Religion
Related: About this forumA modest proposal
I suggest we avoid at all costs the toxic nature of what continued to go on in r/t. I hope none of us want that. Even so I propose that we continue to have the points of view expressed both by believers and non-believers as legitimate. If I have been party to what some feel unsupported criticisms of atheism, I apologize and repent. (is that a religious word?)
While there is room for serious disagreement, can we eliminate all posts or threads that attempt to demean someone else's belief or non-belief? Serious questions are acceptable, but posts whose intention is to belittle, put down, judge another's belief or non-belief would be out of bounds.
That way we can have a spirited discussion across all kinds of intellectual barriers without falling into the sad old game or trying to prove someone stupid, silly or worse.
Unacceptable would be material from the Internet that put down, ridicule or provide lurid examples of the worst of atheism or belief. "Look how stupid atheism is" or,"here is another example of how evil or stupid believers are," would be unacceptable.
I think it would be dull to engage in a forum whose members were just those who held to the same general point of view. Where is the dialectic, the growth or the interest in that? I thrive on serious debate, but the attempt to dismantle someone's point of view with sarcasm, or other destructive materials or language does not move us forward. I promise to do my best, and if I am out of bounds to be called out for it. But we have the opportunity for a whole new civility with the possibility we all might learn something.
what think ye?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)What is NOT acceptable is the attacking of an individual. I suspect that you may have a hard time distinguishing between the attacking of an idea and the attacking of a person. There are too many, I think, who believe an attack of an idea to be the same as an attack on a person.
I think civility should be an emphasis, but also that we shouldn't censor others simply because they have a different viewpoint on a subject. That's essentially what you're asking in your post, even if you don't see it.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)that attempt to demean someone else's belief or non-belief."
It seems to me, from my perspective, that many believe that posts are demeaning their beliefs when they are just not giving them high levels respect and not just nodding your head and saying "that's awesome."
I don't know how we draw a line that is clear enough so that the rule can be followed. People on DU seem to feel fine with bashing the religious views of the right wing, of Mormons, of Scientologists, and others.
I have no problem with increased civility if it means an end to "organized atheism is as bad as the KKK."
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)'People on DU seem to feel fine with bashing the religious views of the right wing, of Mormons, of Scientologists, and others.'
I find it hard to separate the actions of religious organizations when they try to tell me how to live. My religion tells me abortions are bad, drinking is bad, sex is bad, birth control is bad, people that love others of the same sex is bad, people that do not believe are bad, and the list goes on. When the line is crossed in telling others how to live based on your religion is where the bashing, as you call it, is where the problems start.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Just think about the "In God we Trust" and Pledge discussions. Atheists saying those should go are not treated kindly in those threads. Those who believe see no problem with it. They are telling me how to live (I have do basically agree that I trust in God when I spend money and at least listen to my students pledge to a government under God every day).
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)told them to run, people pushing to have
this country become a theocracy
pushing their religious ideas that everyone
should follow, I would wager that most would
not even notice what was printed on money
or what was said in the pledge.
It is the volume and intensity that brings
all the little things to the surface
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)and to attack a point of view as if someone here said it or even holds it, is to look for a weapon that has nothing to do with any comments here.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)but if they are a member of a church and they donate money to them
and then they turn around and use part of that money to attack
others that they disagree with then they are funding the attack
Things do not exist in a vacuum nor a straight line but within
the framework of everything is connected to everything else
You can not have an action without a reaction
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)but saying that you don't want to live in a world without a religious moral background ain't so far from the arguments for theocracy.
And there are plenty of comments on here about how bad the atheistic viewpoint is. That you don't want to see them and certainly don't write your missives about those that post them speaks volumes to us that are not believers.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)you might like to read my response at the end (thus far) of this thread.
I couldn't be any farther from theocracy!!!
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)If there are posts or threads here that say those things, I would say they are out of bounds, and it is right to defend oneself and one's' viewpoints. But to reach out wherever to places--mostly on the internet--that have nothing to do with what has gone on here is to look for a fight when there is none. What in my third paragraph meets your criticism?
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)but another member Goblinmonger
further down the thread I addressed what I disagreed with
concerning you post #16
iris27
(1,951 posts)worded.
Which is why a billboard that merely says "Don't believe in God? You're not alone." gets angry protests and vandalism. Some people can't even tolerate the existence of non-believers, let alone statements from them.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Never have I been more convinced of your desire for a soapbox.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You are SERIOUSLY trying to tell me that you have not seen the angry reactions to the atheist billboards?
Here are my options of what to think about that:
1. You are being deliberately obtuse to make some point I have no idea about.
2. You are lying so as to make believers look better in this forum.
3. You don't read any other threads than your own.
Help me out if I'm missing something.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)If posters here have jumped on the billboards I haven't seen it. Tell me where.
If I fine a demeaning post, after a couple of words I probably won't read it.
That is not the kind of dialog I find helpful. Those billboards are an example of freedom of speech and have every right to exist.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)you will go out of your way to create a lengthy OP about the problems you see with the way atheists are acting and even go so far as to come into our home and lecture us, but when a believer goes off on an atheist, you are just going to stop reading after a couple words? And you don't understand why the atheists on here are frustrated with you?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I can't figure out if you're really that oblivious or if you're being purposely obtuse in order to bait us.
One of the most common occurrences of intolerance in this forum is when believers insist on defining atheism, completely ignoring and/or dismissing our protests.
Have you ever defended our right to define ourselves?
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Show me where you've defended atheists on DU.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)just read posts 45-49,69 75
That's four more in just this thread.In the whole year that is four more than you have ever said in defense of theists.
So knock it off.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You are only defending your previous behaviour which, SURPRISE SURPRISE SURPRISE you apparently didn't think would follow you here.
Reading through this thread it appears that of all the atheists who regularly participate in this forum not one of them believes that your intentions are as benign and noble as you claim they are.
And since I've been here FAR longer than you have, you are incapable of knowing how many times I've defended believers who were being attacked for their beliefs on DU. I have alienated atheists who I had considered friends because I spoke out against their actions. I have been attacked more than once for the same reason.
You may consider yourself wise because you are older than most of us, but age doesn't buy the kind of authority that some feel they're entitled to on teh internets.
I was forced to bow down to officers who had done nothing to earn my respect when I was in the Suck, I refuse to do so now.
So with all due respect, sir, you knock it off.
bananas
(27,509 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Emphasis added.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)YI think a concerted effort to purge emotional responses, even the insulting ones, would hamstring believers of all sorts much more than those would profess no belief.
To my mind there is no right or wrong way to believe or not believe. (Although there are plenty of wrong ways to treat others because of one's beliefs). So there is really no objective methodology to discuss. All that is left is emotion - or inspiration.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)from anyone who really believes in rationality and the scientific method
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I have to work with both rational and arational ways of thinking. Simultaneously.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)and I go to the studio to clear all the rational stuff from my mind. So the right brain kicks in and somebody has to tell me when it is lunch time.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 12, 2011, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)
formal cohesion and clarity of content require a lot of rational focus. One may be saying and feeling a lot, but if the form lacks cohesion it won't matter, nobody will understand. Much less stop to think.
Art has it's own syntax no less than the written word.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)BELIEVES in rationality and the scientific method? How does one BELIEVE in those things? That makes no sense at all, and its insulting to those who do NOT believe in a deity, as it seems you are trying to equivocate belief in a deity and the use of the scientific method.
Come on, man. How can this kind of thing be helpful to thoughtful conversation, when its not thoughtful at all?
LARED
(11,735 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)I agree with most of your post.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)...rational inquiry to another. That's what's going to make this whole host thing a really, really difficult challenge.
rug
(82,333 posts)It's easy to spot if you're not in the middle of it.
Given the overwhelming majority of Christians in America and on DU, I'm less than sanguine about having random juries decide whether I've been too cruel to a believer when I question the existence of gods.
rug
(82,333 posts)Questioning the existence of God, or affirming the existence of God is not bullshit, but you can bury either in the center of a pile before you press Enter.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)what I have witnessed already wrt juries. It seems that bombastic comments made by believers are not only acceptable, but expected and necessary given the commentary I received.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)History is replete with examples of the majority ALWAYS going out of their way to respect the rights of minority opinions, isn't it? 
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)As has been pointed out upthread, all topics are permitted. Negative articles about religion are on topic and appropriate.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)Negativity aimed at an idea is perfectly acceptable, even if not always welcome by the purveyors of that idea.
Just my .02.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Or who's allowed to post in it.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)It's fairly easy to do so, now.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Do you not get that. The SOP of this group was re-written. It is very clearly NOT what you want it to be. Deal with it and then either live with it and continue to post here or leave. That's not so hard.
You still have your protected group for liberal Christians that is, apparently, alive and thriving. Post there. I promise I never will.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You don't like the negative side of religion, and you wish it would go away, but ignoring the problem never works.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)And I would object if posters here defamed atheism.
Would you do the same on the other hand?
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)And don't get cute by asking when your done that. We tell you every time you do and you refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing. Hell, you've even repeated one of your oldest attacks in this thread!
iris27
(1,951 posts)post left behind in DU2's R/T is "Atheism: A Religion of the Condescending Intellectuals".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x323167
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I don't remember reading your posts in those threads, what specifically were your objections?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)How does one "defame" atheism?
Attacking people is, and always has been, against the rules - whether they are atheists or believers. Why are you having such a difficult time grasping the difference between attacking an idea and attacking a person?
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)What waste of time and good debate.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Stop trying to censor the board, and stop wallowing in your own self-pity. Then you might actually find the debate you allegedly seek.
NMMNG
(28,405 posts)I think nothing's changed. You came charging into DU2 thinking you were going to run things and you're doing the same thing here.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Are you going to post links to what you post or is it assumed if no link then
it is just your opinion??
Will you answer questions posted to you in one thread will be answered and
you will not then go post another thread to avoid answering the questions??
I find this very rude.
And another thing it is, in my opinion, to post a thread
and then have no further contact within that post.
The alert button is still there and then there will be a trial
and the accused will be put in the stocks if found guilty.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)If I challenge a belief that has already been posted, that is fair game--and if someone takes a different position other than what I have defined, that's fine. I"m talking about attacking positions that no one here has taken. That's looking for a "gotcha," and is not useful.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)When we tell you this, you deny our perspective and put us on ignore.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)But we all can post outside things positively that affirm our positions. There is a difference, and avoiding that difference is what has caused the toxic mess in r/t.
I have not, nor will I in engage in responding to personal attacks. And I will avoid responding when the only reason people want me to respond is to savage what I have said, and me.
I will respond to anyone who raises a a rational point and is really seeking dialogue. I always have and always will. I've posted over 800 responses within this year!!
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)First off, no one cares how many posts you have. I remember the last time you cited it as evidence of something I checked on you. At that point, you had roughly four comments to every OP. That's not exactly thoughtful discussion material.
Second, you've been told each and every time you've insulted non-believers, yet when we point it out, you deny our perspective and/or put us on ignore. I don't understand how you can sit their and deny this. You even gloated about putting us on ignore back on DU2.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)All I ask of you is that when you start a post
that you stay around and discuss what you post
I don't think I have ever seen a link to anything
that supports what you post.
In that case that is an opinion.
With posts that is a position based on facts.
EXAMPLE: I could post that all catholics are evil.
I would expect to be attacked for that opinion.
I could state that a different way and state that I have
a hard time supporting catholics that keep silent while
they hide pedophile priests. I still may be attacked but
at the same time I have stated why I feel the way I do.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I'm a noob at over 8000. If you click on any members name you'll find post counts in the tens of thousands.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The new version of DU is barely 24 hours old, and you're already handing down declarations from your mountaintop about what sorts of posts should be allowed and not allowed. And calling that kind of censorship a "modest proposal" to boot.
Here's a modest counter-proposal: You feel free to make whatever religiously based posts you like in this group, as long as they don't violate site rules, and allow everyone else to do the same, without whining or complaining. If you don't like what's been posted, either alert on it, or respond with facts and arguments of your own, not more calls for censorship that conforms to your personal agenda.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)You seem to have several examples. I hope they mention non-believers, are not just affirmations on the nature of belief. Please point out language where I have verbally demeaned them. When i said a year ago that I would not want to live in a society without a religious imperative--and said a number of times after that I would not want to live in a society without a challenge to religion or a society where any one religion ruled everything. i stand by that affirmation. Every society needs a balance which includes both religion and non-religion. In no way does this demean non-religion. It simply affirms religion as an important factor in any society.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)You've been told each and every time that you've denigrated us yet you feign ignorance.
Sorry, Charles. Your history on this site has shown time and again that you don't listen when we speak. Why should I trust that your request is sincere?
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)We can start with your assertion that no one would want to live in a non-religious society if you like.
You've been told how this is insulting, yet you've never apologized, only clarified your position in a way that doesn't change your original insult.
There's also the time when you openly mocked us for taking offense. There was also a time when you belittled the ability of non-believers to live in an ethical manner. There was also the time you went into the atheists group to attack us.
Since the change over to DU3, it's increasingly difficult to search the archives, so I'm not sure I'll be able to give you timely specifics if you still insist on them.
NMMNG
(28,405 posts)when all you're going to do is stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la I can't hear you" ?
struggle4progress
(126,157 posts)I see nothing whatsoever offensive in the OP. People are, I suppose, entirely free to believe or disbelieve that the OP was posted in good faith. But the tone and the content of the OP both seem entirely civil to me. Much of what follows, by way of response, seems rather less civil
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I would say this thread has been surprisingly civil.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)What he really wants to ban is clear from his posting history, both in the old R/T forum as well as AtA. No negative posts criticizing religion. Meanwhile, he can feel free to say that none of us would want to live in a society without a religious ethical foundation - clearly stating that secular ethics are not only inferior, but downright dangerous.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)reread 45 and stop telling me what I have said. 45 is simply a rehash of what I have continued to say. You may not like it because it makes attacking my position difficult. But that is what I have said and that is what I believe. Nowhere have I said secular ethics are dangerous or inferior. NOWHERE. I would not want to live in a society where secularism is denied or not presented. Any society dominated by religion alone is very dangerous indeed. Non-belief is always a very important part of the mix.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You don't want to see secularism denied, however you still believe that ethics based on religion are superior. That is what many of us find offensive.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)But just a legitimate part of the social/ethical context. If you find offensive something that was never said, yours bigotry is showing--again.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)WHY would no one want to live in a society without an ethical sensitivity based on religious faith, then?
ANSWER THE QUESTION FOR ONCE.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Where I have repeated an answer I have given a bunch of times already. You just don't want to hear it for fear it dulls your sword..
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Not in #75, not in #45, not ever, no where.
You keep trying to tell us that this means you just don't want the religious viewpoint excluded, nor would you want the non-religious viewpoint excluded. THAT'S FANTASTIC. GREAT TO HEAR.
WHY would no one want to live in a society without an ethical sensitivity based on religious faith?
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)I do not believe nor have I said ethics based on religion is superior--only that it is a legitimate part of the mix, and many people come to an ethical perspective out of a religious commitment.
Please don't find offensive what I have not said.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Why not? What would be so bad about a society that didn't have a religious ethical foundation?
PLEASE NOTE, we aren't talking about actively excluding points of view, which is what you keep trying to make this about. You said that NO ONE WOULD WANT TO LIVE in a society without religious ethics. WHY?
PassingFair
(22,451 posts)Deal with it.
If you want affirmation, go to one of the rooms set aside for
believers.
Please.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Simple question
No attack
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)a question to make any thoughtful attempt to frame an answer in a forum. So I'm afraid anything I say you will find thin and unacceptable. But since you have asked a question without any vitriol I'll say just a couple of things.
Humans are basically animals with an added dimension to who they are. They are seekers, question raisers without hard answers, capable of looking beyond what they can see. They are always living on the age of Mystery. They sense there is more, but can never fully define it.
This sense of hungering for the more is what we call "soul."
While much of the world ask the what and how questions, many if not all of us ask "why."
Religious people like many others want to bring civility beyond the material to their personal lives and the life of their world. The physical world alone leaves the hunger for the "other.", So they search the skies, tell stories, investigate myths. Kant says this hunger is evoked by the "starry heavens above and the moral law within."
If human nature is self-centered, there is the demand for justice that is not just human interaction. We do live by faith, hope and love--and are poorer without them...So the field of religious ethic grows in the in-between areas of life. They bow before what Rudolf Otto called, "The mysterium tremendum." It is the awe of sensing a beauty and a power which does not lend itself to simple understanding. They seek nobility, and do not know where it comes from, so they postulate "God."
All these things constitute a thirst for the other. So they seek beyond themselves to see clues--not answers. Religious is just the way these wholesale notions are retailed.
But let me hit the question from another direction. We seek and need religion because we see what it produces. Think about Western civilization. What are the stories which tell us who we are? Without religion you would not have them, and you would have a very flat world view indeed.
So we have the first hospitals, places of respite for travelers in dangerous lands--monastic inns, where the nobodies could find food and rest--all in safety.
There are the earliest schools and universities--Cambridge and Oxford in Britain, Harvard and Yale in the US.
We would be bereft without the art, music, poetry, architecture, stories that religion has offered. Europe would be a grey place indeed without what religion has done.
And what would life for us be like without M.L King and the civil rights movement--basically a religious enterprise. Gandhi, Bonhoeffer, Tutu, and millions like them whose names are not even known.
I know the negative side, probably better than you might. That just says religion if very powerful for evil as well as for good.
Why do we need religion?.
Because much of life for all of us would be very one dimensional and grey without it.
This is just a quick off the top of my head bit. I am dyslexic and long for the spell check. Apologies.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)"a question to make any thoughtful attempt to frame an answer in a forum. So I'm afraid anything I say you will find thin and unacceptable."
I find no answer thin and unacceptable. It is unfair of you to assume that of me without hearing and seeing inside of me. That is why asking questions and searching is important, because it allows one to see inside of others.
"Humans are basically animals with an added dimension to who they are."
I have always had a problem with assuming humans are better or more advanced than other animals or having a soul where others did not. When we know everything then we can make a judgment.
"This sense of hungering for the more is what we call "soul." "
I have looked at a soul as the essence of each person, no two alike. A soul t me is the total of the person. How do we know that other animals do not also search for purpose?? They may be just going about it differently than us and we are too blind to see it. No two people search the same. Does that mean some have more soul than others??
"Religious people like many others want to bring civility beyond the material to their personal lives and the life of their world. "
In that sentence it seems you are saying that 'others' also want civility. From that I hear that religion is not essential for civility. Correct me if I am wrong.
"All these things constitute a thirst for the other. So they seek beyond themselves to see clues--not answers. Religious is just the way these wholesale notions are retailed. "
I do not understand this part. I see clues and seek the answers. The clues are there already. If one has to retail notions then it seems to me that this lends itself to a sense of fraud.
I am going to respond to the rest of your reply without quotes.
Early man was creative. He drew on rocks and on cave walls. He healed others. He/she created tools, utensils, he wandered. All of this without a organized religion or a book telling him what to do. He/she taught others how to do things that benefited the community.
If early man did not have a sense of good inside of them then they would have destroyed themselves and we would not be here. They would have gone around and killed all the others.
In no way am I saying religion is good or bad just that each person needs to seek their own path. What I am saying is that I do not feel that one needs religion to be good or to do good things. If one feels that the only thing stopping them from being evil is their religion then I feel that person as a great deal else going on inside of them. I feel that goodness in man came before religion.
Dragon
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)No, thats completely wrong. You are completely wrong.
MOST if us, both believers and non-believers alike have multi-dimensional and colorful loves WITHOUT the need to thank a god for it.
You really should stop trying to paint the world with your religion brush, we don't need it, its not necessary and many of us find it offensive.
You claim that you are a good communicator. Then why do you refuse to listen when someone tells you that they find your words hurtful and insulting? Are you listening now? Are we communicating now?
This is not a personal attack, but a rebuttal to the bile you spew, seemingly without a thought about how others might perceive it, and when TOLD how others perceive it, you either ignore it or claim you are being attacked.
So what will you do now? Will you listen for a change? Will you engage in the "thoughtful conversation" you claim to so desperately want? Or will you write my response off a just another uppity atheist who refuses to take your comments lying down?
The ball is in YOUR court, TMO. How we proceed is up to you.
I beg, you, please...listen to us. Hear us. Understand us.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)What he posts runs against that. He wants this forum to be run the way he wants it and lectures all of us in that regard without consideration to what the power of DU want this forum to be. That is offensive enough.
Add to that the other things he has said in the past and you will understand the reaction. You do know that he came into the Atheists/Agnostics group on DU2 and started a thread in there about all of this stuff, too, right? What do you think the reaction would be if I did that in a Christian group? (for the record, clearly nobody alerted since it was left up--we just actually had the discussion with him but it was offensive none-thelless).
Perhaps you can look outside your experience with the poster and realize how it might come across to others that see the world differently.
Response to struggle4progress (Reply #63)
Post removed
trotsky
(49,533 posts)
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Period. If you see nothing offensive in the OP then I would object to you as a choice for host.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)That's My Opinion is asking for posts in this group to be censored. His track record is not great, and he's a master of the passive aggressive, overly polite insult. Then, when it's pointed out, he's really good at pretending not to have said anything offensive, or not understanding why his views are so offensive. His apologies, when they did come, were of the "I'm sorry you weren't astute enough to understand what I was really saying" variety. Many of us take umbrage at the implication that we are too stupid to get his meaning.
He lost all credibility with me when he asked the administrators of DU to restrict/censor content that was negative towards religion. He advocated a "separate yet equal" position that was utterly repugnant.
That's why this OP is offensive.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)But your track record is not good and your previous ATA post was a direct call for a "separate but equal" situation.
What do we have to do to get you to understand how insulting your posts are to us? You're obviously a pretty smart person, so I'm not sure if it's just a strong headed, stubborn desire to be right or a purposeful ignoring of our posts.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)
deacon_sephiroth This message was self-deleted by its author.
deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)Change starts with you buddy, so I look forward to seeing the new you around here.
Happy Holidays pal.
(had a double post, due to a time-out)
hunter
(40,691 posts)Nobody has to come here. There are other groups in the Religion & Spirituality category where believers and non-believers can enjoy less inflammatory discussions.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And that's the thing that makes me laugh every time. No one is forced to post in here. There are plenty of groups and forums I choose not participate in, and I don't feel the need to continually harp in them about how they are not what I want them to be. Maybe I'll check in later to see if it's more to my liking (and perhaps with DU3 it could happen), but if it isn't, no big deal. There are plenty of other places I can express my opinions.
deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)Take the gun group... please.
I jest, but I went in there ONE TIME, read a few massive flamefests and immediately realized I never wanted to be in there ever again. I don't agree with what seemed to be the majority sentiment in there and I certainly didn't agree with the way they were treating people. The Religion group here is more tame that some may realize, but at least it's completely voluntary common ground. If echo chambers is what people want, we got those too.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Despite their whining and complaining about not being able to have "serious" and "meaningful" discussions of "faith" because of the mean ol' atheists here, the religionists NEVER take advantage of any of those other forums to have them, free of dissent. The Liberal Christians and Progressive People of Faith group hasn't seen an in-depth discussion of ANYTHING in a very long time. Gripe all you want about the atmosphere here, but things get said, and ideas get examined.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's hard to find middle ground between (depending on your POV) complete idiots and the hellbound.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)feeding the Irish their offspring. OH.... wrong modest proposal... Oh well
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)so I'll conclude this one with some observations.
Nobody is suggesting a change in rules, but a change in mutual respect. That doesn't take a rule. There is a difference between what we are legislated to do and what is helpful.
Obviously there are still the half dozen or so who have been happy wallowing in the r/t mud, and are content to continue to do so. That's what they want, and they have that right. So go for it.
There are in this thread four invitations for me to go elsewhere. No way. I enjoy solid debate, and information sharing across all kinds of lines. i have no problem butting heads when there is any semblance of openness or give and take. Talking with people who just agree with me is boring. But I will not engage with flame throwers who exhibit little capacity to hear--only to attack anything that looks like belief. They have their reasons, but I doubt if anything is added to the genius of either DU or the goals of progressive thought and action of the Democratic agenda.
While I have never attacked atheism, I have called some posters fundamentalists. I will cease to do that. I'll ignore what I think are loaded questions and be more careful that I don't just throw out bait to those ready to gobble it up.
I had hoped DU3 might help us move in a more generative direction. Obviously that will not happen, so we will just have to put up with the toxic atmosphere and try to get as much fresh air as we can by ignoring the smog.
lazarus
(27,383 posts)Does that mean questions that you can't answer, like why nobody would want to live in a society without a religious ethical base?
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Please have the courtesy to read it.
I will not respond to questions where the questioner is not looking for rational conversation, but only putting down all religion. I will respond to reason, but not to pure fury either at me or at any and all religion. There are a handful of people I will not even read, not because I want to avoid dealing with their issues, but because there is no room for any mutual respect or reasonable discourse. I will avoid the toxic mess we all got into on r/t. it is useless. Some time ago I filed a very long piece--now gone with DU2, in which I spelled out answers to a series of critical questions which had been raised. If you are interested in what I said let me know on our mail (do we still have it?) and I will see you get it. or on e-mail
candwbayer@verizon.net
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Have you given any kind of consideration to the possibility that you are not communicating well?
And that people genuinely, honestly don't feel that your "answer" does anything to address the problems with the statement you made? That we were truly, rightly offended by what you said?
Or do you truly believe that we are just throwing "pure fury" at you or at religion in general just because we have a problem with someone who says that no one would want to live in a society that didn't have a religious ethical foundation?
Edit: corrected typo
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Trotsky, for a long time you have been one of those whose attacks I have believed are not to open up any discussion in which reasonable people can work through differences, but a categorical condemnation. I know many of my limitations, but failing to communicate well is not one of them. I've got decades of evidence about that.
Yes, I know there are those of you offended by what I have said. But the notion that I continually criticize atheism does not seem on target. Compared to the constant condemnation of all things religious, it is an elephant and rabbit stew--one elephant and one rabbit
The continual reference to something I said in my first post a year ago is curious, although I have answered it repeatedly--even if I did not say what you wanted me to say. I'll try one more time Both religion and non-religion have an essential place in any society. I would not want to live in a society without both. They form an essential corrective to the other. They both can evidence a positive ethic--and both can evidence a negative ethic, and that is why we need both in any society. Do you really have a problem with that repeated answer?
Is it possible in this new forum that we can both be ciivil? I hope so.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)do not address what you actually said.
You did not say that "No one would want to live in a society where either religious or non-religious viewpoints were purposely excluded."
You said, and I'll go back to the original exact quote from DU2: "None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith."
Here's another question to make you think about what your actual statement is saying to others: If a society somehow (not through force, just was never exposed to religion) did NOT have any ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith, why wouldn't you want to live in it? What would be wrong with it?
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)I was not making an absolute statement about everything, only indicating that I believe a religious ethic is important to the sustainability of any culture.
Could you not have said, as I have OFTEN said--I would not want to live in a society without some sort of ethical sensitivity based on solid anti-religious sentiments.? Societies totally of one religion where that religious rules everything are hellish--and so are societies which have excluded all religious input. Both factors are necessary to make a healthy livable society.
I will say nothing more on this subject. We have exhausted it.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You don't give a shit about insulting others.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Speaking a lot but not saying a thing.
I feel like our friend here is doing just that. It's all sophistry and semantics, no substance.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)(what a sucker for punishment I am)
There have been "modern" societies --all of them by coercion--which have denied any religious ethical input. i would not want to live in them. Maybe you would. That's a choice we would have to make. It's called freedom of thought.
As to hypotheticals-- I try not to engage.
Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #109)
Post removed
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)despite numerous requests to do so. So I'll ask again...what are "religious" ethics? What makes them fundamentally different from non-religious ethics? And what ethical principles can you cite that are discoverable ONLY through religion?
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)and I did not get a reply to it
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)There is no simple answer one can give in this kind of forum. if you are REALLY interested, I can refer you to a few books that spell it out. Your question is like asking for a five sentence answer to the question, "What is the meaning of life?"
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)You made the statement in the past that religion is needed
and I am just asking you why.
If you would ask me a question about a statement I made
I would be able to answer that question without writing a book
If one can not answer the reasons for a statement then in my opinion they have no business making that statement.
And I feel your answer in post #119 is a cop-out.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)If you're going to say something like "Communist Russia"...FAIL
Despite the suppression at times of open religious practice, people didn't simply stop being religious, nor did their religion all of sudden stop affecting their thinking and behavior, once Communism took over. To the extent that they learned any ethical behavior from their religion in the first place, it didn't just vanish in 1917. The society or Russia in the 30's, 40's and 50's was most certainly NOT "denied any religious ethical input" any more than the society that came before it.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)I doubt if there is or has been a culture without some religious underpinning. Even so called "atheist" regimes have an historic memory somewhere that has religious roots.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)"There have been "modern" societies --all of them by coercion--which have denied any religious ethical input."
But you apparently can't actually name any when challenged to do so. Come on..be honest. You must have had some in mind when you made that statement, unless you just pulled it out of your ass to try to win a point. What were they?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)When asked to back up your claim. The truth is, you can't name ANY modern societies that fit the criteria you claimed.
MrModerate
(9,753 posts)Which would serve as a cage match/isolation ward for head-to-head clashes, while "Religion" and "Atheism" groups are generally for inter-faith and inter-nonfaith discussions.
rug
(82,333 posts)
deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)Blood, spit, and @ss everywhere... I don't think I'd get any work done if such a paradise existed.
iris27
(1,951 posts)the influence of religion on politics and public life?
I'm not really interested in "religion vs. atheism". If I were, I'd be posting OPs asking how free will can possibly be compatible with the Christian idea that everyone has doomed themselves to hell without Jesus. Or asking why a supposedly loving God would set up a system wherein 70+% of all the souls ever born will writhe in eternal torment, because they either never heard about Jesus, or had other reasons for not believing (were brought up in another religion, or only heard the gospel from people like Fred Phelps, etc.) But that's not what I'm doing.
I just want an open forum where I can complain about politicians who use their faith as a cudgel to beat down gays and women, where I can express my disgust with the "War on Christmas" nonsense, where I can educate people who have never really thought outside the framing of their own religion who might have questions like "where do people without religion get their morals from?" I don't want all discussion of religion to be limited to the extremes of either echo chambers or cagematches.
MrModerate
(9,753 posts)As I interpreted the dilemma, the objective was to reduce the sturm und drang associated with the topics and thereby foster more thoughtful discussion. By setting up a cage match group, much of the heat could be transferred there.
To take your example, complaining about sanctimonious pols who use their faith as both a shield and a pooper-scooper would appropriately take place in a religion group, because that issue doesn't really reflect on atheism at all. OTOH, Similarly sanctimonious pols accusing atheists being devil-spawn (in typically irrational santimonious pol fashion) would go into the cage.
Would it work? I dunno.
iris27
(1,951 posts)And if some modern politician echoed GHWB's sentiment that "atheists shouldn't be considered citizens", I wouldn't really want to go to the cage to discuss that. That basically puts atheists into yet another ghetto. Commentary like that is motivated by the pol's religion, and is thus appropriate to discuss in the religion forum.