and want to see Christianity destroyed"? Is that part of the unwritten criteria for the Screwball vote?

See here's my opinion, and feel free to argue against. I'm guessing that any atheists around here (and plenty of theists as well) are fair game in the Screwball thread, so this idea that y'all only treat people rudely around here who deserve it because they are criminals who hate Christianity, is frankly, bunk.

I'll tell you why I think that. In my experience, I've been on the receiving end of this stuff despite my intention of having a civil discussion about faith an atheism. In fact, there are a lot of people around here with whom I have daily civil discussions about faith and atheism (which is why I'm here) and a few with whom this is just not possible. So, while I may be guilty of stirring the pot at times, and I will apologize for any posts you can show me where I was the first to attack my opponent personally, that is so not my usual MO.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sounsurfr. he was not talking about those who have civil discussions regarding faith and atheism. He was talking about certain people who have an active agenda to tear down and destroy Christianity. They are on a mission. They could care less about debate or discussion. They just want to come in, stir up trouble and pick fights. They toss out inane "contradictions" and when called on it, do not respond with logic, but merely start another thread on another "contradiction" - they hurl insults like spears. They HATE Christians and want to see it destroyed.

I'm pretty sure I haven't been on a crusade against Christianity, but that certainly didn't stop JP's pedantic behavior towards me. I may not be the best in arguing contraries in the Bible, but I certainly wasn't aiming at destroying a church.

[jpholding]

I'll tell you why I think that. In my experience, I've been on the receiving end of this stuff despite my intention of having a civil discussion about faith an atheism.

This message has been brought to you by the inventor of "Supersonic Bears" (TM).

[jpholding]

I'm pretty sure I haven't been on a crusade against Christianity, but that certainly didn't stop JP's pedantic behavior towards me.

You're a perfect example of my method's successes.

[Sparko]

Well, I appreciate the response, but I would rather hear you address my specific questions on that issue.

I have another one. Do those of you who engage in the screwball vote and/or the ad-hom attacks on certain people around here, limit that tactic to those who "HATE Christians and want to see Christianity destroyed"? Is that part of the unwritten criteria for the Screwball vote?

You are again forcing your presuppostions on what goes on in the screwball threads into your question. It is like me asking if you have stopped beating your wife yet. I said that some people take the screwball threads too far. They are usually called on it and it is self correcting. Most people just post a link to something they think is weird or screwy and let it go at that. Others may comment "yep, that's pretty screwy, what an idiot!" - and that is not taking things too far in my opinion. Its only when people post screwballs against people just because they want to hurt them or dislike them personally that I think it goes too far.

See here's my opinion, and feel free to argue against. I'm guessing that any atheists around here (and plenty of theists as well) are fair game in the Screwball thread, so this idea that y'all only treat people rudely around here who deserve it because they are criminals who hate Christianity, is frankly, bunk.

I'll tell you why I think that. In my experience, I've been on the receiving end of this stuff despite my intention of having a civil discussion about faith an atheism. In fact, there are a lot of people around here with whom I have daily civil discussions about faith and atheism (which is why I'm here) and a few with whom this is just not possible. So, while I may be guilty of stirring the pot at times, and I will apologize for any posts you can show me where I was the first to attack my opponent personally, that is so not my usual MO.

Soundsurfer. I dont consider you a "criminal athiest" in the sense Tuck was using it. At times you can be pretty thick skulled and seem to only want to present your opinion and do not listen to anyone's arguments to the contrary. You have also been on the sending side of some pretty good insults yourself. But then so have I. The people I think tuck was talking about are people like Jim Eisele who do nothing but attack Christians and will not respond logically to any argument (see example: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...86&postcount=1 ), or Biblischism, or Skeptibud, Minnesota or lately LGM. They are not interested in debates or discussion, just tearing down Christianity. Biblischism was particularly bad. He would start a thread on some stupid "contradiction" then when answered, he would keep repeating the same thing over and over, ignoring any civil answers and he would hurl insults at everyone. Then he would just start another thread doing it all over again. I tried being civil with him at first, but soon learned it was not worth it.

[Soundsurfr]

You're a perfect example of my method's successes.

Ah, yes. I'm sure you think so. Congratulations on being one of those people who have never lost an argument or even come up short.

Just a little info, JP. You are capable of annoying me at times, but you are totally incapable of either shaming or insulting me.

Keep trying, tho. It is fascinating to watch.