Religion

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

92. Because the question you are asking is not the subject.

Tue May 8, 2012, 03:40 PM

May 2012

You are asking why an individual, and I in particular, might be offended by a general attack on religion. You have changed the subject.

I don't think not answering a question leads to a toxic atmosphere.

What leads to a toxic atmosphere is stalking, harassment, ganging up on individuals, snarking about individuals between other members and attacking them in another group (which is presumably against the rules of that group). What leads to a toxic atmosphere is personal attacks, rudeness, mocking, general incivility and name calling.

No one avoids this group because people don't answer questions. Members avoid this group because of the hostile atmosphere.

Want to do a poll in H & M? I will design it with you and we can present it together.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Ask the Religion Experts: What does your faith say about atheists? [View all] rug May 2012 OP

I read this earlier today and enjoyed it. cbayer May 2012 #1

So what's your answer to the question posed? skepticscott May 2012 #2

Reasoned? darkstar3 May 2012 #3

What a great example of how one's agenda can completely change how one reads something. cbayer May 2012 #5

I summarized. You quote-mined. I'll take one over the other any day, as one included context. darkstar3 May 2012 #9

I will take one over the other any day as well. cbayer May 2012 #13

So pulling a sentence out of context is better? darkstar3 May 2012 #16

How could we do that? cbayer May 2012 #18

Read the beginning of this post. darkstar3 May 2012 #20

Perhaps that example extends to yourself? EvolveOrConvolve May 2012 #10

Of course it does. That's why I said it was a good example. cbayer May 2012 #12

And that's why I pointed it out EvolveOrConvolve May 2012 #17

For "reasoned and thoughtful" skepticscott May 2012 #6

All religion involves a disapproval of someone else. That's what they have in common. AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #14

Not true. cbayer May 2012 #19

That article shows otherwise. darkstar3 May 2012 #21

Not so. cbayer May 2012 #22

Simple denial. Meh. darkstar3 May 2012 #24

You should use this as a learning opportunity EvolveOrConvolve May 2012 #25

It apparently wasn't offensive to the non-believer activist who did the interviews and wrote the cbayer May 2012 #28

And how do you know that? darkstar3 May 2012 #30

That's correct. He did not. Were he offended, I think he would have said so. cbayer May 2012 #31

It's not his blog. Perhaps he has some journalistic integrity. darkstar3 May 2012 #33

He didn't mince any words in his opening comments and cbayer May 2012 #34

Perhaps darkstar3 May 2012 #37

Go snark about me to one of your friends, darkstar. cbayer May 2012 #40

Oh? Have you run out of ways to tell me that this article was thoughtful darkstar3 May 2012 #42

And what kinds are we? EvolveOrConvolve May 2012 #36

You forget a post of hers earlier today... darkstar3 May 2012 #38

You are allowed to be offended by anything you want, whether offense is intended or not. cbayer May 2012 #39

I never claimed that there was any offense intended EvolveOrConvolve May 2012 #41

I have read the comments about why some find this offensive. cbayer May 2012 #43

An acknowledgement of atheism's existence is about all that it was EvolveOrConvolve May 2012 #46

Well said. darkstar3 May 2012 #47

Throughout the article, I could sense the pity these people have for atheists. It's revolting. AlbertCat May 2012 #87

So there is some tension between what you say and what you do. Goblinmonger May 2012 #49

Did you read the article, because what you are saying was said. cbayer May 2012 #54

Yep. Read the whole thing. Goblinmonger May 2012 #56

Why are you doubting someone else's perspective? trotsky May 2012 #63

Reason is not the right word.... Kalidurga May 2012 #4

Sure it is. cbayer May 2012 #7

I was highly offended by the views of the believers in the piece EvolveOrConvolve May 2012 #8

I guess we both missed all the positive points, and just have an agenda...Oi. darkstar3 May 2012 #11

I'll bet we're just deficient in the "other ways of knowing" EvolveOrConvolve May 2012 #15

According to the article, we're deficient in a great many things. darkstar3 May 2012 #23

For Christians, the verdict is just ignore them and avoid them. dimbear May 2012 #26

The whole point of the article (written by a non-believer) cbayer May 2012 #29

We know what their faiths say about atheists because they have written it down. dimbear May 2012 #45

Who's we? Did you read the article? cbayer May 2012 #53

cbayer, please read this post: trotsky May 2012 #81

Point taken. cbayer May 2012 #88

The atheist is the first person in the article to be asked muriel_volestrangler May 2012 #51

More people need to read your post. I hadn't realized that, and many others hadn't either. darkstar3 May 2012 #75

Well, that makes a lot more sense. cbayer May 2012 #76

I like this comment and agree with it. cbayer May 2012 #27

That comment, just like your "thoughtful" one above, darkstar3 May 2012 #32

So be it. cbayer May 2012 #35

What a tolerant and open-minded position. laconicsax May 2012 #70

What exactly does "nuanced answer" mean? skepticscott May 2012 #44

1 John 4:7-8 seems to define atheists as those who do not love: struggle4progress May 2012 #48

Is that what you believe? Goblinmonger May 2012 #50

So, atheists are hateful and can't feel love towards anyone? EvolveOrConvolve May 2012 #71

Try hard to avoid fallacious equivocation. When two conversants struggle4progress May 2012 #74

So you are the biblical expert telling us what this quotation means Goblinmonger May 2012 #83

I'm confused as to how you're parsing the scripture passage EvolveOrConvolve May 2012 #109

A ridiculous notion. darkstar3 May 2012 #77

Yes, we get a pat on the head. trotsky May 2012 #82

I would argue that when you feel love or appreciate beauty, you are in fact LTX May 2012 #84

And I would agree with that assessment. n/t trotsky May 2012 #85

Kind of makes you wonder whether god LTX May 2012 #86

The one thing I take from all the answers edhopper May 2012 #52

What do you expect from theologians? Of course they don't think atheists are right. cbayer May 2012 #55

No edhopper May 2012 #57

I can see how you would feel that way. cbayer May 2012 #58

I was being sarcastic, which I think is apropos to the "we just don't get it" attitude. edhopper May 2012 #60

Do you not think that some people have abandoned religion because they were hurt. cbayer May 2012 #62

I have know quite a few atheists edhopper May 2012 #65

I'll accept that, as it has been my experience as well. cbayer May 2012 #68

There are many of us who are angry EvolveOrConvolve May 2012 #72

Yes it is on full display. I think it's sometimes misdirected, though. cbayer May 2012 #73

Why do you assume that you are the target? laconicsax May 2012 #78

Individuals are routinely targeted and attacked here. cbayer May 2012 #79

Who has attacked you in this thread for being racist, homophobic, etc.? laconicsax May 2012 #80

You've twisted it. We were talking about the anger on full display here. cbayer May 2012 #89

I see you're not going to stop dodging questions. laconicsax May 2012 #91

Because the question you are asking is not the subject. cbayer May 2012 #92

That's not what I asked at all. laconicsax May 2012 #93

I don't think attacks on regressive believers are attacks on me (or others like me, cbayer May 2012 #94

Then what was the point of your comment? laconicsax May 2012 #95

She said that the anger towards believers was deserved and evident here. cbayer May 2012 #96

That's a distortion of what was said. laconicsax May 2012 #97

Are you claiming that it is not personally directed toward me? cbayer May 2012 #98

So you do see attacks against regressive believers as attacks against you. laconicsax May 2012 #99

No matter how many times I have tried to draw the distinction, you have failed to see it. cbayer May 2012 #100

I apologize for labeling you as a progressive believer. laconicsax May 2012 #102

laconicsax, I already answered that. I don't see it as an attack against me. cbayer May 2012 #103

I think you're mistaking anger at regressive theocrats for anger at you. laconicsax May 2012 #105

It's not disingenuous. It was an observation given in good faith. cbayer May 2012 #106

It's typically context-dependent. laconicsax May 2012 #107

Agreed. cbayer May 2012 #108

"You appear to have no interest in talking about why this group is hostile and toxic" trotsky May 2012 #101

One small quibble EvolveOrConvolve May 2012 #111

My bad. Funny, though. People often mistake me for a guy here! cbayer May 2012 #112

It's all good! EvolveOrConvolve May 2012 #114

And that anger is probably not going away any time soon EvolveOrConvolve May 2012 #110

I hear you. cbayer May 2012 #113

Neither I, nor any of the atheists I know, did that. trotsky May 2012 #67

The reverse is also true. rug May 2012 #59

Yes, the reverse is true as well. edhopper May 2012 #61

It absolutely is. Of course the difference is... trotsky May 2012 #64

' rug May 2012 #66

all condescend to the poor atheists who just don't get it. AlbertCat May 2012 #90

Quite a few Unitarian-Universalists LiberalEsto May 2012 #69

Thank God I'm a Buddhist-Taoist-Vedantist-Baha'i-Unitarian-atheist GliderGuider May 2012 #104

I honestly cannot remember atheists being mentioned in any church I ever attended Lydia Leftcoast May 2012 #115