Mike, \i would be sending a vid response, but \i just can't right now due to myu technology not working.
I chose my battles carefully. I don't come on here just to shout my mouth off and I take the charge that \i am alienating potential allies very seriously.
When i say i am throwing my force against fondimentalists, that much is very true, but that still does not mean that \i still don't see wider problems with genral, civil beleivers and their belief, i just chose not to fight that...
Figuratively spe3aking, fundimentalists often need a smack aro7und the head (figarativly speaking) to make them realize just hpw warped their beliefs are, you might disagree, but \i have found this tactic to be very effective in the last 15 years or so. Moderates are easier to talk to and so a discussion is perfectly adiquate, but \i still think there beliefs are just plain wrong mink. Your comment about my use of the word 'club' simply boils down to a semantic...
...disagreement!. All the things oyu pointed out as not being acrtivities or definitions of a club are all thinks \i have witnessed and taken part in in clubs, so \i can't agree with you there. \furthermore, you seemed to take it as a being derogatory stabce against clubs, thats not the case, \i fully support clubs and an indeviduals need to be around people of similar idea's etc.
I don#'t even think that \i don't feel the need to join clubs in trhe more genral sense, maybe I do, \i know...
\i have in the past. \a group of friends is pretty mucha club.
\i just don'r feel the need in the theologicsl or philosophical sense.
I am not persecuting anyone else if they want to, or feel the need to, great, if that works for you, fine.
As \i have said before mike, making a lucid argument with you is hard because \i have no idea what you believe. I don#t know what things will offend you or set you off because |I don't understand your philosophy.
I find it ironic that for a significant number of youtube atheists who espouse freethought, individualism etc there seems to be a desire to 'belong' to a club/group whose 'members', in discussions (if we can call them that) about religion repeat almost verbatim, the rhetoric of Dawkins, Hitchens et al. They have their stock phrases; eg about religion being a crutch for the weak minded; faithheads; deluded; ignorant etc.
Of course that's not to say there is not similar among believers here.
Good observation, Hugh. I have thought about that, and I wonder how much of it is due to group mentality and how much is due to shared ideas developed independently. I have personally experienced both.
Mike, \i would be sending a vid response, but \i just can't right now due to myu technology not working.
I chose my battles carefully. I don't come on here just to shout my mouth off and I take the charge that \i am alienating potential allies very seriously.
When i say i am throwing my force against fondimentalists, that much is very true, but that still does not mean that \i still don't see wider problems with genral, civil beleivers and their belief, i just chose not to fight that...
joebot1 2 years ago
...battle in the same way.
Figuratively spe3aking, fundimentalists often need a smack aro7und the head (figarativly speaking) to make them realize just hpw warped their beliefs are, you might disagree, but \i have found this tactic to be very effective in the last 15 years or so. Moderates are easier to talk to and so a discussion is perfectly adiquate, but \i still think there beliefs are just plain wrong mink. Your comment about my use of the word 'club' simply boils down to a semantic...
joebot1 2 years ago
...disagreement!. All the things oyu pointed out as not being acrtivities or definitions of a club are all thinks \i have witnessed and taken part in in clubs, so \i can't agree with you there. \furthermore, you seemed to take it as a being derogatory stabce against clubs, thats not the case, \i fully support clubs and an indeviduals need to be around people of similar idea's etc.
I don#'t even think that \i don't feel the need to join clubs in trhe more genral sense, maybe I do, \i know...
joebot1 2 years ago
\i have in the past. \a group of friends is pretty mucha club.
\i just don'r feel the need in the theologicsl or philosophical sense.
I am not persecuting anyone else if they want to, or feel the need to, great, if that works for you, fine.
As \i have said before mike, making a lucid argument with you is hard because \i have no idea what you believe. I don#t know what things will offend you or set you off because |I don't understand your philosophy.
joebot1 2 years ago
watch?v=3XOP4F9vVYE
MikeSarno 2 years ago
peace my brother .
dankwilliams 2 years ago
I find it ironic that for a significant number of youtube atheists who espouse freethought, individualism etc there seems to be a desire to 'belong' to a club/group whose 'members', in discussions (if we can call them that) about religion repeat almost verbatim, the rhetoric of Dawkins, Hitchens et al. They have their stock phrases; eg about religion being a crutch for the weak minded; faithheads; deluded; ignorant etc.
Of course that's not to say there is not similar among believers here.
ballyboneman 2 years ago
Good observation, Hugh. I have thought about that, and I wonder how much of it is due to group mentality and how much is due to shared ideas developed independently. I have personally experienced both.
MikeSarno 2 years ago