Questions about "Jesus in my heart"

[rlrose328]

Sorry, but I get tired of the big post with the embedded But I don't really care. I find it disrespectful. Maybe you could try putting yourself in my shoes before making judgment.

Excuse me... my stating that someone has a good point in a post directed AT YOU is rude and judgemental but you telling him to just not post because you don't like to read a longer post isn't?   :hmm:

You probably think that because we even HAVE this forum, you're being persecuted.  

[Voter]

Honestly, Voter, you found my posts disrespectful?  I hardly think that's very fair.  

Not disrespectful as in insulting. Disrespectful of my time. I made two substantive responses which you ignored:

Voter, you put such stock in population numbers. Why? Is a country that doesn't have increasing population sure to be a failure?

Yes, a country with decreasing population will eventually fail.

If there are a limited number of natural resources, what is the end achieved by continual population increase? What will be the end result?

Some of the population from the increasing countries spills over into the countries with flat or decreasing population, as I've already pointed out.

I then politely noted that we don't have much to discuss on this topic:

I guess my point was made to any systemic atheists that might be reading. Not sure why you replied if you don't care, but thanks anyway.

Your next response ignored the substantive points and only addressed:

Not sure why you replied if you don't care, but thanks anyway.

[Voter]

Excuse me... my stating that someone has a good point in a post directed AT YOU is rude

I didn't say or imply you were rude. I was calm and polite.

and judgemental

No, your stating that someone else had a good point was not judgmental of me. It was the part where you said, "I gave you too much credit earlier on in your responses because you gave intelligent, compassionate and caring answers... then you have to go off with something like this and it's all out the window," that was judgmental.

but you telling him to just not post because you don't like to read a longer post isn't?   :hmm:

I didn't say that I wasn't being rude. See my last post to SteveS. At first I politely pointed out that we probably didn't have anything to discuss on this subject. He then addressed me again but ignored my substantive points. At that point, yes, I ratcheted things up a notch and was a little rude. So what?

You probably think that because we even HAVE this forum, you're being persecuted.  

Why is that probable?

[SteveS]

I sit here, gentle readers, in shocked bewilderment.  I'm sorry, Voter, but I'm just having trouble with your reaction.  The only thing I know to do is try to stay on the high road and deal with the issues, rather than resorting to personal attacks, so I'd be more than happy to address your concerns.  Although, I would appreciate if you would please consider doing likewise.

In the spirit of discourse, then, let's work through these.

Not disrespectful as in insulting. Disrespectful of my time. I made two substantive responses which you ignored:

Let's deal with this, then.  Topics that I've failed to address:

Voter, you put such stock in population numbers. Why? Is a country that doesn't have increasing population sure to be a failure?

Yes, a country with decreasing population will eventually fail.

and

If there are a limited number of natural resources, what is the end achieved by continual population increase? What will be the end result?

Some of the population from the increasing countries spills over into the countries with flat or decreasing population, as I've already pointed out.

I felt that MsBlue had addressed the issues of population sufficiently in her post, and said as much.  Please note that I have not accused you of being insulting, through disrespect of time, by not answering her post, although I find no such response to exist.  Nor have I accused you of this although you have ignored twice a series of questions I have presented you.  But it's okay, I'm going to post them a third time hoping that this spirit of cooperation will illicit a response.

Okay.  What did I personally not address?  Two issues:

Yes, a country with decreasing population will eventually fail.

No doubt, a country with continually decreasing population would seem destined to failure.  If at no other point, that certainly at the point at which it hits zero.  But, please consider that I didn't say a country with a decreasing population, I specifically said a country that "doesn't have increasing population".  What's wrong with equilibrium?   Does a country have to have increasing population to be successful, or is a stable population okay?  Seems to me a stable population can work just fine.

Some of the population from the increasing countries spills over into the countries with flat or decreasing population, as I've already pointed out.

Okay --- by "end result of population increase", I'm think a little longer term here.  When the populations spill over and fill up the flat or decreasing ones, now all the nations will be going through population increase.  What is the result of this?  I can't see how anyone can find this situation desirable.  What happens when the population of the planet exceeds the resources required to sustain the population?  Nothing pleasant would be my guess.

Alright.  So, why were we talking about populations anyway?  I saw this as ancillary to an underlying point.  You said that by becoming "out-populated" atheism would "fail".  I pointed out that atheism does not intrinsically contain a doctrine of population-domination.  I also pointed out that the truth of a belief, or lack there of, is probably more important to most people than most other considerations of the belief.  I would truly appreciate some acknowledgment of this point, so here it goes again for the third time:

Would you feel that Christianity, for example, is a worthwhile pursuit, even if it turns out to be false, because of the effects it has on populations and nations? If the fastest growing religion in the world turns out to be Islam, should Christians convert to Islam because it is more successful? Because it is experiencing the largest population growth? Or, somewhere, does the truth matter?

[rlrose328]

You probably think that because we even HAVE this forum, you're being persecuted.  

Why is that probable?

In my experience, people who respond as you have here, not just to me but others, are usually Christians... and most times, either evangelical or fundamentalist.  That is merely an observation, not a scientific conclusion.  And based on my observations, evangelicals and fundamentalists consider atheists an affront to their very belief system.  And based on that observation, quite a few evangelicals and fundies feel persecuted when we speak out for our non-belief.

That's why I called it probable in a personal observation manner, not a scientific one.

Because I hate feeling like I'm on the defensive whenever I post a response to you, I won't answer anything else in your response.

[Voter]

I sit here, gentle readers, in shocked bewilderment. I'm sorry, Voter, but I'm just having trouble with your reaction. The only thing I know to do is try to stay on the high road and deal with the issues, rather than resorting to personal attacks, so I'd be more than happy to address your concerns.

Actually you've demonstrated on another thread that you do know how to resort to personal attacks.

I felt that MsBlue had addressed the issues of population sufficiently in her post, and said as much. Please note that I have not accused you of being insulting, through disrespect of time, by not answering her post, although I find no such response to exist.

I felt that MsBlue's statements on overpopulation were obvious and off-topic. Note that you have to respond to the left, respond to the right, when you're the only, or one of the very few conservative Christians on an atheist board (apologies to J. Buffett). Once I'm talking to two or three people on a thread, the next needs to add something particularly interesting to get a response. That's why it's frustrating to devote time to some and ignore others, only to find that those in the discussion don't really care, or are only talking for entertainment value. I would have preferred to devote time to people who do care.

No doubt, a country with continually decreasing population would seem destined to failure. If at no other point, that certainly at the point at which it hits zero. But, please consider that I didn't say a country with a decreasing population, I specifically said a country that "doesn't have increasing population". What's wrong with equilibrium? Does a country have to have increasing population to be successful, or is a stable population okay? Seems to me a stable population can work just fine.

If you're stable and your neighbors are increasing, they'll eventually want your stuff. So, no, a stable population won't work in the long term unless you convince everyone else to do likewise.

Okay --- by "end result of population increase", I'm think a little longer term here. When the populations spill over and fill up the flat or decreasing ones, now all the nations will be going through population increase. What is the result of this? I can't see how anyone can find this situation desirable. What happens when the population of the planet exceeds the resources required to sustain the population? Nothing pleasant would be my guess.

War, famine and disease until the population is sustainable again, obviously.

Alright. So, why were we talking about populations anyway? I saw this as ancillary to an underlying point. You said that by becoming "out-populated" atheism would "fail". I pointed out that atheism does not intrinsically contain a doctrine of population-domination.

And I politely, than more firmly, pointed out that I was addressing people who would like to see atheism grow, and wasn't interested in the tangent. Now I'm just not answering because I don't want to reinforce the begging and whining.

BTW, anyone as shocked as me that I haven't been banned yet?!?

[McQ]

I sit here, gentle readers, in shocked bewilderment.  I'm sorry, Voter, but I'm just having trouble with your reaction.  The only thing I know to do is try to stay on the high road and deal with the issues, rather than resorting to personal attacks, so I'd be more than happy to address your concerns.  Although, I would appreciate if you would please consider doing likewise.

In the spirit of discourse, then, let's work through these.

Not disrespectful as in insulting. Disrespectful of my time. I made two substantive responses which you ignored:

Let's deal with this, then.  Topics that I've failed to address:

Voter, you put such stock in population numbers. Why? Is a country that doesn't have increasing population sure to be a failure?

Yes, a country with decreasing population will eventually fail.

and

If there are a limited number of natural resources, what is the end achieved by continual population increase? What will be the end result?

Some of the population from the increasing countries spills over into the countries with flat or decreasing population, as I've already pointed out.

I felt that MsBlue had addressed the issues of population sufficiently in her post, and said as much.  Please note that I have not accused you of being insulting, through disrespect of time, by not answering her post, although I find no such response to exist.  Nor have I accused you of this although you have ignored twice a series of questions I have presented you.  But it's okay, I'm going to post them a third time hoping that this spirit of cooperation will illicit a response.

Okay.  What did I personally not address?  Two issues:

Yes, a country with decreasing population will eventually fail.

No doubt, a country with continually decreasing population would seem destined to failure.  If at no other point, that certainly at the point at which it hits zero.  But, please consider that I didn't say a country with a decreasing population, I specifically said a country that "doesn't have increasing population".  What's wrong with equilibrium?   Does a country have to have increasing population to be successful, or is a stable population okay?  Seems to me a stable population can work just fine.

Some of the population from the increasing countries spills over into the countries with flat or decreasing population, as I've already pointed out.

Okay --- by "end result of population increase", I'm think a little longer term here.  When the populations spill over and fill up the flat or decreasing ones, now all the nations will be going through population increase.  What is the result of this?  I can't see how anyone can find this situation desirable.  What happens when the population of the planet exceeds the resources required to sustain the population?  Nothing pleasant would be my guess.

Alright.  So, why were we talking about populations anyway?  I saw this as ancillary to an underlying point.  You said that by becoming "out-populated" atheism would "fail".  I pointed out that atheism does not intrinsically contain a doctrine of population-domination.  I also pointed out that the truth of a belief, or lack there of, is probably more important to most people than most other considerations of the belief.  I would truly appreciate some acknowledgment of this point, so here it goes again for the third time:

Would you feel that Christianity, for example, is a worthwhile pursuit, even if it turns out to be false, because of the effects it has on populations and nations? If the fastest growing religion in the world turns out to be Islam, should Christians convert to Islam because it is more successful? Because it is experiencing the largest population growth? Or, somewhere, does the truth matter?

Been traveling a bit and I just got around to reading this entire thread. Although it has veered off the original topic (and possibly should be split to a new area) I have to give my kudos to Steve on this. You have handled this with great decorum and civility. I too, am honestly surprised by Voter's reaction and seemingly newly acquired indifference to his own rudeness. I have to disagree with the assertion that Steve should not have been able to comment. He explained himself quite well and that should have settled it, in my opinion.

How about getting back on track here as soon as possible. Follow Steve's lead and resist the urge to gravitate toward rudeness?

[McQ]

Actually you've demonstrated on another thread that you do know how to resort to personal attacks.

Voter, how is that relevant to how you have been addressed in this thread? He did not attack you at all.

I felt that MsBlue's statements on overpopulation were obvious and off-topic. Note that you have to respond to the left, respond to the right, when you're the only, or one of the very few conservative Christians on an atheist board (apologies to J. Buffett). Once I'm talking to two or three people on a thread, the next needs to add something particularly interesting to get a response. That's why it's frustrating to devote time to some and ignore others, only to find that those in the discussion don't really care, or are only talking for entertainment value. I would have preferred to devote time to people who do care.

While I agree that it is difficult, time consuming, and often frustrating to keep track of all the posts that people make, it would seem that you made an assumption about Steve's posts that just is not correct. And he explained himself to adequately to you. Yet you continued to be the one being rude to him.

And I politely, than more firmly, pointed out that I was addressing people who would like to see atheism grow, and wasn't interested in the tangent. Now I'm just not answering because I don't want to reinforce the begging and whining.

It's a discussion board and you brought up points that people wanted to discuss. It's my job to see that tangents get split off, as I indicated would possibly happen if the thread didn't get back on track.

BTW, anyone as shocked as me that I haven't been banned yet?!?

Why are you shocked? So far, I've only seen a need for you to show a little bit of human compassion and not to get worked up over Steve's posts.

[Voter]

Voter, how is that relevant to how you have been addressed in this thread? He did not attack you at all.

It's in direct response to his claim, in this thread, "The only thing I know to do is try to stay on the high road and deal with the issues, rather than resorting to personal attacks."

While I agree that it is difficult, time consuming, and often frustrating to keep track of all the posts that people make, it would seem that you made an assumption about Steve's posts that just is not correct.

What assumption is that?

And he explained himself to adequately to you. Yet you continued to be the one being rude to him.

Yes, I sometimes get rude when I'm badgered to participate in a discussion which I have clearly indicated I have no interest in.

It's a discussion board and you brought up points that people wanted to discuss.

They're free to discuss tangents. I'm free to bow out - or should be.

Why are you shocked?

Cause admin had an itchy trigger finger last time I was here.

[Voter]

I have to disagree with the assertion that Steve should not have been able to comment.

Huh?

[Msblue]

I felt that MsBlue's statements on overpopulation were obvious and off-topic. Note that you have to respond to the left, respond to the right, when you're the only, or one of the very few conservative Christians on an atheist board (apologies to J. Buffett).

I don't see how bringing up the issue of overpopulation was off topic. I do realize now that even though I brought it up to make a point, it turned the thread in a different direction.
These were the posts that led to my post on overpopulation, especially the part about responsibility dooming us to failure.

The Egyptians believed your intelligence and thought came from your heart and god(s) spoke to you through it. Maybe this phrase is a spin off of that thought process?

Yes , people have been thinking that for a very long time. A pity that the gift of wisdom and knowledge from the spirit of Jesus didn't bring the wisdom and knowledge that wisdom and knowledge comes from the brain instead of the heart. What is the point of those useless gifts, if you can't rely on them.

Uh, have you considered that heart is just a figure of speech in this context? Do atheists give Valentine's candy in brain-shaped boxes? If so, it's no wonder that atheists have a lower birth rate.  

As atheists frequently point out, most people end up with pretty much the same belief system as their parents. By being "responsible" you're dooming yourselves to failure. Seriously, it's happening in Europe now. Some countries have a higher death than birth rate. Population growth comes from immigration, which is largely Muslim.

[Voter]

I don't see how bringing up the issue of overpopulation was off topic.

My points regarded group selection within a species, not effects of overpopulation of a species in a location.

[McQ]

Voter, how is that relevant to how you have been addressed in this thread? He did not attack you at all.

It's in direct response to his claim, in this thread, "The only thing I know to do is try to stay on the high road and deal with the issues, rather than resorting to personal attacks."

While I agree that it is difficult, time consuming, and often frustrating to keep track of all the posts that people make, it would seem that you made an assumption about Steve's posts that just is not correct.

What assumption is that?

And he explained himself to adequately to you. Yet you continued to be the one being rude to him.

Yes, I sometimes get rude when I'm badgered to participate in a discussion which I have clearly indicated I have no interest in.

It's a discussion board and you brought up points that people wanted to discuss.

They're free to discuss tangents. I'm free to bow out - or should be.

Why are you shocked?

Cause admin had an itchy trigger finger last time I was here.

Voter, all you need to do is abide by the forum rules. As to this message of yours:

 - You did assert that SteveS personally attacked you. He did not. That is a false accusation. You were the one who began to become rude in the thread.
 - You assumed he was attacking you and not your argument. Also a mistake.
 - You do not need to resort to rudeness because you don't like that people want to discuss issues. (see Matthew 5:43)
 - Itchy trigger finger? People are warned or banned if they disregard forum rules. If you don't like it, don't participate.

Now, that's it. Please get back on track and be respectful of the other members and feel free to continue as a active member. And do not whine about being picked on or singled out because you are not an atheist, since it isn't true. I saw that in the other thread. Anyone I see, who acts as you have, done will get the same warning. I moderate fairly, with no bias toward faith or non-faith.

Anyone else involved in this discussion needs to also be aware that sarcasm, rudeness, or personal attacks are not beneficial, will only inflame problems, and will not be tolerated. Keep it meaningful, or bow out.

[Voter]

You did assert that SteveS personally attacked you. He did not. That is a false accusation.

Actually you've [SteveS] demonstrated on another thread that you do know how to resort to personal attacks.

Okay. Apparently, I did say "deliberately misleading". I should have checked, my memory is obviously not infallible, and I'm sorry. Bad on me --- again, I will offer you another apology if this came across as rude.

And do not whine about being picked on or singled out because you are not an atheist, since it isn't true. I saw that in the other thread. Anyone I see, who acts as you have, done will get the same warning. I moderate fairly, with no bias toward faith or non-faith.

I didn't see SteveS get a warning for calling me deliberately misleading. SteveS seems to be an atheist.

Itchy trigger finger?

Yes. There are plenty of similar sites, and all that I've been to are more tolerant.

If you don't like it, don't participate.

That's what I did last time, and if you keep it up I will again. I'm used to some amount of antagonism between Bible-believing Christians and atheists and have no problem with it, but there's no need for me to put up with double standards by the mods. Too bad, since, like a train wreck, people complain about me, but threads I participate in get lots of posts and views.

[curiosityandthecat]

Yes. There are plenty of similar sites, and all that I've been to are more tolerant.

If you feel the board is intolerant, treating you unfairly or you simply don't like the way it's run, you are free to not participate. I could be mistaken, but I'm going to assume no one here begged you to sign up.