|
dcnovice -> RE: A Christian and an atheist walk into a bar... (1/26/2013 9:33:18 PM)
|
quote:
Assigning fault isn't the point, that's not what I'm trying to talk about.
I know well that it's not what you're trying to talk about. My question was rooted in my observation, over various threads, that I honestly can't ever recall your saying or acknowledging that an atheist might actually be responsible for his or her actions or words. As you seem to frame things, the atheist is always a victim, and any time s/he crosses a line is in reaction to oppressive Christians. I'm open to examples of your presenting things otherwise, that that's truly the pattern I've observed.
quote:
You're a little snarky with Tweek, perhaps you're Christian privilege is feeling a bit threatened. So Tweek is snarky in turn, you see Tweek's snark and go to the name calling. I think all that shows is that you two are normal humans.
You are massively--I like to hope unintentionally--mischaracterizing my interaction with FTP (not Tweak) in this thread. In reply to another poster, I offered some examples of what struck me as dogmatic views I've seen our CM atheists offer (post 10).
This rubbed FTP (whom I had not mentioned) the wrong way, and she lashed out (post 24) with quite a bit more than "snark": a false accusation that I'd put words in her mouth, her putting a bunch of words in mine, and the insufferably patronizing effort to play therapist/spiritual director. I confess I could not avoid asking (post 33) about the disconnect between her scolding me for taking part in a thread that was not mine (do threads have owners now?) and her claim to be "inclusionary." I framed my reply, as I sometimes do, in the form of a question, and it sailed right over her head.
She noted (post 48) that she didn't understand my post. She then went on in the same post on to repeat her own self-praise for her wideness of mind and heart, even going so far as to make the quasi-messianic statement that her life should be a model for others. I can't even begin to imagine the scorn that would have greeted a comparable statement by a theist.
I attempted some humor (post 57); that led to another bit of lashing out (post 62). That was followed, in the very next post (63), by FTP's injecting herself yet again into my conservation with another poster. I'd said, honestly, that atheists don't loom all that large in my corner of Christendom. And they don't. I've spent half a century now talking with my Catholic family and friends in various denominations, and atheism almost never comes up. FTP decided, though, that reading a few of my posts made her a better judge than I of my life and my motives. And she essentially called me a liar.
At that point, yes, I did get annoyed (post 70). What you brand as name-calling, I saw as identifying a pattern of behavior to which FTP, to my disappointment, had sunk. The "poor atheists" crack was, I admit, a bit of snark unworthy of me. And there things ended, until you decided to inject yourself into my exchange with FTP. (Funny how one of the key complaints against theists is that we're supposedly always butting into others' business.)
I'm sorry to go on at such tedious length, but your characterization was so off the mark that it required correction. Perhaps your atheist victim / Christian oppressor paradigm was feeling a bit threatened? [:)]
quote:
perhaps you're Christian privilege is feeling a bit threatened.
Are you fucking kidding me? A few posts on a message board are gonna take down "Christian privilege" (whatever that is in my case)?!
And, actually, I don't use "Christian" to describe myself. Way too much baggage in that one.
|
|
|
|
