[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

Very fair point. My approach was definitely flawed, and thank you for succinctly pointing that out.

In your defense, such comment could have been aimed at other people as well and I'm hardly innocent of poking people every now and then myself. But as our old president used to say: ”If someone is trying to provoke you, don't get provoked.” It rarely leads to anything, aside from the petty satisfaction that lasts, according to my experiences, for whole 10 seconds.

would you deny that proponents of scripture as well as a good deal of non religious people often demand special treatment for the meanings or historical/existential validity of the stories contained within it? like not being able to poke fun or criticise and being chided for it?

I see so many people demanding special treatment to their favorite ideology that I really can't decide anymore which ones of them are religious and which are not.

Personally I try to give religions the same treatment as, say, vegetarians: I respect that some people find them important in their life and if I criticize them for something, I try to be constructive about it instead of just pointing finger and laughing at them. If they are constructive about it, we are going to have a discussion. If they are not, then I haven't really ever seen the point of trying to convert a brick wall. And I have had many more discussions with the followers of scriptures than with the vegetarians.

That's no special treatment, but simple civil discourse. Also when I say I'm critical towards something, it means by my definition that I must also be critical towards what I believe to be true. That includes my current beliefs and values regarding religions.

It is not my failing if I find your beliefs or views or statements amusing, contemptible, or inspirational. If it is OK to criticise or poke fun of Stephen King or his books, then it is OK to do the same with scripture and its writers, that is all.

I fully agree with the sentiment, but would again stress that if you are going to poke fun of anything, then be a fair player and poke fun of yourself every now and then too. If you've read my AARs at the General Games section, for example, you know that I love taking potshots at academics and I've written a whole story making fun of a stereotypical Finn.

It's not because I'd want to use them later for argument and say ”look at this”: it's simply because I love laughing at myself every once in a while. This is something that the most loud mouthed ”critical” (in varying contexts) people, in my opinion, seem to often be incapable of.

Since I neither assume that truth nor completely deny it, depending on the idea itself I may be more or less confident about the fallacy of it, so in order to have a discussion about it the proponent must first concede that they similarly do not know either way and that they are merely more or less confident of its truth.

That's sounds like a healthy attitude. It's difficult to have a discussion about anything if the other party just wants to convert you. Been there, done that.

I know from my previous posts it might not sound like it, but I harbor no specific hatred, or antagonism towards religious people

You didn't (at least to me) come across as someone harboring hatred towards anyone. Simply as someone who perhaps was starting to take this a little too seriously.

I never implied that you implied that. It was a question. I wanted to know what you think. In your opinion am I being unreasonable in the relevant statement?

Fair enough: as I have said above, your goals don't seem too unreasonable and you don't seem like an unreasonable fellow yourself. But it seemed to me that you were getting a little anxious about it and that's not a good foundation for convincing people of your viewpoint. I know it's easy for me to say, being a third party observer here, but you can obviously convey your viewpoints well enough without resorting to low tricks.