I think Im an atheist.

[indianasmith]

AHD - note that I also used the term "social progressive" for those offended by the term "liberal."

And yes, I believe that BOTH interpretations of the data  that I mentioned above are faulty.  I was using that as just ONE example of how facts can be interpreted in a manner that is NOT truth.

[Allhallowsday]

AHD - note that I also used the term "social progressive" for those offended by the term "liberal."

And yes, I believe that BOTH interpretations of the data  that I mentioned above are faulty.  I was using that as just ONE example of how facts can be interpreted in a manner that is NOT truth.

You're the one offended by the word "liberal" man, not me.  Don't assume I'm a liberal, despite that label having been slapped on my arse more than once on this forum.  Racists and Liberals, like two sides of a coin, heads or tails.  "Both sides" as Ulthar put it.  Since when are these two opposite "sides"?  Unless of course we're comparing arch-liberals with arch-conservatives... "social progessive" on the left, "racist" on the right? 
Despite what Ulthar cares to assert, you compared racists with your conservative talking-points version of what you imagine a "liberal" to be, inserting sarcasm in the process.    My friend, you peddle your politics a lot on this forum. 

[Flick James]

Wow, now the dirty "liberal" word is getting tossed about. I almost surprised it took this long.

This is why I don't buy into these terms, "conservative," "liberal," "social progressive." To me, these are just words used as a means of rejecting the idea of "free thinker." What's absolutely hilarious to me is that most people who toss about such terms will then embrace the opposing term, instantly pigeon-holing both the person they're talking about and themselves. That's why you will NEVER see me referring to anyone as a liberal or a conservative or any other nomenclature intended to reduce people into stupid stereotypes. I could refer to Indy as a conservative, and he may not mind, but I would still consider it an insult because despite him perhaps leaning that way, it limits him from communicating things that I've see him post that actually demonstrate free thought and that avoid the "conservative" conventions. I could call Newt a liberal, and perhaps she may not mind much, but I would be offering the same limitation by doing so. And folks that refer to themselves proudly as either liberal or conservative I tend not to pay much attention to.

This is not to say that I haven't posted unfortunate things that I regret saying. Recently, for example, I lost composure and lumped all atheists into a boat that was perhaps a bit unfair. We all do it at some point or another in our lives.

The thing I appreciate most about your point, AHD, is that you are 100% correct about how these terms get tossed about, and it's really annoying to me. It's as if "free-thinker" is an unacceptable concept. People aren't allowed to be free thinkers anymore, are they? No, they must fall somehow into this 1-dimensional political spectrum that goes left and right. To me, that left/right scale serves no purpose but to polarize and limit people. I tend to favor those that show the ability to reason rather than identify themselves by a socio-political convention as their means of functioning intellectually.

[AndyC]

I find that happens with most controversial topics. People have to put you in a category, because it saves them the trouble of listening to you, understanding what you have to say and weighing it against their own opinions. As soon as you've said enough to fit into a particular slot, they'll mentally stick you there and fall back on their stock arguments, based on whatever general knowledge they have.

I recall a while back, I'd gotten into a couple of heated arguments with Lester over economics. At one point, he said that he couldn't figure me out, and asked if I was a Keynesian. While I do think Keynesian economics make a good deal of sense, and I think my arguments reflected that, I wouldn't say Keynes was the be all and end all. But if I had said I subscribed in any way to Keynesian economics, or even mentioned Keynes by name, I suspect Lester would have stopped arguing with me, and started arguing directly with Keynes, with me as proxy.

I've noticed the same thing in this thread. Those who profess to some sort of spiritual belief have been asked to answer for policies and practices of evangelical Christians, Islamic fundamentalists or the Catholic Church, because they've been pigeonholed as "religious" people. Vukxfiles was the clearest example of this. I don't know if he directed a single argument directly at anything one of us actually said. It was all aimed elsewhere through us.

While the discussion has mainly been about our personal beliefs, there have been plenty of arguments leveled at religion in general, and atheism in general. In some cases, it has been fairly examining a broad idea, but in others, it has unfairly lumped people into the same broad category.

[JaseSF]

Discussing politics and religion seems an almost surefire way to lead to arguments...perhaps why my parents always told me to never argue about them. One believes what one believes. Someone else believes something else. Some people are capable of rethinking, perhaps reevalutlating, their ideas based on discussion with others but some will staunchly defend their beliefs even without even bothering to listen to or hear what others have to say...takes all kinds...

[Flick James]

Discussing politics and religion seems an almost surefire way to lead to arguments...perhaps why my parents always told me to never argue about them. One believes what one believes. Someone else believes something else. Some people are capable of rethinking, perhaps reevalutlating, their ideas based on discussion with others but some will staunchly defend their beliefs even without even bothering to listen to or hear what others have to say...takes all kinds...

I LIKE the arguments. Arguments have a bad connotation. Arguments are an intellectual process, and if one values their development as a rational human being, one will usually gain from the experience.

[indianasmith]

I don't know that this thread has really degenerated to the "argument" level, overall - although there has been the occasional tense moment.  It is a freewheeling, enjoyable discussion between friends that have very different views. To me, NOT to allow this kind of exchange - provided everyone concerned is acting civil - would be to stifle the diversity that makes this forum the fun place it is.

[Allhallowsday]

I don't know that this thread has really degenerated to the "argument" level, overall - although there has been the occasional tense moment.  It is a freewheeling, enjoyable discussion between friends that have very different views. To me, NOT to allow this kind of exchange - provided everyone concerned is acting civil - would be to stifle the diversity that makes this forum the fun place it is.

This is one of the reasons you and I are friends.  We accept we disagree, yet, we remain civil to one another.  You know I have a special affection for you, Indy... even if you are a du-donkey. 

[indianasmith]

And I like you, even if you are a bit thin-skinned on occasion.

I really was NOT trying to turn this into a passionate debate over politics.

It is a much more fun thread as a passionate debate about religion.

Speaking of which:  I think I am a Christian.  Actually . . . . I know it.

[Allhallowsday]

Where oh where has my little dog gone?  Oh where oh where can he be??      
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ths6KjYpNHc

[Mofo Rising]

Discussing politics and religion seems an almost surefire way to lead to arguments...perhaps why my parents always told me to never argue about them. One believes what one believes. Someone else believes something else. Some people are capable of rethinking, perhaps reevalutlating, their ideas based on discussion with others but some will staunchly defend their beliefs even without even bothering to listen to or hear what others have to say...takes all kinds...

I LIKE the arguments. Arguments have a bad connotation. Arguments are an intellectual process, and if one values their development as a rational human being, one will usually gain from the experience.

I am in complete agreement with Flick James here. Arguments can be unpleasant, and confrontation is always a bit of a harrowing experience if you haven't inured yourself to it. The idea that we should never discuss religion or politics is a sound idea when we're trying to remain civil. It will always lead to an argument, which isn't usually the best way to spend a cocktail party.

But this is the stuff we really care about. Not being able to argue about it reduces all of our points of view, no matter which end of the spectrum we fall on. Arguing in a public forum is the best way to discover what you really think about such-and-such.

If your beliefs can't stand up to a good argument, you're selling them short.

That's one of the reasons I like this forum. Civility. If you go back and reread this entire thread, you can read passionate arguments. And except for a few wingnuts here and there, it has been very civil. But the central arguments are still there, and very vocally argued.

Don't be afraid to disagree and voice your opinion. You may have to defend it in a viciously unpleasant manner, but you'll be better for it when you make it out the other end.

[AndyC]

Where oh where has my little dog gone?  Oh where oh where can he be??      
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ths6KjYpNHc

Hey, that's my shtick!

[JaseSF]

Oh I have nothing against civil argument...I've done more than my share of that in my day albeit usually with someone absolutely immovable with regards to their opinion..it's when it becomes uncivil and unpleasant I don't like it which this thread for the most part has been not to the credit of those posting here.... just wanted to throw that out there...

[Flick James]

Oh I have nothing against civil argument...I've done more than my share of that in my day albeit usually with someone absolutely immovable with regards to their opinion..it's when it becomes uncivil and unpleasant I don't like it which this thread for the most part has been not to the credit of those posting here.... just wanted to throw that out there...

I get what you mean. However, Indy and I for example, have argued/debated a lot, well, in regard to religion anyway. Despite such a volatile topic, and despite the fact that our exchange has come to an "irresistable force meets the immovable object" point, we still seem to gain from the experience. He's a rare one in that regard, however, and usually it ends up like you say: uncivil and unpleasant.