Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
I’m sorry if this has been covered, but I would like to ask other forum members what you think about this type of comment:
arowhena - 02 October 2009 12:05 PM
No one should be afraid of God’s Love.
It seems that some resident theists (here an on samharris.org) often resort to witnessing, proselytizing, whatever you want to call it. I’m rather thinking there should be a limit. Now, statements such as the following I think are fine:
arowhena - 02 October 2009 12:05 PM
You all forget – Christianity has many interpretations and many interpreters, and some, unfortunately, have portrayed Christ, regrettably, in poor light. Not all Christians are as articulate in Word and Deed as Christ would have wished. Presumptuous of me I know. But, I see the Bible as a book for the living and not a book for the dead. Love is the Bibles corner stone – for without it – the Bible would have no beginning or no end. Don’t get me wrong. I’m no Christian apologist or theologian. I hold no degree, trophy or platform in any Churches name. But, I do believe that I know Gods Love – and that Love – to me – is worth kneeling before.
But then we return:
arowhena - 02 October 2009 12:05 PM
Take heart friends – He knows your anguish and your confusion – He Loves you too. You are not forsaken.
Indulge yourself in this world and take the good things it offers up to you—for in the next world His terrible Love awaits – can you bear it?
Ought there be any rule about the frequency with which a poster can use the forum as a platform for preaching, as opposed to discussion?
Ought there be any rule about the frequency with which a poster can use the forum as a platform for preaching, as opposed to discussion?
Dunno about a rule, but I know I pretty quickly start ignoring a poster who makes it clear he/she offers little to nothing worth the time and effort to read.
Is there a Comedy section on this forum? Because this did make me laugh a lot, so maybe that’s where it belongs: in the next world His terrible Love awaits – can you bear it?
To addres the question, I think there should be a guideline, perhaps not a rule. Because as ridiculous as some of these statements are, they are relevant in that they may be representative of a widespread mentality that exists.
I’m in favor of a free for all. Let natural selection take the wheel on the forum (within reason): as the authors of those types of comments first see their arguments ripped apart by logic, they will then begin to see the futility in reproducing the same arguments elsewhere. And, if the authors do continue to post here, others will begin to recognize them for their ‘preaching’ and ignore them. Eventually, their activity here will die out.
Frankly, I like to see a little antagonism on here. Keeps us on our toes.
Is there a Comedy section on this forum? Because this did make me laugh a lot, so maybe that’s where it belongs: in the next world His terrible Love awaits – can you bear it?
To addres the question, I think there should be a guideline, perhaps not a rule. Because as ridiculous as some of these statements are, they are relevant in that they may be representative of a widespread mentality that exists.
I agree with you, Leaps. I’m sure Arowhena’s response here (maybe forthcoming) would be, “touched a nerve, huh?” Nonetheless, it is out of a certain ho-hum frustration that I made the OP.
I thought about moving these posts into one particular “Get Saved Now!” subforum. But that might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater if the poster has made some otherwise non-preachy points.
I suppose perhaps a standard of calling someone out on this type of b.s. in just a few potent words would be my ideal. They exist. I’ve used them. I just forget them now. How can we avoid banging our heads against the proverbial wall, and instead easily “move” these comments into a zone where they properly belong? How can we Twilight Zone them?
Aaron, the best I can offer, is look up the Socratic method of debate. And do a quick internet search on Socratic Clubs. You might be surprised to find that Sam Harris and the whole religious debate thingy is not a new idea.
The very idea that this “open” forum is only open to those with a single view point defies reason. Perhaps you should make this a member’s only club and close off debate completely! But, I doubt Sam would be happy with the idea because he prides himself on his “worldliness,” and his “rational mindedness.” And I really don’t think that he is afraid of one single crazed Catholic running amok on his web-forum. Best to just suck-it-up, buddy.
I’m in favor of a free for all. Let natural selection take the wheel on the forum (within reason): as the authors of those types of comments first see their arguments ripped apart by logic, they will then begin to see the futility in reproducing the same arguments elsewhere. And, if the authors do continue to post here, others will begin to recognize them for their ‘preaching’ and ignore them. Eventually, their activity here will die out.
Frankly, I like to see a little antagonism on here. Keeps us on our toes.
You Sir, are absolutely correct! Excellent post!
I’ve been looking for that debate but have not yet found it. Logic is my weapon of choice too. But, so far the best I’ve had from Aaron and his BFF’s is a “he said – she said” contest.
Where are the brains of this operation? Where is the debate? As you can tell, Aaron’s idea of debate is to shuffle me off into a corner somewhere where no one can see me. Does he not realize that people enjoy these web-forums much more when opposing ideas clash? People love train-wrecks! Where is my doppelganger? Let’s get this train on the tracks and get it moving!.
My ulterior motive, of course, is that my logic will trump your logic, and the atheist robots who champion a Godless universe will flock to the nearest Church for a good ol’ fashioned “baptizing.”
My ulterior motive, of course, is that my logic will trump your logic, and the atheist robots who champion a Godless universe will flock to the nearest Church for a good ol’ fashioned “baptizing.”
All I can do is respond as I did before: irrelevant, defensive response.
Aaron, the best I can offer, is look up the Socratic method of debate. And do a quick internet search on Socratic Clubs. You might be surprised to find that Sam Harris and the whole religious debate thingy is not a new idea.
Irrelevant.
The very idea that this “open” forum is only open to those with a single view point defies reason.
Off topic. We’re talking about discussion versus proselytizing.
Perhaps you should make this a member’s only club and close off debate completely!
in the next world His terrible Love awaits – can you bear it? does not constitute debate, argument, or anything of value in a forum. The inane tactic of conjuring mythological phantoms as a threat carries discourse nowhere.
But, I doubt Sam would be happy with the idea because he prides himself on his “worldliness,” and his “rational mindedness.”
Pride in one’s hard-won understanding through painstaking research is earned and valid. Harris’s ego is healthy, but not bloated. Bloated egos belong to those who’s pride is in the unfounded idea that they are central in the universe, who cling to the promise of the “unworldliness” that awaits them as a grand prize, who project fantastical, invisible, unappeasable, puppet-masters running the scheme of their lives, pulling their strings in “mysterious ways.”
And I really don’t think that he is afraid of one single crazed Catholic running amok on his web-forum. Best to just suck-it-up, buddy.
Again, Arowhena, you’re projecting your own fear. Nobody is afraid of you, never mind your delusions. But if it makes you feel better to think so, go ahead. If you want to really engage here, though, I return your advice: best to suck it up.
I’m in favor of a free for all. Let natural selection take the wheel on the forum (within reason): as the authors of those types of comments first see their arguments ripped apart by logic, they will then begin to see the futility in reproducing the same arguments elsewhere. And, if the authors do continue to post here, others will begin to recognize them for their ‘preaching’ and ignore them. Eventually, their activity here will die out.
Frankly, I like to see a little antagonism on here. Keeps us on our toes.
You Sir, are absolutely correct! Excellent post!
I’ve been looking for that debate but have not yet found it. Logic is my weapon of choice too.
in the next world His terrible Love awaits – can you bear it? is not logic nor a weapon. Part of the delusion is claiming logic where none exists.
But, so far the best I’ve had from Aaron and his BFF’s is a “he said – she said” contest.
Intentionally misconstruing again, I see. Back in the old boxing ring.
Where are the brains of this operation? Where is the debate? As you can tell, Aaron’s idea of debate is to shuffle me off into a corner somewhere where no one can see me.
Back in the boxing ring again. Really, arowhena, your tendency toward defensive pugnacity seems to have usurped your ability to respond with any degree of reason.
Does he not realize that people enjoy these web-forums much more when opposing ideas clash?
To repeat: in the next world His terrible Love awaits – can you bear it? and similar preachy threats escaping your flying, fearsome fingers amounts not to ideas per se, but only points to your inability to respond with any degree of directness.
My ulterior motive, of course, is that my logic will trump your logic,
Well, this has not been the case so far, not even once. What is it that convinces you that you’ve gained any leverage?
and the atheist robots
Such irony.
who champion a Godless universe will flock to the nearest Church for a good ol’ fashioned “baptizing.”
…who so far is winning the debate. But, this is no debate – not even close.
Why not? Because in the next world His terrible Love awaits – can you bear it?
teuchter, cyber-bulling will not work on me.
For she is AROWHENA, fearless and filled with the light of Jesus! Let no person cross her, lest they suffer her terrible love! Can they bear it?
I am well versed in web-forum banter – hey – I’ve practically made it an art form.
Art?
teacher – if you want to intimidate me – try harder!
Your justification for your artful “web-forum banter”: You convince yourself that others are trying to somehow intimidate you. You thrive on this because rational discourse has not been successful with you. You’re in good company, of course, but you’re transparent. In this sense, we see you much more clearly than you see yourself. The victory you seem to claim is all in your head. But before I ignore you (a sorry option, since I can still see your artful words quoted in others’ posts), might I remind of the good company you keep? You might more rollickingly relish in your perceived victory over here, where you can gleefully share with your brethren and sistern how you took down those robot atheists for the count.
I think there should be stricter rules on this forum (or any rules, as far as I can see, there aren’t any) regarding certain types of comments. I’m all for debate and discussion, whatever the subject, and we need to have religious people on here, moderate through to fundamentalist, in order to facilitate this and, as has been mentioned previously, to gauge what people out there think. I also find some of the comments quite amusing too, although I’m sure the authors of such comments didn’t intend them to be taken as such.
This needs to be applied to all posters though, not just the enthusiastically religious ones. The are a few people on this board who are definitely not religious, but who are just as if not more irrational, unreasonable, insulting and foul mouthed. I would prefer to see some rules regarding blatant trolling and flaming, as well as the use of personal insults and name calling. People on this topic may be aware of who I’m alluding to here.
Having religious people on this site is absolutely a great idea. You are not going to change their belief system in any meaningful debate. Why would you think so? I am fascinated by their comments. I really enjoy how they flip an argument around and how from their point of view what we say is nonsense. I have learned things from “Arowhena”, a frequent contributor to this forum.
There are partial truths and degrees of incite fullness in her contributions:
For example:
Arowhena: “The very idea that this “open” forum is only open to those with a single view point defies reason. Perhaps you should make this a member’s only club and close off debate completely! But, I doubt Sam would be happy with the idea because he prides himself on his “worldliness,” and his “rational mindedness.” And I really don’t think that he is afraid of one single crazed Catholic running amok on his web-forum. Best to just suck-it-up, buddy.”
Well her first 2-sentences points out to us that we too don’t like our ideas challenged (a human quality). As for the third, well we all think that we’re worldly (including Arowhena). Of course the sentence is written in a way that suggests (in a derogatory fashion) that Sam Harris is arrogant. I don’t know Mr. Harris (is he a doctor yet?), maybe he is arrogant and maybe he isn’t. But since arrogance has a negative connotation, the overall effect is that she is disrespecting us.
That’s OKAY. I (and other people on this forum) interact with people of belief in our communities. This forum has really helped me to understand better where people like Arowhena come from (intellectually), understand how unreasonable it is for me (us) to expect her to change her point of view, and in some circumstances how to have a dialogue that doesn’t turn hostile. We need her here.
It must take a lot of courage for her to be here in I guess what she would call the enemy camp (although I suppose she’s supposed to love her enemy). We can learn from her… of course not what she thinks we would learn. If she’s savvy, she will get the same information from us; and that would be -how to engage non believers in a less than hostile way.
To date she has invoked sarcasm, cynicism, and hyperbole, and I might say in a very effective manner, while engaging us. She is exasperating when she scores points even when we don’t want to admit it. I learn from those points.
Someone pointed out that she’s here to get attention (Teuchter). Unfortunately so are some self proclaimed non-believers. Someone else said “I’m all for free speech but this is an exercise in futility” (GGD). But in regards to GGD’s comment, I was surprised to find how many unreasonable people are posting on the forum of the “Reason Project”. Just because you say you’re reasonable doesn’t mean you are. And what’s reasonable to one person can be unreasonable to someone else.
But just in case Arowhena is reading, let me summarize what I believe the point of the Reason project is with my own slogan “I don’t need the belief in imaginary beings to do the right thing. I do them because they are right”
So Arowhena Why do you need to believe in imaginary beings to do the right thing?
To the members of this forum: She is not going to answer in any way satisfying to us… but it is still going to be fascinating.
I suppose perhaps a standard of calling someone out on this type of b.s. in just a few potent words would be my ideal. They exist. I’ve used them. I just forget them now. How can we avoid banging our heads against the proverbial wall, and instead easily “move” these comments into a zone where they properly belong? How can we Twilight Zone them?
I think the words you’re looking for are these: HAHAHA!
As far as I’m concerned, warnings about an invisible guy’s terrible love coming after me are pretty much in the “Twilight Zone” already. There is no debate warranted for a statement that ridiculous. If a debate is desired, then give me a starting point that makes sense and let’s build on that. Otherwise I just chuckle and move on.
