Replies

Sarcastic, yes. But no one here but you is "attempt[ing] to shut down discussion."

I am in no way trying to shut down discussion. I am trying to promote it. Please learn the difference.

And if you think that "no one here" is attempting to shut down discussion, you have obviously missed the posts saying, "Why can't you just leave the Christians alone?", "Take a hike, Bunky. I don't think anybody cares what you think", "You disgust me... You truly do...", "I came to this thread to read reviews about the film, not wade through self-absorbed posts by atheists", and "Since most people on this thread are too kind, I will say it. I wish you weren't here."

What's that saying about motes and beams?

You have belittled and ridiculed post after post because they failed to grovel at the feet of your atheistic brother.

No, I have not. Again, try to be less defensive. When I haven't understood a poster's view, I have asked them how they arrived at that view.

I have had discussions with MineralMan before and he is quite capable of handling himself.

I don't doubt that.

He doesn't need an incomprehensibly smug and superior fellow atheist flaming those who have posted disagreements with his words.

And I don't need someone jumping to conclusions about what I do or do not believe, nor am I "flaming" people when I ask questions about their views.

But if that's how you feel, doesn't it cut both ways? Shall I point out that "[the people I'm responding to] don't need an incomprehensibly smug and superior fellow [Christian] flaming those who have posted disagreements with [their] words"? Beware the double standard.

And speaking of being "deeply offensive", as you do in this post, isn't that rant of yours rather plainly offensive?

Smugly dismissing someone's faith, for which they would die, as a mere "myth" is deeply offensive to some.

I don't see that he did so. He neither "dismissed" anyone's faith, nor called it a "mere" myth, in the sense of calling it a fiction.

myth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mth)
n.

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.

A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).

You're choosing to be insulted by interpreting his usage of the word as having been meant in senses 3 or 4. From his post, however, it seems clear that he means it in sense 1. When used in that manner the word "myth" is nonjudgmental about the value or truth of the belief system being described.

Again, try to be less defensive about the fact that other people hold different views. Even if he had meant it in sense 3 or 4, it should not be "deeply offensive" for someone to merely express their disbelief in something you happen to believe, unless it is done in a truly disrespectful manner, which MineralMan's posts were not. He even prefaced his comment with "for me", clearly indicating that it was only his own view, and was not meant to be a claim about the absolute truth/falsity of the story. Surely no one should be surprised, shocked, offended, or "disgusted" by the mere reminder of the existence of nonbelievers.

The fact that they would have the audacity to post that within your eyesight is no invitation for a wannabe-intellectual smackdown.

Again, you presume much, and read things into text that aren't there, apparently due to the defensiveness I mentioned earlier. Nor was the issue someone being "offended", it was their declaring that they found him "disgusting", which is another thing entirely. I didn't understand how that reaction would be caused by the post to which he was replying, thus my question about why he felt that way.

My question was in no way prompted by any consideration of "audacity" nor was I trying for a "smackdown".

As for your accusations of "wannabe-intellectual", I find it interesting that you would consider attempts to understand someone's post as somehow worthy of derision. Are people who think about what they read intimidating to you somehow?

We have all come to this thread to read reviews by those who have seen the movie.

And so have I.

You came here to be a hall monitor to keep the small-minded little superstitious Christians in line.

WOW, that's a mighty big chip you have on your shoulder. No, I have no such belief or motivation.

But neither do I understand apparent attempts of others to play "hall monitor to keep the smug little Christian-hating atheists in line", if that's what the attempts are. Your post seems a good example, unless you can convince me otherwise.

In short, religious tolerance is a two-way street. Or at least it should be. I am as uncomfortable with attacks on Christians for being Christians as I am with attacks on non-Christians merely for being non-Christians.