Are different rules of logical discussion in effect in this group?

[MineralMan]

I seem to have trouble following some discussions here. Maybe it's just me, but I don't normally have such difficulties.

Apparently, I am supposed to read through the entire thread multiple times so I will be aware that edits have been made to earlier posts. I'm not used to doing that. It seems like that would take far more time than is worthwhile.

Perhaps I have returned here in error after a lengthy absence. I will consider...

[AtheistCrusader]

1. I try not to edit things.

If I do, it's usually something entirely innocuous like a grammar/spelling issue. If it makes a material change or addition to the post, I clearly place a "Edit:" at the bottom and describe the change.

[MineralMan]

2. Yes. That is standard practice, and is something I do as well.

I do correct typos, of course, without notification, as you said.

But, I normally only read threads chronologically, in the order the posts and replies are written. I almost never go back upthread to see if someone has changed something in a previous post.

I don't really have time to do that. Nor any inclination to do that.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. If I had to do a major reversal, i'd post a reason downthread, and delete my post upthread.

I believe that would lock the subthread. I could be wrong. I don't know that I've had to do that in this venue.

[Girard442]

7. Yeah, changing the content of a post after people have responded to it is problematic.

What if somebody changes, "I like to pet the kitty" to "I like to {redacted} the kitty"?

[True Dough]

4. REPENT!

That's all you really need to know, and you can't go wrong!

[MineralMan]

5. Ah. Well, no.

If I wrong someone, I will tell that person I am sorry and hope to be forgiven. If I can make amends in some way, that is also an option.

That's the only kind of repentance I do. It's the only kind that actually has the potential to have some effect, I think.

The sort of third-party repentance seems without value to me. If I repent to some third party for having wronged someone else, what is accomplished? Now, if the person I have wronged is not available to hear my apology and request for forgiveness, I will have to just deal with my bad behavior within myself. But telling someone else I'm sorry for it seems not to be worthwhile, even if it is someone I can see and talk to face-to-face.

Otherwise, I'm just anonymously repenting, and that doesn't seem of much use, really.

[True Dough]

6. Repent for that post as well!

And say the rosary three times. It will keep you well.

Thoughts and prayers,
True Dough

[trotsky]

8. Yes.

Because it's the Religion group.

[MineralMan]

9. Ah. I'm getting a glimmering of understanding, I think.

It's a different sort of logic, eh? OK. That's still difficult when it comes to discussions, isn't it?

[trotsky]

10. Just change your idea of what a "discussion" is, and you'll be fine.

Solving the world's religious conflicts isn't going to happen here.

[BigmanPigman]

11. I was wondering when/if you would reply trotsky.

I am newish to DU and try to stay out of discussions where I may get accused of trying to stir things up (I asked a question about Bernie once and was called a troll for some reason). I get confused about thread titles. There is the Religion Group, the Atheist Group, the Christian Group and I never know where and how the appropriate reply should be written without being misconstrued/misinterpreted so I usually hold back and let others who can express themselves far better than I ever could reply first.

[guillaumeb]

14. The religion group is open to all.

Some groups are restricted to like-minded individuals.

[BigmanPigman]

15. Aaah..I get it now.

[guillaumeb]

16. Mentioning Bernie is also a certain way to invite discussion.

I posted about the Womens' Conference inviting Sanders to speak and some of the replies were heated.

[BigmanPigman]

17. Believe me, I avoid any Bernie related comment like the plague.

This is only on DU as far as I have experienced. When I speak to other Dems who are friends and strangers (people I meet at anti-moron resistant rallies/marches) Bernie's name has never once come up in the past 11 months.

[guillaumeb]

18. Well, DU does attract a lot of people who are really focused on politics.

I also have attended numerous marches and events. I see the occasional Bernie button.

[sprinkleeninow]

23. "Anti-moron resistance rallies." 😅

Aaannnd,

Very good!

[trotsky]

20. Don't let religious bigots get you down.

You are free to voice your opinion - don't listen to their hatred and nastiness!

[HopeAgain]

52. I agree, but have seen hatred and bigotry from anti-religious people as well.

I assume this Forum is for polite discussions regardless of viewpoints.

[trotsky]

54. And no one claimed otherwise.

As the group statement says, "Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome."

[HopeAgain]

56. No, but you only mentioned one side, so I though I'd mention the other.

Because when I first got on this site, I had to not let the anti-religion haters not get me down.

[trotsky]

57. LOL!

Okey doke!

[HopeAgain]

58. Please explain to me the humor

You tell someone not to let haters get them down and yet I make a similar comment, and you think it's funny. Could you please explain? I seem to have missed something?

[trotsky]

59. Yep, you missed something.

Take care.

[HopeAgain]

60. Didnt think so...

You take care too

[uriel1972]

12. There are different ways of 'Knowing' here...

So why shouldn't there be different ways of 'Logic' as well...

[guillaumeb]

13. I agree. Two examples:

One time, a few months ago, a frequent poster in the religion group made a comment referencing all of the posts wherein theists were allegedly attacking atheists.

I responded that I personally saw far more of the reverse, and asked for links to the posts. The frequent poster responded that it was my responsibility to do my own research. Another one or two posters responded with their own stories of the frequency with which theists attacked non-theists. To date, I still have received no links to any posts supporting the contention.

So when someone earlier asked for "proof" of what I said about the numerous posts which claim that theism is dying, I responded by reminding the poster of the earlier exchange.

Second, if I post that I can only define Christianity for myself, and I am accused of attempting to define Christianity, what exactly am I supposed to think of this response?

So yes, there apparently are different rules for different groups.

[Lordquinton]

19. You claim you can define it for yourself

Then go on to define it for everyone else. You also attempt to define atheism for all Atheists as well. That's where your issue lies.

[guillaumeb]

21. Incorrect framing on your part.

I define it for myself.

[Mariana]

24. It must be fun to make up your own definitions for words.

However, it can be confusing for everyone who uses those words in the usual way. Since you don't use the standard definitions that are found in dictionaries, please consider posting a glossary of Words Defined by Guillaumeb for Himself. It would make discussion with you much more productive.

[guillaumeb]

25. So you define nothing for yourself?

It must be easy to always depend on another's definition for all of your positions.

Do you really feel that every person of faith has the identical definition of what that faith is?

[Mariana]

27. No, I really don't.

Sometimes there really isn't a word for the idea one wishes to express, that's a fact. When that happens to me, I describe my idea. I don't just assign that idea to some word that means something else, and call it MY definition of that word. That's not how language works.

[guillaumeb]

26. Speaking of making things up, you might want to check #13.

And research to find the posts that are claimed to exist that are literally calling atheists demons.

[trotsky]

28. Here's the two I originally provided to you.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218141702#post6
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=118200

Here's another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=138535

And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=110476

And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=138839

And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=109896

And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=109892

And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=109805

And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=110075

And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=118005

And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=118018

And another:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=118235

I shall await your apology and retraction.

[guillaumeb]

29. The first 3 are all humorous.

If that is an example of your proof, I will not bother with the others.

Really a weak attempt.

[trotsky]

34. Doesn't matter what you think.

Anyone else can inspect those links and see if they support my true claim, or your false one.

Your humiliation and self-vilification will only continue.

[guillaumeb]

36. Obviously it does not matter that they are humorous.

Okay, another glorious victory for t.

[trotsky]

37. You have given me many victories, and I am thankful.

But to be honest, they've all been too easy.

[guillaumeb]

32. Still on the silly "demon" meme:

Here is the original post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=109853

The usage of the word demons by the poster refers to psychological issues. The humorous use of the word demons follows that, but the poster never claims to be a theist.

[trotsky]

33. "the poster never claims to be a theist"

And I never claimed it was theists calling us demons.

Keep it up, this is awesome stuff. You are stuck in your own web.

[guillaumeb]

35. An amazing response.

It amazes me, and probably others here. Have fun with the demon issue.

[trotsky]

38. Thanks! It was a pleasure to defeat your false claims yet again.

You take care, and let me know when you are going to try and defend your latest false claim!

[Lordquinton]

40. Nice try

But you are incorrectly defining others, regardless of other claims. Once you start sharing it with others, and also labeling them, saying "it's just for me" isn't a valid excuse.

[guillaumeb]

42. You sound confused.

You previously said that I define Christianity. In spite of my numerous statements saying that I can only define it for myself.

So which reality have you decided to side with? Your statement, or mine?

[Act_of_Reparation]

61. Oh please.

"I Define Christianity For Myself" might look nice slapped on a bumpersticker, but it's a patently absurd statement to make. In defining the word you ipso facto craft a yardstick by which the Christianity of others is measured, implicitly if not explicitly.

Spare us the solipsistic nonsense. It is not possible to define the word just for yourself.

[guillaumeb]

63. Christianity is a belief.

Perhaps you are confused about this, but I am not. And the yardstick that you insist I am creating is utter nonsense.

Define Democrat, or progressive, or feminist, in a way that all will agree with.

[Act_of_Reparation]

65. No one has to agree with your definition.

That's not the point.

The point is you've established a criteria, and whether you acknowledge it or not you judge how "Christian" people are based on that criteria. The criteria by definition cannot apply solely to yourself.

If you believe Christianity necessarily entails X,Y, and Z, then you cannot believe people who deny X, Y, and Z are Christians.

[Lordquinton]

64. When you call people literalists

you are defining their views on religion.

When you incorrectly call atheism a belief system, you are attempting to define it for others.

This thing where you jump back aghast when you are called on this behaviour saying "It's only for myself" doesn't fly like you think it does.

[guillaumeb]

67. If one literally beleives that every word of a religious text is correct,

one is generally described as a literalist.

[Pope George Ringo II]

68. But it's good to sort out that it's all Bronze Age fiction, rather than just the parts we dislike

To take one example, that whole Adam and Eve/Garden of Eden thing. There are problems with taking it literally, but if you don't take it literally then "original sin" doesn't exist and some major plot holes show up later in the story. Sometimes you kind of have to make calls in bunches.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

69. So you embrace the creationist label?

And once you stop taking every word of a religious text literally, then you are on shaky ground because you are just randomly not following what you don't like or agree with. And how do we know that the "Jesus is the son of god" part shouldn't be taken literally.

[Pope George Ringo II]

70. Another question about picking and choosing

ISTR something like three different stories where the Jehovah character gives the same plot of land to the same family three different times. Now, I can explain that by pointing to the plagiarized composite nature of the character. Somebody else might simply conclude judeo-christians worship a god who is clearly insane. But ISTM that a christian has to have some mechanism for deciding which is true. Obviously, a literalist would decide they're all true even though they contradict each other. How does a non-literalist pick and choose which of these stories he wants to believe?

Thoughts?

[Mariana]

72. Good luck getting an answer to that question.

Several people on this board have asked variations of that question over and over and over again. No Christian has seen fit to answer it. Of course, they usually refuse to answer any questions about their specific beliefs at all. I have no idea if they don't know what they believe, or if they're ashamed of their particular beliefs, or what.

[Lordquinton]

71. So you admit to defining others beliefs?

We're you not being honest about it before?

[guillaumeb]

74. A misreading, or an attempt at humor on your part?

I can believe either.

[Lordquinton]

83. Maybe review your own posts

where you claim to not define anyone's religion, then explain how you define other's religion.

[guillaumeb]

84. No, you post those of my responses

that support your allegation.

Good luck doing so.

[Lordquinton]

85. Just read up the thread

You've driven us around in circles rather than answering a question. I've almost forgotten what's being talked about because of all the tangents and non-sequiturs.

You also have the lingering question of defining your god so we can continue that conversation, but you instead went off on several tangents and several new threads to distract from that question.

[guillaumeb]

86. So far I see evasion on your part.

You made a claim.

[Pope George Ringo II]

41. You just argued a joke from Alice in Wonderland? Talk about down the rabbit hole.

'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'
'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

[guillaumeb]

43. I am certain that you have a point.

But it does not relate to another mischaracterizing my position when anyone can read my actual position.

[Pope George Ringo II]

44. Impenetrability, sir!

Impenetrability, I say! By all means, keep defining things without regard to what they mean.

[guillaumeb]

46. Have you no mirrors?

By all means, keep your deflection screens powered.

[Pope George Ringo II]

47. This is getting beyond surreal.

Take "deflection" for example. I'm not deflecting anything, by any conceivable definition of the word. I'm pointing out that you explicitly insist on deliberately mis-communicating by making up your own definitions in a scene stolen from Alice in Wonderland. And you call my observation, "deflection." You invent a new definition for a word to object that people complain when you invent new definitions for words.

It's like watching Monty Python performing Alice in Wonderland.

[guillaumeb]

48. Your position is noted, as is your belief.

Ludwig Dodson would approve.

[Pope George Ringo II]

49. And there's "belief" again

Monty Python on acid performing Alice in Wonderland.

"Words mean what I want them to dead parrot on the telly."

[guillaumeb]

50. I like Monty Python also.

But when people mischaracterize what I say, whether deliberately or not, I might respond to that mischaracterization.

So, for example, if I say that I can only define Christianity for myself, that does not mean that I am insisting that my definition of Christianity is the correct one. And that is the mischaracterization that prompted my response.

[Pope George Ringo II]

51. It's not just your own religion you define, though

You also explicitly arrogate the right to define everybody else's position for them incorrectly and for your own convenience (strawman, much?) and over their repeated objections. As you just threw "belief" out yet again. That's...well, that is what it is, and you get the respect you earned for it.

Even with your own, we're not talking about defining your personal recipe for spaghetti marinara. With certain institutions, membership is clearly defined by certain tenets. You ignore what you don't like as Bronze Age fiction, then insist that we take seriously exactly the buffet items you like, but which you never even take the trouble to identify.

Between your invented words and your unclear position, you're doing an impression of Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland. At least own it.

[guillaumeb]

53. So are you insisting that all theists must belong to a certain group?

And that all theists must have identical viewpoints?

What institution do you feel I belong to? Please enlighten me so I can become a better theist.

Please link to some proof for this bizarre assertion that one suspects was apparently made to justify your own personal definition of theists.

[Pope George Ringo II]

55. Monty Python on acid performing Alice in Wonderland through interpretive dance

Your response to a complaint that you refuse to make your position clear is to demand that I guess what you believe. Farce is alive and well here.

[guillaumeb]

62. Farce is alive, and flourishing in your posts.

What is not, however, flourishing in your posts, is any systemic attempt at logic.

[Pope George Ringo II]

66. I have concluded that you are immune to logic

And that the return on investment for taking you seriously does not justify the effort. Nor will it as long as you insist on defining every position but your own. So, I say again: Impenetrability!

[guillaumeb]

73. It is as if you had held a mirror up and reflected my exact position as well.

Uncanny.

[marylandblue]

75. If you don't believe your definition of Christianity is correct

Why do you believe it?

[guillaumeb]

77. And where exactly did you read that? eom

[marylandblue]

78. It's implied when you state that you only speak for yourself

If something is true, it is true for everyone. If you speak only for yourself, you are not speaking of something other people do or ought to be believe, you are speaking only of your own opinion. If it's only your own opinion, then it is no more true than my opinion that butter pecan is the best of all ice cream flavors.

[guillaumeb]

79. All beliefs are personal to the believer.

Agreed?

[marylandblue]

80. No.

I believe the earth revolves around the sun. That is a statement of what is true and what therefore everyone ought to believe.

[guillaumeb]

81. Belief is not necessary to validate an observable phenomenon.

One can see that fresh water freezes at 0C at sea level. It is not necessary to believe what is known.

But many philosophical concepts do require belief.

[marylandblue]

82. I am using a dictionary definition of belief

"an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exist."

I accept that it is true that fresh water freezes at 0 degrees C at sea level.

What is your definition?

[Mariana]

22. MineralMan, I hope you won't leave

because of a few posters who refuse to engage in honest discussion.

[guillaumeb]

30. Which begs the question.

But please, do not name anyone because it could be seen as a violation of the TOS.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

31. Not what that means

[Iggo]

39. Ah, there's your mistake. Those aren't discussions. They're strings of opinions.

You read it like this:

Mm-hmm
Mm-hmm
Yep
Heard it
Heard it
Oh hey! There's a new one!
Yep
Yep
Heard it
Etc.

[Bretton Garcia]

45. "Faith" needs no reason, no logic, no justification?

Therefore, it allegedly trumps all rational argument.

In a way reminiscent of Donald Trump.