Delusions of Superiority?

[Zzyzx]

.
Some members seem to have the mistaken attitude / opinion that they occupy a superior position in life or in debate by virtue of their religious beliefs; perhaps because they are ‘saved’ or ‘chosen’ by one of the proposed ‘gods’ – or because they claim to have been given wisdom and/or knowledge by a ghost.

One might be cautious about claiming (or even thinking) they have been granted special knowledge or wisdom or ability. Unless they are exceptionally capable, claiming to have help getting where they are suggests they started in a deep hole and/or have required assistance to become mediocre.

Apologists often convey the notion that Non-Christians cannot understand the Bible – as though religious belief conveyed special understanding of the written word. This conveniently ignores the fact that Christians themselves cannot agree on their ‘understanding’ of the Bible (as evidenced by tens of thousands of Christian denominations with different beliefs about the Bible). It also ignores the fact that many present Non-Christians are, in fact, Ex-Christians (some devout believers for decades before concluding the religious beliefs are based on hokum).


Edited to add question for debate since thread has been moved to C&A

Question for debate: Does theistic position confer a superior position in life and/or in debate?

[Eloi]

I just say that the things you attribute in your first post to Christians are equally attributable to any other person, whether believer or not.

[William]

[Replying to post 8 by ]

Zzyzx: A Theist or two in recent threads have actually claimed to be receiving help from a ghost and others even claim to have conversations with Jesus. Such musings may be accepted in religious circles, but do not fare well in debate.

William: It may be incorrect but the impression I get ordinarily is that debate is some kind of competition, where those taking a purely materialistic position -even quite correctly - believe they have the superior argument.

I have written the following often enough on this message board, but it bears repeating.

• Most Christian positions are non-negotiable. As such, most Christians are involved on this message board in order to proselytize their particular piece of the puzzle, and this has the effect of debating among themselves their differences, so when the non-theist adds their own ingredients into the mix, this offers an extra opportunity for said proselytizing.

Once individual non-theists show themselves to being genuinely non-interested, Christians stop wasting their time trying.
Non-theists on the other hand, seem to have time to waste (for wasted time it is) trying to convince Christians to give up their non-negotiable beliefs - which makes me wonder if indeed non-theists understand critical thinking enough to apply it to this situation, since often they simply go through a stage of complaining about it and then - once having vented - "rinse and repeat".

Notice too that using subtle derogatory language as a baiting mechanism doesn't really garner any interest from Christians wise enough to see that for what it is, simply choosing to ignore than respond. Seems sensible enough to me.

Sincerely, complaining about it appears to be an exercise in pointlessness...as far as the evidence goes...but each to their own. Perhaps time would be more empty without it?

[Zzyzx]

.

A Theist or two in recent threads have actually claimed to be receiving help from a ghost and others even claim to have conversations with Jesus. Such musings may be accepted in religious circles, but do not fare well in debate.

It may be incorrect but the impression I get ordinarily is that debate is some kind of competition, where those taking a purely materialistic position -even quite correctly - believe they have the superior argument.

An ‘impression’ that someone thinks they have a superior argument is VERY different from someone claiming to receive help from a ghost or having conversations with Jesus.

Those who claim supernatural assistance should consistently present superior arguments – but it doesn’t seem to work out that way. Wonder why.

[Eloi]

[Replying to post 13 by Zzyzx]
That is not related with your first post.

[Zzyzx]

.

That is not related with your first post.

It is in response to William in post #12

How does your post #14 contribute to the debate?

[Eloi]

[Replying to post 15 by Zzyzx]
It is precisely that: that I cannot contribute to a debate if I do not know exactly what it is about.

[William]

[Replying to post 15]

• William: Two things;
  1: I didn't think your reply to my post was adequate in addressing what I wrote.
  2: I was not debating, but simply offering my opinion in conversation...since this is General Chat Forum.

[Zzyzx]

.

It is precisely that: that I cannot contribute to a debate if I do not know exactly what it is about.

When one does not know what a discussion is about it would be prudent and considerate if they did not derail threads with non-contributing remarks.

[Eloi]

I was talking about my last post you asked about. Maybe the one who opens a thread should be more specific to prevent other people from getting confused about the topic that is intended to be discussed.

[Zzyzx]

.

I was talking about my last post you asked about. Maybe the one who opens a thread should be more specific to prevent other people from getting confused about the topic that is intended to be discussed.

No one is obligated to respond to posts. Those who are confused or do not know what the thread / topic is about are not required to post in the thread (and might be well advised to refrain).

Originators of threads cannot guarantee that all will comprehend.