RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE - Facebook Group

Join the discussion at https://www.facebook.com/groups/respectful.dialogue/

WHY DID I START THIS GROUP?

This group was started because of my experience with atheists.

The vast majority of atheists that I encountered in atheist forums eventually resorted to insult and / or ad hominem fallacy when I did not agree with them 100%. ( There were also many polite, educated atheists with whom it was a joy to discuss.) The Moderators approved of atheists insulting non-atheists but those who insulted atheists were warned or banned. This type of hypocrisy was rampant in the vast majority of atheist forums I was a member of or visited.

The obnoxious type of atheists were as “angry [mean], argumentative, dogmatic [closeminded]" as any fundamentalist creationist Christian I had ever met. (See http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/science-shows-new-atheists-to-be-mean-and-closed-minded/ & http://www.atheismresearch.com/ ) Many philosophers and theologians indeed call them "fundamentalist atheists". The only difference was that fundamentalist creationist Christians were not as insulting as the atheists.

Along with being “angry [mean], argumentative, dogmatic [closeminded]" the obnoxious type of atheists wrongly assumed that they had a higher IQ and were more logical and rational than any non- atheist though the vast majority had never studied the domain of logic and rationality - philosophy. Many atheists had never read the religious texts that they criticised or, if they did, could only read them in a naive amateur literalist manner. They knew very little about the nuances of hermeneutics. They regularly criticised religions though they had never met in person anyone from the religion they were criticising. They, again, knew very little about the religion's various dogmas and the different denominations within the religion.

One quite famous atheist who has a "cult" regularly uses his catch phrase of "Logic!" while at the same time sprouting some of the most illogical and irrational nonsense in an “angry [mean], argumentative, dogmatic [closeminded]" manner peppered with as many swear words that he can think of. “angry [mean], argumentative, dogmatic [closeminded]" isn't any way to persuade people to adopt your worldview.

Each month new atheists are added to this group. I have blocked more atheists for not following the group rules than any other group of people.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. No personal insult of members or individuals.
2. No insult of deities / prophets / spokespeople
3. No posting threads irrelevant to the aim of the group.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One would think that these minimal rules would be easy to follow but apparently they are quite difficult for some atheists who are regularly encouraged to to do the exact opposite on many forums.

Learn how to dialogue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FROM http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/dialogue.htm

Dialogue is the creative thinking together that can emerge when genuine empathetic listening, respect for all participants, safety, peer relationships, suspending judgment, sincere inquiry, courageous speech, and discovering and disclosing assumptions work together to guide our conversations. It is an activity of curiosity, cooperation, creativity, discovery, and learning rather than persuasion, competition, fear, and conflict. Dialogue is the only symmetrical form of communication. Dialogue emerges from trusting relationships. ...

- Balance Inquiry and Advocacy ...

- Listening to understand ...

- Suspending judgment ...

- Respecting all: Attribute positive motives and constructive intent to each participant. Appreciate all that is good about them, all that you share in common with them, and all they can contribute. Acknowledge the dignity, legitimacy, worth, and humanity of the person speaking. Allow for differing viewpoints and learn all you can from them. Examine the origins within your self of any tendency you have to disrespect participants. Resist your temptation to blame. Remain humble and accept that they can teach us and we can learn from them. Attain and appreciate their viewpoint; do not attack, intrude, deny, dismiss, dispute, or discount their comments. Banish violence.

- Speaking your voice ...

Quotations:

“People don't listen, they reload.” ...

“The unity of contraries is the mystery at the innermost core of dialogue.” ~ Martin Buber ...

“Inquiry and violence cannot coexist.” ~ Peter Garrett

“The magic of dialogue is that it really does enhance respect and acceptance of others.” ~ Daniel Yankelovich ...

“There is something valid in every position.” ~ Johan Galtung ...

IQ TESTS FOR POLITICIANS

The time has come for IQ tests in order to be a politician. Those with less than 120 should be instantly dismissed. One should also have academic qualifications that address agreed standards in areas such as politics, philosophy and the arts or sciences as well as a well rounded tertiary education. Bean counters need not apply. All jobs, except those for politicians, have skill and knowledge requirements and levels for employment. The only current qualifications to be a politician in Australia are:
- be over 18 years old
- not be a criminal
- have money for associated fees
- fool enough sheeple so that they will vote for you (Of course, 50% of the voters have a less than average IQ which explains a lot. The regulations also mean that 50% of politicians have a less than average IQ which also explains a lot. )

Thus any idiot can become a politician in Australia ... and usually does. I could point to some ignorant members of Federal, State and Local government.

The following article also works for all levels of Australian politics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From http://nypost.com/2013/04/08/we-need-an-iq-test-for-politicians/

... I’m starting to think that what we really need are IQ tests for political officeholders. The only problem is, that might leave us with a lot of vacancies in Congress and America’s statehouses.

... ignorance and incompetence are on regular display among our political class. Its members are good at what they do — but what they do, really, is raise money and win elections. There’s no particular correlation between those skills and any other kind of competence. In fact, given their record of passing increasingly dumb laws, if there’s any correlation at all, it’s a negative one. ...

Politicians getting smarter on their own is probably too much to hope for. But maybe if voters wise up, a smarter crop of politicians will follow.

ATHEIST LOGIC - Dusty Smith ( Cult leader of The Cult Of Dusty)

"The bible is nothing more than an ancient monkey text written by primitive screwheads who didn't know hat the fuck the were talking about." - Dusty Smith, Facebook 27/01/2014

A very logical comment by Dusty that is empirically verified ... or maybe not.

What academic qualification does Dusty have in logic or biblical scholarship? Oh, that's right - none. Dusty boasts that his logic and knowledge all comes from Google and YouTube which are hardly definitively true. As a philosopher trained in logic at a university I could tell Dusty about the logical fallacies that atheism is built upon.

First, the rationale for non-belief is that there this is no empirical evidence for God therefore God does not exist. Therefore atheists demand empirical evidence from all believers in God for the existence of a non-empirical God. That is a category mistake. One can never provide empirical evidence for a non-empirical God. The non-empirical is not empirical.

Secondly, it is also a Straw Man fallacy as no contemporary theologian posits an empirical God yet atheists wrongly assume that all theists somehow believe in an empirical God. It is a really good idea to understand the type of God that you are arguing against and not to misrepresent it.

Science cannot measure non-empirical items such as consciousness or beauty or God. There are no empirical units of measurement that one can use on the non-empirical.

Dusty Smith's catch phrase is "Logic."

I have presented logic above by one who has studied at a university and knows logic.

Logic is part of the domain of philosophy. It should be noted that logic does not automatically lead to atheism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
phi·los·o·phy (fĭ-lŏs′ə-fē)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
...
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
...
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

ATHEIST LOGIC - Marcus Mergett case study

It is utterly amazing how many atheists boast of using logic yet have no formal training in logic and have arguments that are quite illogical.

Marcus Mergett (using a clown face for his Facebook profile) is a case in point. Quoting his own words from Facebook on 24/1/2014:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyone who claims to be a scholar of the bible is the scholar of a fictional fairy tale book full of murder, rape, genocide, misogyny etc.... no history classes use it as material..... atheism is the ability to think logically and look at evidence with a skeptical eye.   

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

He then posted the first paragraphs of an article by Dr Joel Hoffman in the Huffington Post without attribution thus leaving readers to think that he had written the text himself. Marcus Mergett stated that no church ever mentioned such things. He is absolutely incorrect. Many liberal churches do say exactly the same as Joel Hoffman. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joel-hoffman/the-bible-isnt-history_b_2803409.html This is worth quoting at length ....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One way to understand the difference between history and fiction in the Bible is through the Old Testament's natural division into three parts:

Sometimes 'believing the Bible' means believing that a story in it didn't happen.

The world and its nature (Adam to Terah).

The Israelites and their purpose (Abraham to Moses).

The Kingdom of Israel and life in Jerusalem (roughly from King David onward).

Even a cursory look reveals a clear and significant pattern. In the first section, characters live many hundreds of years, and in the second, well into their second century. Only in the third section do biblical figures tend to live biologically reasonable lives.

For example, Adam, in the first section, lives to the symbolic age of 930, and Noah lives even twenty years longer than that. Abraham, from the second section, lives to be 175, his son Issac to 180, and Jacob "dies young" at the age of 147. But the lifespans from King David onward, in the third section, are in line with generally accepted human biology. ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Marcus Mergett quoted the above paragraphs to prove that the bible was a complete work of fiction and unrelated to history. Marcus failed to either read or comprehend the next part of the article which contradicts everything that Marcus previously stated. I quote again (captials for emphasis):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

... Furthermore, HISTORIANS mostly agree that only the third section represents actual HISTORY. ... HISTORY and fiction mingle throughout the Old Testament ... Jeremiah's HISTORICAL description of the siege on Jerusalem is not the same as Ezekiel's non-historical vision of the dry bones, just as there are HISTORICAL elements (like the invention of fire-hardened bricks) even in the non-historical account of the Tower of Babel. ... The New Testament similarly offers more than just stories, and, as with the Old Testament, only some of the stories in the New Testament were meant as HISTORY. Others were intended to convey things like theology and morality. ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Marcus Mergett fails in logic on all the points he mentioned:

1. "The bible is a fictional fairy tale."

Incorrect. The bible is a collection of books by different authors and at different times that has been edited. It contains some history.

2. "No history classes use the bible as material."

Incorrect. Many universities use the bible as source material for the history of ancient Israel.

3. "Atheism is the ability to think logically and look at evidence with a skeptical eye."

Incorrect.  One does not automatically become logical by being an atheist. Nor does logic automatically lead to atheism. "The ability to think logically and look at evidence with a skeptical eye" is the domain of philosophy and not atheism.

A female Christ?

Think about the possibility of Christianity with a Christ named Jessica, the Daughter of God. What would Jessica Christ say about the male dominance in Christianity? Would you want to wear a crucifix featuring a crucified Jessica around your neck? Would a Jessica Christ be beautiful and sexy? Or would she be ugly? ( See Isaiah 53:2 adapted "when we shall see HER, there is no beauty that we should desire HER.") Would a resurrected Jessica come back to vanquish all Christian foes in a huge bloody battle of Armageddon? Is Jessica Christ a type of female Amazon warrior? Would males want to follow a female Lord Jessica? Would you want to eat Christ Jessica's body and drink her blood in remembrance of her? Would Christian males want a women to rule them considering Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5:22-24 & 1 Peter 3:1? Would the Catholic church then decree that only women could become priestesses? How would males feel about that?

Jessica Christ would change everything.

ST PETER'S MAMMA

It's been said that St Peter's mamma was a miser through and through. Never did she give to charity or spend a penny on her fellow man. One day while she was peeling leeks, a poor woman came by begging. "Will you give me a little something, good woman?"

"That's right, everybody comes to me begging ... Well, take this, and don't ask for any more!" And she she gave her one leaf of a leek.

When the Lord called her into the next life, he sent her to Hell.  The head of Heaven was St Peter, and as he sat on the doorstep, he heard a voice. "Peter! Just look at how I am roasting! Son, go to the Lord, talk to him, get me out of this misery!"

St Peter went to the Lord. "Lord," he said, "my mother is in Hell and begging to be let out."

"What! Your mother never did a good turn in her whole life! All she has to her credit is one little leek. Try this. Give her the leek leaf to catch hold to, and pull her up to Paradise by it."

An angel swooped down with the leek leaf. "Grab hold!" ordered the angel, and St Peter's mamma caught hold of the leaf. She was about to be pulled up out of Hell, when all the poor souls there with her and seeing her rise, latched on to her skirts. So the angel drew up not only her but all the others as well. Then that selfish woman screamed, "No! Not you all! Get off! Just me! You ought to have had a saint for a son, as I did!" She kicked and shook them from her, jerking about so much to get free, that the leek leaf broke in two and St Peter's mamma went plummeting to the bottom of Hell.

Tindall Family Motto

The Tindall family motto is “Nosce te ipsum” which is the Latin translation of the ancient Greek aphorism γνώθι σεαυτόν, meaning “Know thyself”. It was inscribed above the entrance to the Temple of Apollo at Delphi.

Plato employs the maxim 'Know Thyself' extensively by having the character of Socrates use it to motivate his dialogues.Plato makes it clear that Socrates is referring to a long-established wisdom. Benjamin Jowett's index to his translation of the Dialogues of Plato lists six dialogues which discuss or explore the saying of Delphi: 'know thyself.' These dialogues (and the Stephanus numbers indexing the pages where these discussions begin) are Charmides (164D), Protagoras (343B), Phaedrus (229E), Philebus (48C), Laws (II.923A), I Alcibiades (124A, 129A, 132C).