Religion

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

41. While I agree with you for the most part, someone would need to take the

Sat Mar 10, 2012, 07:44 PM

Mar 2012

lead on establishing such a group, and it isn't going to be me.

OTOH, I think things have gotten much more civil here and that participation has increased. While there is still a substantial amount of snarking back and forth, which is pointless, it seems generally improved (I am sure that some will disagree with me, though).

Perhaps foolish, but I remain optimistic that this can be a place where a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist and an atheist can exchange views. What I have seen recently is an increase in the diversity of both theists and atheists who participate.

I wonder if a name change for the Liberal Christian group or a combining of several of the theist groups would address your idea. Most of those groups have very limited participation.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

134 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I am removing the content of this post and apologizing for posting it. [View all] cbayer Mar 2012 OP

Here we go again! cleanhippie Mar 2012 #1

I have to agree with the thesis--I've said something similar in the past, myself. MADem Mar 2012 #2

Really? Then state these rules and guidlines. Should be easy enough for you. n/t Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #3

Oooooh, someone wants a pissy fight! MADem Mar 2012 #5

That would be a position statement, doesn't constitute a religion... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #13

Well, each to their own knitting, then! nt MADem Mar 2012 #36

They did ask you for the rules and guidelines muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #17

Why does anyone need a LOT of rules and guidelines? Some people want DU2 in every aspect of their MADem Mar 2012 #35

You're the one who claimed atheist rules and guidelines exist muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #47

I did name them--you just didn't like their succinct quality and you might want a fight, too. MADem Mar 2012 #50

repeating the definition of 'atheism' is not giving a rule or guideline muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #53

Sure it is--if you don't like my rules, make up your own. I am not the Pope of Atheists, after all. MADem Mar 2012 #54

The term "atheism" is equivocal by itself, but organized atheism, such as humblebum Mar 2012 #132

Since the OP was about atheism, and not American Atheists, or organized atheism muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #133

I would consider an atheist organization to fall into the realm of atheism. humblebum Mar 2012 #134

I'll type it slowly: rules and guidelines. Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #27

I just did--sorry if you don't like 'em! Make up your own, then! nt MADem Mar 2012 #34

Exclamation points are your "tell." greyl Mar 2012 #62

OOH....! We've The Mentalist On Board here at DU! Here! Let me give you a few MORE "tells!" MADem Mar 2012 #67

When I snap my fingers, greyl Mar 2012 #75

Don't get a blister, now. nt MADem Mar 2012 #76

I haven't snapped them and you haven't answered the question. nt greyl Mar 2012 #77

I have answered it. I answered it a long time ago. MADem Mar 2012 #81

What hogwash edhopper Mar 2012 #7

agree. juxtaposed Mar 2012 #31

If you spend your life wrapped up in disproving something, sure, that can be seen as cultish, too. MADem Mar 2012 #32

You broaden the definition so much edhopper Mar 2012 #33

Why don't you work on narrowing it for your fellows, then, and see if they agree with you? nt MADem Mar 2012 #37

Nice one :) edhopper Mar 2012 #44

So fighting for equal pay for equal work is a religion? Silent3 Mar 2012 #72

I think religion is likely very individual to and for many people. MADem Mar 2012 #83

You expect that "fun" crap to impress? Silent3 Mar 2012 #85

I don't care if you are impressed or not. MADem Mar 2012 #87

When you try to stick people with a label they don't want... Silent3 Mar 2012 #89

No it isn't. It's expressing an opinion. Only someone with lack of, dare I say, faith, in their MADem Mar 2012 #99

It seems to bother you when atheists say... Silent3 Mar 2012 #107

It isn't true. I am not at all bothered! Not in the least. MADem Mar 2012 #108

I'm not name calling! Silent3 Mar 2012 #110

Excuse me, but your apparent belief� MrModerate Mar 2012 #90

Well, I am me, and you are you. MADem Mar 2012 #91

The rules for theological discourse *aren't* imaginary? MrModerate Mar 2012 #92

I'd say just the opposite. MADem Mar 2012 #101

I'm impressed by your doggedness . . . MrModerate Mar 2012 #116

Not necessarily, but in practice there are a lot of anti-monotheists calling themselves atheists... saras Mar 2012 #4

Well, edhopper Mar 2012 #9

In my experience, most are caught up in transcendent deities and don't even consider monism... saras Mar 2012 #58

I wish I knew what you were trying to say? edhopper Mar 2012 #59

So do I, actually. But my point is that none of us do yet...que sera, sera saras Mar 2012 #61

Thanks edhopper Mar 2012 #74

Why would you post something that you KNOW is flamebait? EvolveOrConvolve Mar 2012 #6

It's from reason.com and a very well written piece, imo. cbayer Mar 2012 #8

I think he is getting at your apparent hypocrisy more than the actual OP. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #10

It's not well written. edhopper Mar 2012 #11

Reason.com? Isn't that a Koch Bros. libertarian site? cleanhippie Mar 2012 #12

I pointed it out... EvolveOrConvolve Mar 2012 #14

I have never called for an end to contentious debate. I have called for civil debate. cbayer Mar 2012 #18

Isn't calling for civil debate the same as calling for the end to contentious debate? EvolveOrConvolve Mar 2012 #20

I see contentious debate as heated or controversial, while an uncivil debate cbayer Mar 2012 #21

The problem is that both sides have different interpretations of "rude" and "personal" EvolveOrConvolve Mar 2012 #25

There was a good thread in here recently about the term militant atheist. cbayer Mar 2012 #28

"Very well written?" Your standards have plummeted, then muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #22

Muriel, I did not say that I agreed with what she was saying, but I did enjoy reading cbayer Mar 2012 #26

This message was self-deleted by its author MrModerate Mar 2012 #117

Now that you know the bullshit that funds reason.com Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #29

This forum has never supported actual religious discussion. MADem Mar 2012 #38

While I agree with you for the most part, someone would need to take the cbayer Mar 2012 #41

There's nothing wrong with leaving this place as it is--a place where someone posts a religious MADem Mar 2012 #42

"they won't be convinced to shove off and leave the discussions be..." EvolveOrConvolve Mar 2012 #43

There's no need to pee on every tree, is there? MADem Mar 2012 #45

Okay, so you're making an implicit request that we either EvolveOrConvolve Mar 2012 #46

No, I'm not doing THAT, either. Jeez--love the way you're putting words in my mouth. MADem Mar 2012 #48

"Butt the fuck out" EvolveOrConvolve Mar 2012 #49

Way to grab a phrase and deliberately take it out of context! Heckuva job, Brownie! MADem Mar 2012 #52

I never said that DU believers didn't deserve a safe-haven group EvolveOrConvolve Mar 2012 #55

No, but you deliberately misrepresented a question and tried to suggest it was a demand. MADem Mar 2012 #57

I can see that atheists piss you off, but I'm not sure what I did to offend you EvolveOrConvolve Mar 2012 #60

The only people swarming this thread with "Your shit sucks" and "That's wrong" and "I hate your MADem Mar 2012 #68

You wrote 546 words and still didn't answer my question EvolveOrConvolve Mar 2012 #70

Try reading what I wrote--you can, if you try real hard, figure it out. MADem Mar 2012 #78

Ah, by "shit" skepticscott Mar 2012 #65

There ya go--have no answer to the issue discussed, nitpick about a word instead! nt MADem Mar 2012 #66

I specifically responded to skepticscott Mar 2012 #71

No, you didn't. You took issue with a word. nt MADem Mar 2012 #79

I see you have nothing of substance left skepticscott Mar 2012 #82

Right backatcha. Look hard into that mirror now, and try not to be too sad. nt MADem Mar 2012 #84

Oh, please, please, please skepticscott Mar 2012 #93

Why don't you do it? You're the one pleading, here! nt MADem Mar 2012 #94

You're the one who's been ranting and raving skepticscott Mar 2012 #96

You apparently don't understand the difference between discussion and MADem Mar 2012 #100

Baloney skepticscott Mar 2012 #64

Those rooms are Faith Specific--there is no "Ecumenical" room. That is my point. MADem Mar 2012 #69

The room entitled skepticscott Mar 2012 #73

Yes, it IS exclusionary--if you are a Muslim, or a Jew. Or a Buddhist. Or a Zoroastrian. MADem Mar 2012 #80

Boy, you're determined to play the victim skepticscott Mar 2012 #86

It's not playing the victim to point out the obvious. MADem Mar 2012 #88

"why would atheists even want to post in a group entitled 'RELIGION?'" deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #95

A "stance on" religion? Or a religion, a system in opposition to Theism? MADem Mar 2012 #98

a lack of religion more specifically deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #102

Wow, don't go into prognostication as a vocation. MADem Mar 2012 #103

I'll be excusing myself now deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #104

No, I'm not. Really. MADem Mar 2012 #106

not buying it deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #114

Not selling anything. Have a nice day, now, and strive to be happy. nt MADem Mar 2012 #115

you know what? I think I will. deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #123

It's just a discussion board. MADem Mar 2012 #125

thanks again n/t deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #128

now where were we? deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #124

You were calling me an indecent bully because I didn't agree with you! MADem Mar 2012 #126

oh that's why deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #129

You didn't have to respond to my comments. MADem Mar 2012 #130

are you not merciful deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #131

Sheesh, not this again skepticscott Mar 2012 #97

You're just not taking the point I'm making. MADem Mar 2012 #105

Even if I don't have a RELIGION, which I don't, RELIGION still affects me daily. Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #109

Please read what I wrote. I am not trying to stop you from discussing anything. MADem Mar 2012 #112

I did read it, my response is to a specific point you make Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #119

So, you ignored everything else I said to focus on that issue. MADem Mar 2012 #120

I don't get you. Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #121

Well, see, I thought the point of your reply was all those other points--not the MADem Mar 2012 #122

this IS the "religion" forum, where people come specifically to discuss such things. deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #127

You offered no answer skepticscott Mar 2012 #111

I did, but you clearly didn't read it. MADem Mar 2012 #113

I wish someone would teach some people about vocabulary and religion. Loudmxr Mar 2012 #15

I think there are many theists who do not believe in all or most of the tenants in cbayer Mar 2012 #19

Doesn't stop people from trying to make a buck, though... MADem Mar 2012 #39

Defining a religion DonCoquixote Mar 2012 #16

Religious Belief Defined -- by the IRS, who are the last word in these matters FarCenter Mar 2012 #23

What do the Inland Revenue and the European tax agencies say, though? MADem Mar 2012 #40

UK definition muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #51

Well, in Germany, Scientology isn't a religion! To each his or her own, I suppose...! MADem Mar 2012 #56

I am an atheist, but not necessarily an agnostic longship Mar 2012 #24

Atheism is a religion? man4allcats Mar 2012 #30

I thought it was a skepticscott Mar 2012 #63

OK, so now I've read Kennedy's article and one thing is clear . . . MrModerate Mar 2012 #118