You could be so much more effective in your obse^H^H^H^Hmission if you weren't so hostile. This was an amusing post until you returned to form. You have a very narrow and willfully cynical view of the world. Fortunately for those of faith you're too full of yourself to change. That makes you harmless to us.
Wait a minute, which response was the hostile, closed-minded one, yours or his? As something of a theist, I hate when people defend faith without a particularly good understanding.
Oh,and the chart describes the concept of faith pretty accurately, if you understand the term.
Hostile? I didn't see any hostilities on Matt's part.
Looks like an unvarnished view of the truth to me. However, most people who are overdosed on religion tend to see the truth as hostility.
"I like to think of religion like a fine Irish Whiskey. They are both marvelous things when taken in moderation." - Monsignor Francis O'Dell replying to a question about religious based violence in Northern Ireland.
I have given myself a day in which to contemplate the best response, if to respond at all. I don't feel upset or hostile about your response, but feel that your mood requires delicate handling, so I gave it some time to compose some rough drafts.
Who are you? Are you anyone I should expect to speak to in my offline life or in any communities other than LJ?
I was not upset at Rikhei, and I wasn't hostile. I agreed with her, since she and I see eye-to-eye on religious topics. Then I and added a point, to which I expected her to agree. So, that could not have been hostile to her.
Others have responded better than I have about your overreaction. I can think of no response I can formulate that would not sound hostile to you, but I ask that you do me the favor and great priviledge of interpreting the words of others with more charity. It is astonishing that I can't even speak calm, milquetoaste observations about obvoius fact without it being interpreted as belligerent.
I have a lot of friends who lived a sheltered life, raised by smart, prosperous, educated parents, traveling only in smart, prosperous, educated circles. I guess that's the only way you can think I'm speaking with hyperbole about, for instance, the population of Mexico.
I've been to a dirt-poor town in Mexico on a missions trip. That is far more representative of the current population of the human race than anyone living in any American suburb.
Do you have any evidence that most birds are not flightless? Certainly, there are flightless birds, such as penguins and kiwi. But they are the exception to the rule: when we think of birds, we think of flying.
Off the top of your head, can you produce evidence for us to support the fact that when you think of birds, you think of flying? Certainly, the evidence exists. When we see birds, we see them fly, on a nearly daily basis. But can you produce evidence for me right now about the state of the world's flighless bird population and present it to me over the internet? Is it fair to say, as a rough estimate, that 99% of birds fly, just as a shorthand for all the convoluted stuff I just said? Yes, it would be a misstatement. 99% is shorthand for "overwhelmingly normal". This is a normality that all of us are familiar with, or should be if we venture outside our house.
If you fail to go hunt up the research right now on the exact percent of the world's current bird population that is flightless, have you failed to respect evidence? How can that compare to the disrespect for evidence shown by one who claims that "true", "real" birds normally are flightless and that it is the flying birds who are anomalies?
I just want to specify that if you intended to correct me for misspeaking, I thank you and appreciate you for this. You were right to do so. Consider my last response a correction to my statement and clarification of intent. I'm sorry for misspeaking.
Of course not. And yes, it's a classic straw man. Next, we'll see the patented religious version of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
But this is the face of faith that you see if you're outside the "God club". It's a legitimate (if limited) view, which is a natural consequence of the way faith has been used as a hammer against free thought both in recent years and historically.
Don't want people to view faith that way? Demonstrate the alternative. Right now, the people wrecking the world think exactly like that diagram.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 04:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 04:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 04:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 04:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 05:30 pm (UTC)Oh,and the chart describes the concept of faith pretty accurately, if you understand the term.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 05:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-02-18 05:06 pm (UTC)Looks like an unvarnished view of the truth to me. However, most people who are overdosed on religion tend to see the truth as hostility.
"I like to think of religion like a fine Irish Whiskey. They are both marvelous things when taken in moderation."
- Monsignor Francis O'Dell replying to a question about religious based violence in Northern Ireland.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-18 05:56 pm (UTC)Who are you? Are you anyone I should expect to speak to in my offline life or in any communities other than LJ?
I was not upset at Rikhei, and I wasn't hostile. I agreed with her, since she and I see eye-to-eye on religious topics. Then I and added a point, to which I expected her to agree. So, that could not have been hostile to her.
Others have responded better than I have about your overreaction. I can think of no response I can formulate that would not sound hostile to you, but I ask that you do me the favor and great priviledge of interpreting the words of others with more charity. It is astonishing that I can't even speak calm, milquetoaste observations about obvoius fact without it being interpreted as belligerent.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 05:21 pm (UTC)I've been to a dirt-poor town in Mexico on a missions trip. That is far more representative of the current population of the human race than anyone living in any American suburb.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 06:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-02-18 08:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-18 05:46 pm (UTC)Off the top of your head, can you produce evidence for us to support the fact that when you think of birds, you think of flying? Certainly, the evidence exists. When we see birds, we see them fly, on a nearly daily basis. But can you produce evidence for me right now about the state of the world's flighless bird population and present it to me over the internet? Is it fair to say, as a rough estimate, that 99% of birds fly, just as a shorthand for all the convoluted stuff I just said? Yes, it would be a misstatement. 99% is shorthand for "overwhelmingly normal". This is a normality that all of us are familiar with, or should be if we venture outside our house.
If you fail to go hunt up the research right now on the exact percent of the world's current bird population that is flightless, have you failed to respect evidence? How can that compare to the disrespect for evidence shown by one who claims that "true", "real" birds normally are flightless and that it is the flying birds who are anomalies?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-02-18 05:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 04:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 04:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 05:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 05:42 pm (UTC)But this is the face of faith that you see if you're outside the "God club". It's a legitimate (if limited) view, which is a natural consequence of the way faith has been used as a hammer against free thought both in recent years and historically.
Don't want people to view faith that way? Demonstrate the alternative. Right now, the people wrecking the world think exactly like that diagram.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 04:37 pm (UTC)-=ShoEboX=-
no subject
Date: 2007-02-18 03:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-18 03:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-18 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-18 06:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-18 06:02 pm (UTC)