So I'm confused on this issue lately: We have a lot of theists coming in here. They babble about a variety of things, "god", "experience", "morality", "Compassion"... you name it.
Then when pressed, they won't define these things so we can discuss them intelligently.
SO I'm baffled-do they want to debate or not? If they do, why won't they back up their points allowing for meaning to exist in them. By insisting on talking about their god-yet refusing to name him, or describe him-really they are AVOIDING the debate.
The same is true on the issue of "experience". Why yammer on and on about your experience if you don't want to tell us what it was? How is it relevant if you don't define or describe it? What is the point?
Thus... it appears to be some case of 2 people inside the same body. The one steps up to the plate, he's full of piss and vinegar and ready to go. He makes his statements, then passes the ball to the other person in his body. Now this person is not ready to go, has no spine, no knowledge, no interest in debate... but does talk a lot. The first person who was ready to go, is never heard from again until the next thread.
So... are these theists bipolar? Surely there are not 2 people behind every theist username on bnet.... so what else could cause this rare phenomenon?
I don't get it... perhaps it's like a priest talking about sex.... he's heard it's fun, but doesn't have the capability to do it, so he just wants to pretend, and get close enough for a whiff of it.
Is that it? They wish to debate, but can't so they just wanna pretend for a while? Someone help me understand this wonder of the forum?
> Is that it? They wish to debate, but can't so they just wanna pretend for a while?
> Someone help me understand this wonder of the forum?
In many cases, I think it's a form of marking their territory, much like a cat spraying urine. Some theists don't have a coherent idea of what their god is like; rather than admit that, they tend to label their god as being 'beyond human comprehension', 'infinite', 'ineffable', etc. (Though what they really tend to mean is that it is beyond the comprehension of anyone who disagrees with them, not that it is beyond their own comprehension. Exactly how they got superhuman comprehension is left unexplained.) The problem with an indiscribable and indefinite god, however, is that it is very hard to proselytize it and/or defend it in debates, since they don't have anything coherent to describe or defend. But theism is *their* thing, it's their territory, and they don't want to cede even the least bit of that territory to the horrible atheists who they are sure don't understand anything about gods (the fact that by having an indescribable and indefinite god they have admitted that they also don't understand anything abut gods notwithstanding). They *have* to mark gods as their territory, but they have to do it without actually adding any content to the discussions. Thus ... the pretend urge to debate that always ends just before really describing their god(s) in any coherent manner.
You can be pretty sure that this behavior is being exhibited by any theist poster who posts to almost every thread but never actually adds any real content to any of them. This is especially true if they continually change the subjects of the various threads around in hopes that by never sticking to any one subject, they can avoid having to talk about any subject.
It's rather ironic that such theist posters want to mark an atheism discussion group as their territory by making every thread about their gods in general but never about their god in specific.
> Is that it? They wish to debate, but can't so they just wanna pretend for a while?
> Someone help me understand this wonder of the forum?
In many cases, I think it's a form of marking their territory, much like a cat spraying urine. Some theists don't have a coherent idea of what their god is like; rather than admit that, they tend to label their god as being 'beyond human comprehension', 'infinite', 'ineffable', etc. (Though what they really tend to mean is that it is beyond the comprehension of anyone who disagrees with them, not that it is beyond their own comprehension. Exactly how they got superhuman comprehension is left unexplained.) The problem with an indiscribable and indefinite god, however, is that it is very hard to proselytize it and/or defend it in debates, since they don't have anything coherent to describe or defend. But theism is *their* thing, it's their territory, and they don't want to cede even the least bit of that territory to the horrible atheists who they are sure don't understand anything about gods (the fact that by having an indescribable and indefinite god they have admitted that they also don't understand anything abut gods notwithstanding). They *have* to mark gods as their territory, but they have to do it without actually adding any content to the discussions. Thus ... the pretend urge to debate that always ends just before really describing their god(s) in any coherent manner.
You can be pretty sure that this behavior is being exhibited by any theist poster who posts to almost every thread but never actually adds any real content to any of them. This is especially true if they continually change the subjects of the various threads around in hopes that by never sticking to any one subject, they can avoid having to talk about any subject.
It's rather ironic that such theist posters want to mark an atheism discussion group as their territory by making every thread about their gods in general but never about their god in specific.
So then.... that awful smell in BA is really just Jesus Spray all over the place?
As far as I know, I have always tried to make my posts substantive. However, they often seem to get ignored because the denizens here appear to be more interested in chasing after theists who don't seem to offer more explicit posts. I made what I thought was a respectful and substantive post on teilhard's chocolate thread, but other than sparky, nobody even bothered to comment or ask further questions about it. (It was addressed to McAtheist, but it was there for anyone to respond to.)
Would anyone care to tell me why my posts are not considered substantive? Or is it simply because I seem to have a fairly clear understanding of my own theological stance, and therefore there is less nebulosity to argue over?
As far as I know, I have always tried to make my posts substantive. However, they often seem to get ignored because the denizens here appear to be more interested in chasing after theists who don't seem to offer more explicit posts. I made what I thought was a respectful and substantive post on teilhard's chocolate thread, but other than sparky, nobody even bothered to comment or ask further questions about it. (It was addressed to McAtheist, but it was there for anyone to respond to.)
Would anyone care to tell me why my posts are not considered substantive? Or is it simply because I seem to have a fairly clear understanding of my own theological stance, and therefore there is less nebulosity to argue over?
My thread here is of course what I call one of my "horsing around" threads... but if it could turn into a fruitful dialog-that would be cool. I'm not aware of the post and personally I don't respond to the less substantive posts either-it has to be an ISSUE I care about, not a post easy to cave in.... So if I didn't respond, either I did not see it, or found the issue between you and McA to be boring perhaps. I can't speak for others-but thought I'd respond to avoid you feeling outcast lol. And if you DO make good posts, with substance, then this thread is NOT directed at you. Although, I am quite confident my OP describes the majority of theists on Bnet.
I do know that I basically ignored the whole chocolate thread until recently-when the atheist double standard riled me up -see, an issue I cared about.
> Would anyone care to tell me why my posts are not considered substantive? Or is it
> simply because I seem to have a fairly clear understanding of my own theological
> stance, and therefore there is less nebulosity to argue over?
I consider your posts to be substantive, and would love to discuss many issues with you. The problem is that it's basically impossible to have a substantive discussion once the thread is sprayed upon by the many non-substantive posters. My personal policy is to either abandon a thread or to just not join it as soon as it becomes dominated by the non-substantive posters ... and given the current composition of the posters here, that's generally within the first few posts. From some comments made by other posters here, I suspect they also have similar policies. As a result there don't tend to be many substantive threads here, and I suspect there won't be unless or until some posters die in a series of bizarre gardening accidents.
I've tried starting threads that were explicitly only for substantive replies, labeled as such in the opening post. It didn't work.
As far as I know, I have always tried to make my posts substantive. However, they often seem to get ignored because the denizens here appear to be more interested in chasing after theists who don't seem to offer more explicit posts. I made what I thought was a respectful and substantive post on teilhard's chocolate thread, but other than sparky, nobody even bothered to comment or ask further questions about it. (It was addressed to McAtheist, but it was there for anyone to respond to.)
Would anyone care to tell me why my posts are not considered substantive? Or is it simply because I seem to have a fairly clear understanding of my own theological stance, and therefore there is less nebulosity to argue over?
I understand your pain. I think sometimes if you jump into a thread where there is already a battle going on, the opponents are so focused on each other, they kind of 'miss' the posts from new participants.
I suggest you start a thread on a topic. Lord knows I got oodles of response from my whats the point thread. Then people will start by addressing your op.
