Religion

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)

73. The room entitled

Sun Mar 11, 2012, 01:09 PM

Mar 2012

Christian Liberals AND Progressive People of Faith is not an exclusionary place. "Progressive People of Faith" includes all religious or spiritual folk, except to people who are deliberately trying to paint themselves as victims. Have you (or has ANYONE) ever been barred from posting there or told to leave for raising religious topics that weren't specifically Christian? Didn't think so. The word "ghettos" is just another smear by you, and as I said, atheists are not to blame if religionists can't generate worthwhile threads when they're alone together. Look to yourself for the solution to your "problem". You want an "Ecumenical" room? Knock yourself out. I wouldn't mind at all if religionists kept their nonsense to themselves, but no one forces them to post it here (a public discussion forum, where nothing is entitled to be free of criticism).

And yes, I still think the complaint is pure baloney. Nonsense repeated doesn't become truth. Nonsense believed by lots of people doesn't become truth. If creationism weren't true, why would so many people keep trying to ram it into public school science classrooms?

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