'Xian' - what's all that about then?

[Wildcat]

Here is what you said on the link you posted to:

 

"Well the fact a number of posters have said they find it offensive might perhaps be a good reason?"

 

Here is what you said a few posts ago:

 

"Christians time and time again say they take offence at use of the word."

 

I've got to say that just as the words "militant", "shrieking", "hysterical", "shrill", "thugs", "fundamentalist", etc when applied to a'theists seems to have passed you by unnoticed, I too have failed to notice any Christians claim to be offended by the word Xtian.

 

Perhaps, in relation to SF, and before this thread was started of course, you could provide some examples to back up your "time and again" claim, because I sure could provide some examples of offensive remarks made about a'theists.

 

Let's put this in perspective. Some of the adjectives that I have quoted above are obviously offensive, there's no need to debate it, but using the letter X as an abbreviation for Christ is very very debatable indeed. Furthermore, whilst a'theists might be offended at some of the adjectives used, I don't think there is any real desire on our part to shut down the use of the language used. However, I can't help but think that the reverse is true with a small number of theists ... that they're not really offended, they just want to control the language used.

 

Incidentally, I've been studying the evolution of the word a'theist recently, and it does seem to confirm a few suspicions, but more on that later.

 

I am familiar enough with the objections to know almost verbatum that the X in Xian is Greek in origin, that the term dates back to the middle ages etc. When I saw this thread start it was with a tired sense of De Ja Vue. I can't be bothered to go back rooting through the threads to find them. I know I had that sense of De Ja Vu and Halibut and others have clearly witnessed the same.

 

As for "militant", "shrieking", "hysterical", "shrill", "thugs", "fundamentalist" those seem to have largely come from SpinDrift who seemed to be doing all he could to look a fool. There didn't seem much point commenting on that especially not since I wasn't around at the time they were being posted.

 

I would disagree with you about atheists shutting down debate. Why do you think Six4Five adopts the attitude and stance he does? Why for example the long Dawkins cut and paste in bold that had only tangential at best relevance to the topic? If it is to create our cause a sensible debate then it is a counter-productive tactic that simply gets people's backs up and obscures what ever the point is he is making. The intended offensive style doesn't create debate it shuts it down and prevents others from wanting to contribute.

 

To put things in perspective I am not particularly concerned about use of Xian, I am and have been called far worse on the forum. I am not out for banning words or censoring or even censuring their use. I am just pointing out the reactions usage of language known to offend will have and it is disingenuous to deny others the right to have an opinion or refuse point blank to accomodate those views when it could easily be done.

 

Don't get me wrong, there is a time and a place for insults. Sometimes an honest answer requires some emotive insulting language to accurately convey the response. The problem is A) where insults are thrown to cause a reaction and then the victim is blamed for taking offence and B) where they are used unnecessarily to 'win' an argument by making those with opposing views unwilling to engage in the debate. Both tactics look to me childish and counterproductive and I see them used too often on forums.

[Wildcat]

That's fine but I notice you haven't disagreed with my non belief in your circle of xtian friends/acquaintences.

 

Sorry that was only implicit in saying that your comments looked bizarre. For your benefit.... you are wrong I have plenty of acquaintances friends and relatives of a variety religious persuasions.

 

I'm not pretending to have anything. When I'm debating I'm making my points in a way that feels right for me. If somebody reading my posts takes offence or feels that I'm bizarre, childish or disruptive then that's absolutely fine. It may or may not have an effect on changing their attitude to whatever the debate is about but it will leave them in no doubt that people are, first and foremost, individuals who are different and express themselves differently and certainly aren't some kind of homogenised, social robots who all think and feel and express themselves in the same way as everybody else.

 

Yes that is fine but other than (for the sake of this argument because I don't believe it's the case) using the term xtian can you point to another clear example where I've been rude and obnoxious to individual xtians as opposed to xtianity in general.

 

Well you have on a number of occassions been rude and obnoxious about myself (eg. post 265), although not a Christian I think that is sufficient evidence without needing to go fishing through your posts.

[six45ive]

I don't think the word is the issue and thinking it is is to miss the point.

 

Take an example of someone who has had the misfortune to be christened Bertie.... but he prefers to be called Bert.

 

There is nothing offensive in the word 'Bertie', but after he has told his colleagues he doesn't like being called Bertie and prefers to be called Bert what is he to think of one of his colleague that persists in calling him Bertie? Perhaps a mistake the first few times, habit can be hard to break, but as time progresses and Bert reminds his friends repeatedly the conclusion he will draw is that the person is trying to wind him up.

 

Note there is nothing offensive about the word..... it is its usage after the person has said they find it offensive that provides a context for the way Bert will interpret his colleagues unwanted behaviour.

 

On two other levels wildcat's Bert/Bertie analogy is useless because;

 

1/ If this person was christened Bertie and he works with a xtian, makes it understood to the xtian that he'd been christened Bertie and yet asks the xtian to ignore that because he prefers the name Bert then it's the xtian that's going to end up offended in having to continually call him by a name that is contrary to the xtian's belief.

 

2/ There is a world of difference in forming a personal relationship with a person that we don't particularly know but we have to work with on a daily basis and the compromises that we're prepared to make to get on with that person as an individual as opposed to making 'offensive' comments on a public forum such as on the internet, radio, TV, cinema, theatre etc where the offended person can make a choice as to whether they wish to carry on experiencing things they find offensive or not.

 

 

 

 

 

The Bert\Bertie analogy has not been dented by any of the criticisms directed at it so far. Most have flown wide of the mark by trying to apply it outside of the situation I was using it in and the one around reasonableness of the substition was conceded but irrelevant since the substitution involves 5 letters not the inclusion of 8 additional words.

 

I've provided the posts above so people can come to a conclusion themselves as to how weak your analogy is.

You were using it to try and compare the use of 'offensive' terms in the workplace with 'offensive' terms on this public forum and I quite rightly pulled you up on the weakness of your analogy. Basically, as you yourself have alluded to the two are entirely different contexts, which, in itself highlights the weakness of your analogy. This I pointed out in my second example which also highlighted that it's justifiable to adjust your language/behaviour for those different situations you find yourself in (public forum/private relationship at work) which I personally don't do.

My first rebuttle simply highlights the stupidness of people being offended because of religiosity, as well as highlighting a pov that you'd obviously overlooked.

 

Where we are in agreement was the premisses around the way the validity of statements are assessed.

 

No because we haven't agreed on who's addressing the 'validity of statements'.

 

Justification for your conclusions have not been coherently explained, let alone dented my argument.

 

You can have your delusions if you wish but, once again, the clear examples above prove otherwise.

 

Thank you for demonstrating even more clearly you don't understand. That is precisely what I said of your viewpoint. It is the old extreme Logical Positivist view of AJ Ayer that is only an academic topic for discussion now in terms of its flaws.

 

Then please enlighten me as to what I don't understand about something that doesn't exist. My bet is you can't in any meaningful way that is either physical or metaphysical.

[Wildcat]

I've provided the posts above so people can come to a conclusion themselves as to how weak your analogy is.

 

And for the record this was my response.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6836258&postcount=243

 

You were using it to try and compare the use of 'offensive' terms in the workplace with 'offensive' terms on this public forum and I quite rightly pulled you up on the weakness of your analogy. Basically, as you yourself have alluded to the two are entirely different contexts, which, in itself highlights the weakness of your analogy.

 

The context is here.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6834909&postcount=173

 

Note no mention of workplaces. My point is about debate, a public discourse. I have not alluded to there being any difference in contexts, because the contexts are the same. Debate and public discourse covers what we do on forums.

 

This I pointed out in my second example which also highlighted that it's justifiable to adjust your language/behaviour for those different situations you find yourself in (public forum/private relationship at work) which I personally don't do.

My first rebuttle simply highlights the stupidness of people being offended because of religiosity, as well as highlighting a pov that you'd obviously overlooked.

 

What you are saying in point 2 is that personally you are a rude person and damn other people's feelings. Yes well I think we had already got that.

 

Your first rebuttal is based A) on a false premiss that Christians get upset about not having "Christian name" instead of "first name" on forms and B) is irrelevant to the debate because even if some do take offence there is no reason to include it because the context is different, it is not a debate.

 

No because we haven't agreed on who's addressing the 'validity of statements'.

 

Errm why is that an issue? The obvious answer is that the only person that can do so is yourself. No one else can make decisions like that for you, unless you decide to allow them, which is still a decision.

 

You can have your delusions if you wish but, once again, the clear examples above prove otherwise.

 

Likewise.

 

Then please enlighten me as to what I don't understand about something that doesn't exist. My bet is you can't in any meaningful way that is either physical or metaphysical.

 

Enlightenment according to religion comes through faith not reason. Through the metaphysical not the physical. That is what you fail to understand, ironically it is the same flaw that Creationists have.

[six45ive]

And for the record this was my response.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6836258&postcount=243

 

I can see you once again squirming and wriggling to try and get yourself out of a no win situation.

Your response addressed nothing of the point I was making, the only thing you could come up with was that you hadn't experienced what I clearly have.

 

The context is here.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6834909&postcount=173

 

Note no mention of workplaces. My point is about debate, a public discourse. I have not alluded to there being any difference in contexts, because the contexts are the same. Debate and public discourse covers what we do on forums.

 

Once again you're being extremely disingenuous. You mention colleagues in your analogy and I personally don't use that term other than in a workplace so maybe you'd like to explain in what sense you were using the word colleague.

I was alluding to there being a difference in context between how you treat a 'colleague' as opposed to somebody on a public forum which still highlights the weakness of your analogy.

 

What you are saying in point 2 is that personally you are a rude person and damn other people's feelings.

 

Sometimes I can be rude and other times not, something that I seem to recall you yourself alluded to a few posts back about your very good self.

But basically you're correct, other people's feelings are other people's feelings and are unique to them. My feelings are my feelings and unique to me. Nobody has the right to try and use their feelings to stop people from expressing their deeply held beliefs.

 

Your first rebuttal is based A) on a false premiss that Christians get upset about not having "Christian name" instead of "first name" on forms and B) is irrelevant to the debate because even if some do take offence there is no reason to include it because the context is different, it is not a debate.

 

A/ It's obviously not a false premise because it's an experience I've seen in religious people taking deep offence to somebody being called something different to their christened name.

 

B/ You're now doing your usual trick of moving the goalposts. The context is entirely relevent in the respect that it's about the usage of the term 'offence' between two 'colleagues' and how it's not as straight forward as your analogy tries to make out further highlighting it's weakness.

 

Errm why is that an issue? The obvious answer is that the only person that can do so is yourself. No one else can make decisions like that for you, unless you decide to allow them, which is still a decision.

 

Of course everybody is entitled to be offended by whatever they so wish. What they're not entitled to do is impede somebody else's free speech because of it.

For example, what if somebody's deeply offended by seeing a black man walking down the street? How should we adjust the black man's behaviour to make sure that this person isn't offended?

You obviously don't. You respond by telling the offended person to grow up and stop being a bigotted <REMOVED>. However the bigotted <REMOVED> is still allowed to be offended by a black man walking down the street.

Hence I would tell my 'colleague' Bertie to stop being a <REMOVED> and if I wish to call him by his birth name I will do or if I wish to call him Bert then I'll do that. If I wanted to form a reasonable relationship with him then I would obviously respond to his wishes.

 

Enlightenment according to religion comes through faith not reason. Through the metaphysical not the physical.

 

Yes and I'm completely well aware of that which leads me to the same conclusion that I said before, that it's a red herring, it doesn't exist so why did you involve yourself in a thread (disproving the existence of [a theistic] god) that wasn't about a metaphysical being but about the flawed thinking of theists.

[six45ive]

Sorry that was only implicit in saying that your comments looked bizarre. For your benefit.... you are wrong I have plenty of acquaintances friends and relatives of a variety religious persuasions.

 

Sorry but you've been your usual trolling, disingenuous, dual username (yes I noticed that in a response to onewheeldave's post you put 'my post' and then edited it a few minutes later to read 'onewheeldave's post' hoping that nobody would notice), pretentious self so I'm afraid I have little reason to believe the above statement.

 

Well you have on a number of occassions been rude and obnoxious about myself (eg. post 265), although not a Christian I think that is sufficient evidence without needing to go fishing through your posts.

 

Absolutely which is why I put the caveat of talking about xtians and xtianity which is what this thread is about and, on top of that, don't forget we're talking about offence not just rude or obnoxious behaviour.

[Lucifer]

It is a two way street as we can see from the forum with the atheist majority far outnumbering believers and then you say you feel persecuted. You ought to be in my shoes before you complain. You don't like it do you pal but you can do it and think it's OK. Just another example of atheist hypocrisy. So how about you leave well alone.

 

II didn't say I felt persecuted.!!

[Grahame]

II didn't say I felt persecuted.!!

 

I do, and it is down to people like you.

[Grahame]

Absolutely which is why I put the caveat of talking about xtians and xtianity which is what this thread is about and, on top of that, don't forget we're talking about offence not just rude or obnoxious behaviour.

 

The rude and obnoxious behaviour is all yours and if you insist on using Greek on an English forum then Christ is :

 

Greek = Χριστός = Christós

 

Latin = Khristos

 

Using either on an English forum makes you look 'odd' and using Xian makes you look even 'odder.' Either way it makes you look peculiar and consequently Christians look the smarter for not being so daft.

 

 

[sccsux]

I do, and it is down to people like you.

 

You feel persecuted by a person who has publicly stated:

 

As an atheist I do not believe in any unknown superior being or whatever, everyone to their own belief is ok by me

 

Symbolises a deep seated persecution complex. You can get help, you know.