The behavior of anti-religious posters
I ran this past the moderators before I posted it. Those who responded were generally against it being posted, but I think it’s important. Based on their comments, I have toned it down significantly and I’m running it in Feedback. I suggest you read the next two paragraphs and then skip to the bottom where it says "So... Is there a problem?" if you don't want to wade through the details. I have bolded and underlined a couple of particular passages that set me to thinking.
To be clear – this is not a thread to discuss the existence or non-existence of God or arguments for the existence or non-existence of God. It is a thread to discuss the disruptive and disrespectful behavior of atheists and anti-religious posters on this thread.
I get really frustrated by how much of the forum is taken up with attacks on religion. I know, that’s my problem, not yours. A lot of what gets written in those threads is pretty nasty and disrespectful. Worst – most of it is bad philosophy. Here are some posts from a recent thread.
Quoting god must be atheist
Quoting T Clark
Quoting god must be atheist
Quoting T Clark
Quoting god must be atheist
Quoting T Clark
So, is there a problem… Well, it’s not a big problem. What’s the big deal if the forum is cluttered with some, even a lot, of rabid, vitriolic anti-religious posts and threads. We can all just avoid those. But, still, it’s annoying and I think it has negative consequences. 1) It makes the forum less pleasant and collegial 2) It cuts off the possibility of serious religious discussions. 3) It lowers the overall quality of the forum and 4) It pisses me off.
So, how to address this admittedly relatively minor problem? Well, @”god must be atheist” has a suggestion. He thinks we should “post on segregated forums: atheists where no religious talk is allowed, and the religious, where no atheist talk is allowed.” I do not support this position. As far as I’m concerned, even though I’m not one, religious believers are welcome to present their ideas here as long as they follow the guidelines.
I have presented evidence above that indicates that religious discord on the forum is caused almost solely by atheists and anti-religious people. As I said, I don’t support segregation, but if that policy were to be implemented, I think that no anti-religious threads should be allowed here. Atheists and anti-religionists could respond with criticism to pro-religious posts, as long as the responses were consistent with the OP. They would not be able to start their own anti-religion threads.
It seems obvious to me, given the evidence I’ve presented, that would have two effects 1) It would reduce the number of religious discussions dramatically and 2) It would eliminate strife, conflict, and ill-feelings associated with these issues.
To summarize - this problem would go away if atheists and anti-religionists would just keep their mouths shut.
To be clear – this is not a thread to discuss the existence or non-existence of God or arguments for the existence or non-existence of God. It is a thread to discuss the disruptive and disrespectful behavior of atheists and anti-religious posters on this thread.
I get really frustrated by how much of the forum is taken up with attacks on religion. I know, that’s my problem, not yours. A lot of what gets written in those threads is pretty nasty and disrespectful. Worst – most of it is bad philosophy. Here are some posts from a recent thread.
Quoting god must be atheist
This forum is also full of illogical theorizing by religious thinkers.
Quoting T Clark
I haven't found that to be true. There are a lot more vocal atheists here than believers. The atheists also tend to be more rabid. Case in point - Gnostic Christian Bishop.
Quoting god must be atheist
Under this light, maybe you can understand our, the atheists', fervent attacks against ANYTHING that has to do with religions or with gods. It is an outdated, anachronistic, should I say stupid and ignorant, belief system, and deserves no respect. Atheists will leave no stone unturned to show this, and I think the smart thing for people would be to post on segregated forums: atheists where no religious talk is allowed, and the religious, where no atheist talk is allowed. A lot, and I mean a lot, of ill feelings and futile argumenting could be avoided this way.
Quoting T Clark
find that atheists are primarily responsible for whatever conflict there is. I would not support your plan for segregation, but if it were decided to implement it here on the forum, my vote would be to evict the atheists.
Quoting god must be atheist
According to you, as I understand, it is not the fault of stupid, outdated, unsubstantiated and improbable beliefs and their ensuing dogma that is the cause of stirfe and conflict, but the people who point out that the dogmas are borne from improbable beliefs, from stupid, outdated, and unsubstantiated claims.
Quoting T Clark
I went back and checked for the last week. During that period, there were 18 active threads that dealt with the existence of God. Based on the opening post, thirteen of them were anti-religion and five of them I classified as neutral. I didn't identify any pro-religion threads, which doesn't mean that there weren't pro-religion posts within some of the threads. Based on that limited survey, if you guys would just keep your mouths shut, there would be very little discussion of religion on the forum.
So, is there a problem… Well, it’s not a big problem. What’s the big deal if the forum is cluttered with some, even a lot, of rabid, vitriolic anti-religious posts and threads. We can all just avoid those. But, still, it’s annoying and I think it has negative consequences. 1) It makes the forum less pleasant and collegial 2) It cuts off the possibility of serious religious discussions. 3) It lowers the overall quality of the forum and 4) It pisses me off.
So, how to address this admittedly relatively minor problem? Well, @”god must be atheist” has a suggestion. He thinks we should “post on segregated forums: atheists where no religious talk is allowed, and the religious, where no atheist talk is allowed.” I do not support this position. As far as I’m concerned, even though I’m not one, religious believers are welcome to present their ideas here as long as they follow the guidelines.
I have presented evidence above that indicates that religious discord on the forum is caused almost solely by atheists and anti-religious people. As I said, I don’t support segregation, but if that policy were to be implemented, I think that no anti-religious threads should be allowed here. Atheists and anti-religionists could respond with criticism to pro-religious posts, as long as the responses were consistent with the OP. They would not be able to start their own anti-religion threads.
It seems obvious to me, given the evidence I’ve presented, that would have two effects 1) It would reduce the number of religious discussions dramatically and 2) It would eliminate strife, conflict, and ill-feelings associated with these issues.
To summarize - this problem would go away if atheists and anti-religionists would just keep their mouths shut.
Comments (266)
But yes, the idea of segregating the forum along those lines is ridiculous.
It wasn't my idea.
I know.
Doesn't this kinda amount to a truism? We'll all disagree a lot less when we only talk to people we agree with?
I think people opposed to those conflicted conversations can just self-segregate themselves from the offending threads.
That misses my point a bit - anti-religionists are the sole cause of the problem their diatribes are purported to address. If they would stop, there would be very little religious discussion.
I've been on the receiving end of more than one diatribe by a theist or agnostic here, so "sole" is just plain false.
I've presented evidence in my OP. Out of eighteen posts on religion active within the last two weeks, 13 were anti-religion and five were neutral. Odds are you were accosted with a diatribe in an anti-religious post. Hardly seems fair to complain about that. Anyway, I'm not saying that pro-religionists never misbehave, but, generally speaking, they don't start the fights and they aren't the nasty ones once the fights are started.
So because someone else opens a discussion in a way religious people don't like, I am allowed to be railed against, even though all I might have in common with the poster is the lack of belief in deities?
So, I guess, next time there's a radical theist on here I should rail against all theists in the discussion just because... That's your logic, right?
You haven't actually presented evidence, by the bye.
Why do you find religious intolerance more offensive than say free will intolerance or capitalism intolerance or the various other intolerances pervasive throughout this forum? Why demand special respect for the religious (a group I tend to often actually align with)? If I need special protection for my views, then that could mean my views can't stand on their own merit.
You certainly may give them a hug (after a suitable trigger warning and a check of any applicable harassment policy). If you decide not to hug them, I don't have any particular recommendations. The point of my OP was to point out the hypocrisy of a large group of anti-religious members along with identifying the damage it does to the forum. Did I mention it pisses me off?
I didn't say it was offensive. I said it was annoying and it pisses me off. So, why pick on religious intolerance 1) The main culprits in the anti-religionist brigade are hypocrites. They cause the problem and then vent their spleens about how terrible it all is. 2) Those bozos are so fucking self-righteous 3) Anti-religious arguments tend to be the nastiest on the forum. 4) Most of the anti-religion threads are poorly thought through. Bad philosophy. 5) It's not the only thing that annoys me, it's just the one I'm talking about now.
I think you are conflating here...calling something ridiculous or stupid isnt always just a rude, hyperaggressive or otherwise dick move. Sometimes, as is often the case with religion, the ideas are actually ridiculous, or stupid, or incoherent. Thats the only way they can describe it. When a religious person hears that it just seems insulting but sometimes the truth hurts.
There are rabid anti-theists who are obnoxious, like that Gnostic guy you just barfs out rants but there are just as many other obnoxious folks, the anti natalist guys, the general personalities of sime folks...singling out the ant- religious folks is making a special plea for religious beliefs to be exempt from discourse. Too bad, its not a special
set of ideas, its just another set of ideas and questioning it isnt rude, nor is pointing out its many illogical, irrational claims/details.
You are acting like its someone elses responsibility that the ideas dont make sense, but its not. Its on the religious people and their goofy ideas. Sorry some people believe in nonsense but they do. Its not rude to point it.
I could argue about this I guess, but it's not what my post was about. As I've said, there wouldn't be any problems in this area except that the anti-religionists step in and cause them. Then they blame it on the believers. It's hypocrisy. It's dishonest. We could talk about whether it is proper to treat believers or their ideas with disrespect. I don't think it is, but I'm not here to preach that sermon.
Quoting DingoJones
In my recent post to Hanover, I gave my response to a similar statement. For the record, anti-natalists drive me crazy for some of the same reasons. Free will discussions are annoying too, not because of any misbehavior on the poster's part, but because they regurgitate the same arguments over and over, often on two or three separate threads at the same time.
Oh, and by the way, yes, religious ideas are a special set, whether you think they should be or not. Much of the last two or three century's push for human and civil rights has been fueled by a desire for freedom to worship. There is rabid disrespect for various religious groups and beliefs everywhere in the world. That vitriol leads to conflict and violence. I don't claim that posters on the thread are a danger. I guess I'd turn it around the other way. If I won't stand up to their ugly prejudice here on the nice safe forum, how likely is it I'll do it when it might really make a difference.
Quoting DingoJones
You are responsible for your behavior, not anyone else's ideas.
Your post is not very helpful. If you want to contribute rather than just snipe, please be more specific.
That's not true though. It's not causing a problem to be critical of religion. Religion has much to be critical of.
Your post did not even begin on a helpful note, so it is bizarre you expect people here to follow a more respectful tone.
It is just some passive aggressive complaint about one user and supposedly "anti-religious" people "pissing you off"—posing no helpful guidelines for people to follow nor demonstrating how the user in question is even attacking you personally. So, you're ticked off by people saying things—when it isn't even wrong. What do you want people to do here?
All it says is, TL;DR — "atheists and the anti-religious" should keep their mouths shut. What does this even contribute to the forum?
Did you read my posts? 13 out of eighteen threads concerning religion in the past two weeks were anti-religion. None were pro-religion. If anti-religionists would just stop squawking, the whole set of issues as they relate to the forum would shrink almost to nothing.
Yes, I read that part. But like I literally just said to you, it's not a problem for there to be discussions critical of religion. It would actually be more of a problem if discussions critical of religion were a rarity.
I went back and checked all my posts in this thread. All of them were reasonably civil and respectful, if harsh. I didn't say anti-religionists should keep their mouths shut. I said that, if they did, the problem would go away.
Again - how about some specific examples.
It is difficult sometimes to be dispassionate about something one feels passionate about. This is my first day here so I cannot really speak to the issue specifically as it pertains to what has happened here in the past, but I have experienced these sentiments before. I have also witnessed atheists complaining about theists incessantly posting bible verse and scripture in an attempt to shut down a philosophical discussion or debate.
These sort of clashes are inevitable in my opinion. There is too much convergence in many topics within the scope of philosophy in general for there to ever be true avoidance or separation.
While I agree with the sentiment that respect is important in furtherance of substantive discourse, I find it difficult to agree with things akin to "the oppression of Judeo-Christian thought". Thick skin is kind of a requisite to entering into a forum such as this. If you're not willing to have your ideas or beliefs challenged, perhaps this is not the right place for you... otherwise, let the moderators be the judge of what crosses the line.
In many ways, I classify anti-religious discussions in with anti-natalism and free will/determinism. They're just so fucking tiresome. The same lame, smug, arrogant arguments over and over again, three threads at a time, on and on forever. No one listens to anyone else. I try to avoid them. I regret it when I give in to temptation.
I don't expect anti-religious threads to go away. I don't even want them to. A 6 month voluntary moratorium would be nice, but I'm not sure people would go along with that. How about that - a 6 month vacation from discussions T Clark doesn't want to hear. All in favor.....
Again. It comes back to hypocrisy and nastiness. I try not to complain about moderation on the forum and I'm not complaining about it now. That's why I started the thread - my own effort to hold people responsible for their anti-social behavior without the threat of official action.
I dont agree that religious ideas are special, a bad idea is a bad idea even its something cherished by the person. Religion is full of bad ideas, and should be called out for them like any other idea.
You think anti-theists should just shut up, which is fine, but you seem to be wanting it to pit tules in place to MAKE them shut up. Thats authoritarian, which of course is a big problem with religion to start with.
Also, you keep quoting yourself with the “13 out of 18” anti religious posts. Two things. First, as has been said religion has alot to be criticised for so it makes sense that there would be more threads about it. Second, would you say the same thing about 13 out of 18 anti-nazi threads? Anti racist threads? Its irrelevant the number of threads that criticise anything, it matters if those criticisms are valid.
Implying that the solution is for atheists and/or "anti-religious" people keep their mouths shut—simply because "you don't like it" .. Lol. This is not a Christian forum. If you want a bible study group then you are in the incorrect place. Pointing out that religious claims are unsound, illogical and nonsense is not "disrespectful". You claim to not be offended, yet are fine with the disallowance 'anti-religious' posts based off some random feelings of not liking what is being said, and only allowing for 'pro-religious' posts.
As I said, I don’t support segregation, but if that policy were to be implemented, I think that no anti-religious threads should be allowed here. Atheists and anti-religionists could respond with criticism to pro-religious posts, as long as the responses were consistent with the OP. They would not be able to start their own anti-religion threads. - T Clark
It is not difficult to read the rest of your posts what type of message you are attempting to get across. The example is in the OP and the ones below. You then go around calling out "atheists and anti-religious" for bad behavior while simultaneously making passive aggressive virtue signalling call-outs about random users, calling others hypocrites, self-righteous, etc. on forum dressed up to come off as 'civil'.
Again, you say "anti-religious" posts (whatever that is) contributes nothing to the forum, but what even is your anti-anti-religious post contributing here but a complaint about complaints?
Hello and welcome. You express yourself well, so doubly welcome. I think you'll find that the kinds of things you refer to above do not happen here much. There are a good group of moderators who try to balance between reasonable civility and quality on one side and freedom of expression on the other. Also, as I've noted in my posts on this thread, vocal theists are far outnumbered by atheists and other anti-religious posters - often very vocal and nasty.
Quoting HarryBalsagna
I agree. If you look at my other posts and threads, I think you'll see that I can dish it out and take it. I come here to have my ideas challenged. Otherwise, what's the point. I don't think that contradicts being respectful. Keeping in mind that, for me, civility and courtesy are a goal and not an accomplishment. I'm working on it.
We both probably used to be more fun.
No, no, no. You're doing it all wrong. You need to be more vocal and nasty. What you should have said was, "Shut up and go away. You sound like a bloody idiot, so doubly go away".
The US, in particular, was founded by people escaping from religious oppression. For that reason, protection of religion is built into the foundation and superstructure of our institutional protections, in particular our Constitution. I'm not saying we're the only ones that feel that way. And I'm not saying that religion shouldn't be criticized.
Quoting DingoJones
It's hard to take your argument seriously when you completely misstate what I wrote.
Quoting DingoJones
There were none of those in the period I surveyed. Do you think that means everyone supports the Nazis and racists? Silly argument.
@HarryBalsagna - let me introduce you to S. Please believe me - he's much better now than he used to be.
Without going into detail, I disagree with your characterization of what I said. Some of the things you attribute to me I never said, didn't imply, and don't agree with.
Freedom of religion, not protection of religion. This is actually the quintessential example of what we are talking about here. If you can understand the difference, you will understand in what way you are wrong on this issue. I think that would help alleviate your mental anguish about this as well.
Quoting T Clark
Ya I spelled some words wrong too. Ill just have to find a way to live with myself.
Well I wasn't quoting you, that was the gist of what you said. You are acting as though thats not what you were saying but its in print. Someone bolded a quote from you where you said exactly that, so speaking of dishonesty and hypocrisy...
Quoting T Clark
You missed my point entirely.
Protection of freedom of religion. You said religious ideas are not special. I described why they are, at least in the US. You can argue they should't be, but they are.
Quoting DingoJones
Without going line by line, you mischaracterized what I wrote.
Lol, wow.
What a literally insane thread.
I'm an atheist and I don't think my views towards the religious are amicable but that doesn't mean I stand behind every anti-theist and their attitudes and reasoning. Every position is also held by an idiot but when you take the words of an idiot and characterise it as those of "anti-religious posters" you're not distinguishing between the idiot and the group. I find the same thing true of anti-religious posters, they look for worst examples of religious ignorance and then purposely fail to distinguish between the religious idiots and the religious people who aren't idiots.
Regardless of what your intent was and whether or not you dislike anti-theism/religious sentiment, you should have gone about this a different way. The valid criticism many of the posters have given - and harsher criticism which hasn't been given yet wouldn't be valid if you had focused on the undue hostility and prejudiced behaviour of the posters rather than focusing on the anti-religious content of their posts.
EDIT: I am going to say tbh, I may have projected my feelings about some of the threads and posters here onto you. The guy in your OP may be an idiot but he's innocent of undue hostility and prejudiced behaviour lol. Philosophy forums are always the same, people argue about free will, religion and morality more than anything else. I dislike all three topics by now since I've already argued on them many times before.
Ya, you are being dishonest here. At best, you arent communicating what you mean properly but now youre acting as though its some sort of dishonesty on my part? Plus you ignored any points Ive made so far and instead focused on cherry picking and evading.
I feel like ive been fairly polite, more polite than you perhaps, but I think what you are doing is so much worse. I was trying to have a genuine discussion on your topic, and in return you have (presumably) allowed your anger and annoyance to taint that attempt...as a result its clear to me a discussion is not what you were after here.
So Ill do you the courtesy of reading any response you care to give as the last word but I think we are done here.
I haven't yet seen any criticism of my posts that I consider valid. Most of the people who have responded have mischaracterized what I wrote. Maybe that means I wasn't clear enough, but I don't think that's it. I think they're responding to what a typical anti-atheist might write and not what I wrote myself.
I'm going back and forth about your suggestion that I focus on bad behavior rather than religious content. I think that's too diffuse an issue for me to go after. My thoughts came into focus specifically around @god must be atheist's proposal that pro-religion posters should be segregated. I just took his idea and carried it to what I consider it's reasonable conclusion. Segregation is wrong, but if you're going to do it, it's anti-religionists who should be segregated because they are the primary cause of conflict and disruption. I stand by that judgment.
No. We're responding to exactly what you've said. It's just the ginormous chip on your shoulder that's hindering you from realizing it.
You and I see things differently. I have been polite. I haven't been angry. I don't think I said you've been dishonest. I did say you mischaracterized what I wrote. I think that was a misunderstanding on your part, not an intentional act.
You're right. It doesn't look like you and I are going to make any progress.
The first forum I signed up to was the Dawkins forum. That was an absolutely seething hotbed of 'fear of religion'.
My feeling is, many people believe the whole 'religion' thing has been settled, 'science has shown that God is dead', and they really don't want to re-open the whole can of worms. Either that, or they're just not interested in spiritual and/or religious ideas. But since then, I have gotten over the need to persuade people of my views. I put the arguments, but past a certain point I desist.It's like the little old lady who rings the television station to complain about a risque television show - the advice is 'just don't watch it'. ;-)
I've gone back through all the posts you've made on this thread. There is not a specific criticism about anything I actually said.
Quoting T Clark
Okay then.
You read it wrong then.
1. I gave an opinion to your discussion about the segregation idea. As in, it's stupid.
2. I pointed out that you are wrong to attribute sole responsibility to atheists. To which you basically responded that you'll make exceptions for theists acting like jerks, because....what? they were "triggered" by some OP that I didn't write?
3. I pointed out that your "evidence" isn't actually evidence. Last two weeks? Is that really a statistically meaningful sample size? And what does "anti-religious" even mean to you? Because you've also admitted to including free will discussions and stuff--so basically you just don't want there to be any secular discussions whatsoever.
Someone else pointed this out already, but if you want a Bible Study Group, I'm sure you can find one easily through Google or even in person in your area.
I started out there too. That and the Brights. The most wonderful misnomer in the history of self-aggrandizement. That's where a lot of my feelings for atheism came from.
Quoting Wayfarer
Generally I agree. I generally avoid religious discussions. I don't think I have much to offer. Lately there is a new crop of anti-religion posters who put out especially virulent, mean spirited threads. Not just one or two, but one after another after another. It wears me down and I think it damages the forum. I definitely don't want the moderators to get involved. I think almost all of the posts that bother me are within the standards presented in the guidelines. So, I'm trying this instead.
I think you're the one who mischaracterised what you wrote, you should have decided to go after unnecessary and unhealthy persistent aggression towards a group. You introduced a number of topics without intending to and you're arguing with people as if you didn't bring them up but you did. The very title would have set many people against you from the start - you led them to expect that you're going to be complaining about anti-religious posters rather than 1) this segregation idea or 2) the way in which some anti-religious posters are going about expressing their anti-religious ideas.
I thought the direction you were going to be going in was against "Gnostic Christian Bishop" who literally spams threads about God being a cunt. A ban on him would be nice, make it happen T Clark.
I do see your point. I often tell myself, 'that's it for forums'. But I guess it's become part of my daily routine, and there are worthwhile discussions.
Someone asked the other day what is the difference between philosophy of religion and theology. It's a good question, and I think this forum ought to enable the former, and discourage the latter. Philosophy of religion is philosophical analysis of religious doctrines, and doesn't make assumptions for or against. Whereas theology implicitly assumes a faith commitment.
I used to post on DharmaWheel forum and part of their ToS was 'no proselytizing'. I think that could be profitably added to this forum. There are a couple of posters (one in particular) who would be immediately booted (and should be) under that guideline, but I can't see that clause in the ToS.
As for a lot of the anti-religious posters, I have to ignore them. Not because I'm an evangelical, but they're what I call 'spiritually illiterate' - they don't even know what it is they're negating most of the time. It's like 'I don't know much about Modern Art, but I know what I don't like'. ;-)
Proselytizing is a difficult thing to determine. T Clark previously said:
"I'm not speaking for anyone. In my experience, many atheists don't see what they do when they try to win people over to their way of seeing things as preaching, they see it as rational discussion." -T Clark
Which implies that no matter what anyone says about religion, no matter how good of faith they are employing to stay within rational discussion, it's just proselytizing in his view.
Agree. It's a difficult thing that, with all the best will in the world, people are going to have some fundamental disagreements about these kinds of issues. But there's at least one poster here at the moment who is basically advertising for converts to an alternative religious movement. That is the kind of thing I had in mind by 'proselytizing'.
I am generally more to the 'spiritual-idealist' end of the ledger, but at the same time, I don't think a philosophy forum is the place to wield Biblical verses as an argument. One may from time to time refer to them as illustrative of a moral maxim and the like, but I would draw the line at Christian apologists posting them as part of an argument.
The other point is to try and avoid sarcasm and being dismissive. I used to be like that, and especially in this subject, it is a very easy thing to fall into. But I think you have to put your case as best you can, and then past a certain point, simply desist.
Whether or not I agree with your characterization, I must admit this hasn't been a very useful discussion, at least from my point of view. Again, it wasn't my intention to just go against "unhealthy persistent aggression." You're right though, just arguing about whether I actually said what they said I said is not the sign of an effective discussion.
I think you are right about that Gnostic dude, he is proselytising and I think this forum actually does have a rule against that doesnt it? I posted right after he started yet another one and asked if we were tired of this yet...no response from the mods so I guess not.
I guess I have to think about that one a little more and whether I think it's proselytizing to quote Scripture in an argument.
I do think it's senseless, though, when you're talking to an atheist or someone who doesn't believe in your religious text.
Good post.
Invisibles can neither be shown nor not,
So, one’s ‘agnostic’ toward the belief or not,
No matter the 'sure things' dishonestly said;
Thus, none can teach the belief as true or not.
The way I resolve it is by not reading the threads that are titled in a way which seem to poke at those who maintain a religious faith. It's been a long time since I've had a religious faith, but I have very little interest in reading or sharing ideas with iconoclasts.
What I don't want them to do is to stop talking about what they believe to folks who will listen. It is only by talking and talking (and sometimes taking the time to insult those who they feel have too much control over their environment) that they may work out their issues.
They do me the favor of labeling their threads in a way which telegraphs a certain contempt.
Isn't the solution of supporting multiple threads (as this forum currently does) sufficient to task?
He actually said that religious ideas aren't special in the sense that a bad idea is a bad idea, and he's right. You just seem to be talking past him rather than arguing against him on that point.
I stand by what Artemis said, which is that people opposed to those conflicted conversations can just self-segregate themselves from the offending threads.
The irony is that you're just as bad as those people on the other side in terms of the patronising way that you view them.
Ha. Straight from the horses mouth. So you're just as bad as those "anti-religionists". You too are a hypocrite. You see the other side as prejudiced, closed minded. Yet in your opening post you quote what we're apparently supposed to see as offending material consisting of someone calling the other side illogical and so on. So it's only wrong when they do this sort of thing, because... they're "anti-religionists"? When it's coming from your own side, you have no objection and generally agree.
Well, those kind of threads where the views of others are respected and cordial manners dominate are few and far between. More typical is the disrespectful ranting. I don't think this an issue of just this topic, but it is quite general. F*ck the internet and it's algorithms.
For some reason the anti-religious and atheists view themselves to be somehow under attack and act if they have to be on the defensive. Perhaps it's the example of the few public atheist media celebrities who share their atheism to the World and seem to be on a crusade against the remnants of obsolete beliefs in hokus-pokus magic like...religion. Because, from their point of view, what other stance could a modern progressive thinking person have towards such backward ignorance?
This is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I see where you're going with it. You seem to be arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) that there is some unpleasantness in religious threads but that most religious threads are anti-religion, and even those which are not, the nastiness tends to be from the anti-religious. Therefore, if anti-religious posters simply stopped, the nastiness would go away.
I can't fault your logic, and certainly over the last few weeks, I think your evidence is sound, but don't you think you're at risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why can't we just put an end to the nastiness? Yes, putting an end to the anti-religious posting entirely help would do that (that being where most of the nastiness is contained), but it seems unnecessarily broad.
Personally I think all religious matters are bad philosophy - for or against. With regards to God, I'm basically of the opinion "you tell me what your 'God' is and I'll tell you whether I believe in him or not", so discussions which attempt to address 'religious belief' amorphously are just utterly misguided. We do, however, have a politics section and a science and technology section, so I think banning religious discussion (though my personal favoured option) would not be consistent. What we should be harder on is bad philosophy but we only have so many mods with only so much time. In case any are reading though, I'd like to add my vote to banning these Gnostic Christian Bishop rants - we've had enough now.
On a separate matter that was brought up in this thread though, about whether religion should be protected from abusive criticism above other ideas. I see where you're coming from, similar to the principle that Germany uses to ban Holocaust denial, the matter has lead to some persecution in the past, but essentially this has been the result of a lack of ability to express beliefs contrary to the mainstream religion, not contrary to secularism. I also think you have to accept the other side of the coin. Most commonly religion is, even if only peripherally, a set of rules, stuff you must and must not do. I understand that the whole matter at it's core may be much deeper than that, but you'd be blind to deny the real-world outcome is very often a set of rules. So children brought up in that world have had their autonomy constrained by these institutions for the first 18-20 years of their life. This builds up a lot of resentment and I think we need to be sympathetic (if not ultimately tolerant) of that. No-one has ever been told they can't have a relationship with whomever they love because God doesn't exist. No-one has ever been told they can't listen to the music they like because God doesn't exist. Atheists may well constrain people's autonomy all the time for any number of reasons, but never (to my knowledge) simply because God doesn't exist, whereas the opposite cannot be said of the religious, who have sought to constrain even adult behaviour, but certainly that of children in their care, simply on the grounds of religious texts.
So yes, I think we need to be cautious around religious intolerance lest we end up with persecution, but we also need to accept that religions do seek to constrain the autonomy of those who may be too young or too meek to actually decide for themselves to follow their rules - we need to allow such people to express their anger over this without incidentally sweeping them up in the attitudes designed only to avoid persecution.
If someone is pressuring you to hug people, just ignore them.
If I have understood correctly, this topic is an appeal for the atheists to stop trolling religious threads. I.e. not preventing atheists from posting in these threads, but preventing atheists from trolling these threads, with the express intention of derailing the thread, preventing serious discussion.
To the extent that believers also troll religious threads, they should also be opposed. I haven't seen as much abuse from believers, but it would be rash to think that only atheists are guilty. All thread-trolling is unhelpful, and not supportive of grown-up discussions of any/all types. It should stop, or be stopped. :up:
:yikes:
And isn't that the problem this thread complains about? It may be aimed at religious threads, but it surely applies to all of them? We can approach it from a number of directions, but what it comes down to is a lack of courtesy. There is an unwillingness to oppose the argument without insulting the arguer. This is bad philosophy. VERY BAD philosophy.
Why don't we make this better? We can, if we choose to.... :chin:
:up:
We do not argue about the existence of justice; whether it is rare, fleeting, ephemeral, entirely made up, or extant in the realm of forms is of little importance. Do you believe in it? If not, I think an instant ban would be appropriate.
I hear you loud and clear: threaten them with extreme violence.
I'm still here. I'm always willing to give panpsychism and other crappy ideas a good bashing.
Yes, I think this is a problem, distinct from the trolling that this thread centres on. Demands for proof, and for precise definitions (often of vague concepts that have no precise definition), derail many threads here in this forum, and elsewhere. I don't think it's deliberate. The people who do this actually can't imagine discussing something - anything - that can't be precisely described and defined. But, deliberate or not, it's still a problem, and I'm not quite sure how we might best overcome it. :chin: Any suggestions, anyone?
I don't interpret this thread as you, which is to proclaim many of the anti-religious on this board as trolls. If there are instances of trolling, the remedy is to flag the post and alert the mods to remove the post and warn the troller. It's not to create a thread and discuss the problem generally. In the discussions with the other mods that we have, I really don't recall there being any instances of moderation of the anti-religious posts that are being referenced in this thread.
What I do think is that religious views are deeply personal to people, and in general civil society we are very careful not to insult or even criticize the religious views of others. In fact, I would suspect that very few of the deeply anti-religious people here would offer their opinions in a face to face setting.
But, IMO, this setting is unique in that it is not a face to face setting and it is specifically designed to offer questions and debate about all sorts of otherwise off limits topics. So I am completely in favor of the anti-religious crowd offering their thoughts, even if occasionally they are poorly formed and not terribly logical. If they are trolling, though, that is another matter.
But, just as I think it's perfectly fine for the anti-religious to offer their views in an aggressive manner, I see this thread as equally reasonable, calling them out for their unreasonable views.
I have nothing against re-living the eighteen-fifties if that's what people want to do, but the 'God' idea as expressed in the Bible and such documents seems a bit distant from what we know about the nature of things currently, and I wonder how useful such re-enactments now are.
:lol:
I'm not unsympathetic to your position here because I have seen pointless injections of generally "religion sucks, religious people are stupid" sorts of non-sequiturs within otherwise interesting threads about religion. I have in mind those posters who do that, and my general response has been to cease responding to them. They offer very little to the debate. They strike me more as agenda driven, thinking they have arrived enlightened upon a village of idiots, delighting they can proclaim the emperor wears no clothes, as if anything they have to say isn't something already considered.
Boards like this attract people who tend to be big intellectual fish in whatever small pond they come from. Posters generally consider themselves intelligent and well-read. And probably most of them have had many people in their personal lives tell them as much more or less. That leads to at least a slightly inflated head.
But most likely everyone here is in a similar boat re background, and we have all sorts of different views. Unfortunately (almost) everyone winds up having a problem with having those views challenged, or having the influences of those views challenged--whether those influences are (in)famous philosophers or other authors, intellectuals, etc., or some well-established, consensus view or other.
Folks especially have a problem when something is challenged even after an attempt at a defense of what was challenged. It's like "How dare you continue to challenge this when I've responded with an explanation I consider good enough!"
Of course, that attitude has little to do with doing philosophy.
But this all rather quickly leads to disrespect, condescending attitudes, etc., because it's a defensive ego-protection mode and it's easier than dealing more in-depth and/or longer-term with a sustained challenge. And things just snowball from there. People hold grudges, they engage in tit for tat, they automatically respond disrespectfully to certain people who do the same right back, and so on. Even if it's someone who'll respond respectfully to someone who doesn't challenge their views too strongly, people know that they'll respond disrespectfully or at least not thoughtfully to a challenge, if they respond at all, so there will be disrespect due to anticipated problems.
You're not going to change the personalities of the sorts of folks attracted to a board like this, especially where we're anonymous, etc. You're not going to be able to enforce respect, thoughtful replies, etc. without effectively killing the board--and it's already relatively slow, with a relatively small collection of long-term regulars as it is.
So it's unlikely to change. But if it could change, it needs to change in general, not just with respect to religion-oriented posts.
Well said, though I wonder what exactly you mean by “a board like this”. You mean a philosophy forum, discussion forums in general or something specific to this forum in particular (that puts it in some other category than the two aforementioned ones)
Well yes, but...
Quoting Hanover
...this is the important bit. This thread is not complaining about people expressing and arguing for their views. It's about those who troll such threads, with the intention of preventing the discussion of (what they see as) 'nonsense'.
Sure it is. I don't support any control beyond enforcing the guidelines with a pretty light hand. The moderators generally do a pretty good job.
After getting annoyed at an atheist poster who suggested segregating the religious members, I set out to write a rabble-rousing post. As I wrote it, I had two working titles - "First thing we do, let's ban all the atheists" and "A Modest Proposal - ban all the atheists." It was much more inflammatory than what I ended up posting and was intended to be ironic.
After talking to the moderators, I decided to tone down my rhetoric and take out the irony. I should have stuck to my original plan. It would have been more fun. Not that this one hasn't been fun.
That doesn't really make any sense. How can they prevent discussion?
I was trying to be pointed and direct. Apparently I wasn't clear. I believe religious beliefs are special and deserve special respect and tolerance.
Okay. I don't.
I agree with what you've written. And, yes, the anti-natalists drive me crazy. We can stick them in the ghetto with the atheists. We'll keep going till it's just you and me. And we'll keep @S around as our mascot.
I'm shocked, shocked!
A forum focused on "intellectual" subject matter, and where we can be anonymous/where there aren't verified prerequisites to participate.
My purpose in this thread was to kick those I consider offenders, including Artemis, in the ass. Alas, I failed in my goal, although I've enjoyed the thread and learned something, i.e. never listen to the moderators.
Why would you think they're "special" in this regard? (Unless that's an allusion to "special needs.") :razz:
@Wayfarer's post was respectful of anti-religionists and proposed peaceful coexistence. I agreed with that sentiment.
So anyway, why do think that, for example, the religious belief that Jesus walked on water, or the religious belief that God hates fags, deserve special respect and tolerance over non-religious beliefs such as the non-religious belief that Jesus, being just a human, could not have walked on water, and the non-religious belief that homosexuals are just fine, and God doesn't hate them because God doesn't even exist?
And I think that racist beliefs are a combo of absurd, ignorant and incoherent.
Would you have a problem with someone being treated with disrespect, treated in a condescending way, etc. if they were to post in support of racist views on a philosophy board?
Um.... Like when? You mean in response here to your purposefully inflammatory thread?
You make no sense. You are purposefully being a jerk and then people call you out on it and you pretend that's proof of your totally unwarranted position.
When I'm being reasonable and conciliatory, I agree with your attempt to understand where the rabid atheists are coming from. Other times I just want to kick them in the ass. Yes, I know, I'm part of the problem.
You're basically just admitting that this whole thread is just trolling.
So, religious beliefs are equivalent to support for Nazism? Am I supposed to take that seriously?
So it's just hypocritical cheerleading for the views that you want to be treated with respect, screw people with different opinions?
I wouldn't exactly say that it was respectful, because it was patronising in much the same way that you might object to the language used in the comments you quoted in your opening post as patronising.
I don't think it was patronizing at all. Let's not go all "nuh-unh" "nuh-unh" with this.
So, you do think religious belief is equivalent to Nazism.
I think that you'd likely be very hypocritical about treating things with respect.
Nuh unh. You get one "Nuh unh," then that's enough.
Well, if you still genuinely don't agree, then I think that indicates that you can't see it from the other side because of bias.
Does this mean you don't want to be our mascot?
Let's face it: T Clark is not actually interested in seeing or understanding the other side here. He's just got it in his head right now that atheists are all wrong and mean to boot and theists/spiritualists/agnostics etc. can do no wrong. No matter how much they do the same things he's accusing atheists of doing.
Depends. How much are you going to pay me?
It's an honorary position. It means you get to stay on the forum with us even though you should be expelled from paradise with the rest.
It's not even clear what "respect" is supposed to entail here. I think he means, "don't challenge them in honest debate" which is just entirely unphilosophical.
Yeah, it's a common phenomenon in Phil 101 or Intro to Phil-type classes, especially where they're taken as electives by people with other majors who figure that "philosophy will be an easy A," to see people drop out because they're uncomfortable with having their views challenged.
He only wants "respect" for religious views, not secular ones.
:up:
For example, I almost never read the religious (or anti-religious) discussions, so that would be the way to get my attention.
Quoting T Clark
Slow learner. ;)
Aside: Much unwarranted generalization going on here. I'd imagine most here would decline a tour of duty in this war.
Although many of my posts this morning have been facetious and sarcastic, I want to give this a serious answer.
Throughout history people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs. Tortured, killed, enslaved. Yes, I recognize that, in many cases, the persecution has come at the hands of followers of other religions. That is why the foundational protections for religious belief in the US Constitution are so important. The first amendment, the first and most important of the rights in the Bill of Rights, protects religious belief and freedom of speech. In truth, they are the same thing.
Rabid attacks by atheists on religion have a goal - to exclude religious believers and their values from public life. Not torture, death, or slavery - just disenfranchisement. It's worth resisting that goal.
Your approach is a good one. I try to follow it much of the time. This time I decided to take a more ....active hand. Look how well that's turned out for me.
As I said, I blame it all on the moderators, especially Baden.
Actually, the only time the word "troll" appeared in this thread was when you used the term, meaning your position does not really appear to be the complaint of the OP. Your claim (which I don't see evidence of) is that the anti-religious posters are disingenuous and seek not to present their contrary views, but they are intentionally just trying to aggravate and annoy. What I believe is that the anti-religious crew truly believes that religion is antiquated nonsense that has wrought mostly ignorance and suffering onto the world and they wish to point that out when others try to offer support for religion. The problem is that many of the religious posts assume (even perhaps hypothetically) that the religious basis for the belief is valid and the discussion is far above those fundamental concerns, making repeated objections that religion sucks or is bullshit irrelevant.
If, though, you have identified a troll, flag the post, and it will get looked at. I don't know what else can be done.
I don't think that that answers my question. You said that religious beliefs deserve special respect and tolerance, and the suggestion, given that you specified religious beliefs, is that they deserve special respect and tolerance over and above non-religious beliefs. Is that what you meant to suggest, or was your specific mention of religious beliefs redundant?
As I've said elsewhere, my thoughts about segregating atheists were intended to be ironic. It's clear I muddled my message. What you've written makes sense.
I disagree that "all religious matters are bad philosophy." Tell that to the guys who invented philosophy. On the other hand, to "allow such people to express their anger" probably is bad philosophy. I acknowledge that means this whole thread is bad philosophy. I plead nolo contender.
Yes, I meant to say that religious beliefs deserve special respect and tolerance over and above non-religious beliefs.
Wait. Let me give this a go. You're suggesting that, because the non-religious have been persecuted throughout history, and because the religious have been persecuted throughout history, and because religious zealots would silence criticism or expressions of nonconformity with their religion, and because militant atheists would silence religious expression, it is only the religious who deserve special treatment?
Yes, I too had somewhat mixed my messages and was referring here to society in general (as with religious tolerance) not philosophy forums, where both religious discussions and rants about how badly religions may have treated one do not really fit (though clearly we will have to agree to disagree about the former - amicably, though, I hope).
Freedom of speech would include the right to call religious people motherfuckers though. Free speech is a shit throwing contest when it is being practiced most freely.
The Constitution only speaks to government interference in the free exercise of religion, not in prohibiting the Baptists from calling the Mormons heathens (or whoever might have a beef with one another).
Nope.
I don't know. Do you have any candidates for other beliefs that might deserve special treatment?
I can be amicable if I try.
You are completely right. Call anyone a motherfucker you want. I won't call in the feds to have to stopped, but I might (or, more likely, won't) call in the moderators.
I'm no historian, but with what little knowledge I have, the only serious oppression I can think of perpetrated by atheists on the religious is Nazi Germany. All other cases of oppression have been one religion oppressing another, no?
Historically, the religious have definitely been guilty of oppressing atheists.
So, although Nazi Germany is definitely a bad enough period in history to make laws aimed solely at avoiding it, I'd answer your question by saying that historically, atheism is a belief which has a history of being persecuted and so deserves equal respect to religious beliefs.
Well there it is. The totally hypocritical position Clark holds, completely biased, perfectly illustrated. Well done, but of course it will have no effect whatsoever.
This is not true. Nazi Germany had religion mixed into their ideology. The Nazi party was endorsed by the church in Germany, and supported by the Vatican. Appeals were made to Christian beliefs and biblical references in the name of Nazi ideology. As Christopher Hitchens is fond of bringing up when people get this wrong, “God with us” was on the belt buckle of every Nazi uniform.
So Nazi Germany is actually a terrible example, you’d be better off going with Stalin but of course that was a state religion (like modern North Korea) so it doesnt work there either.
This is true, but the oppression was by not from those who were anti-religious. It was from those who held different religious beliefs. Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. That is why the first amendment begins:
It continues:
The greatest danger to religious freedom was religion. It is only when one is protected from religious hegemony that one is free to exercise religion according to his or her own beliefs.
Since you introduced an historical perspective, we need to go back further. A key player in the diminution of "Holy Wars" was Francis Bacon and the concept of tolerance. The holy wars that Bacon addresses were not between theists and atheists or Christianity versus Islam, but between different Christian sects.
Going back even further, it should never be forgotten that Socrates was accused and sentenced to death for his outspoken atheistic views. The pre-Socratic philosophers too were often accused of atheism. The tension between philosophy and religion can also be seen in Plato and Aristotle, although it is not always readily apparent since they learned from Socrates' example.
And each one has its zealots. Really, just look at the fighting over Temple Mount - it's the same.
As to the issue posed, I agree that anti-religious posters being largely unfamiliar with the functions of what they criticise, perhaps unwittingly, often spout polemics and go on a tantrum.
And sometimes that may incite a standoff which degenerates the thread in question.
But I disagree with both of the proposed solutions.
Segregation is throwing out discussion in favour of a gang war.
Special treatment for 'theists' is also not a solution - they're not infants and if they're true 'theists' having their faith tested is not only natural, but a way to develop it. Your solution is essentially his, but one sided.
If folk overall would employ some patience and murmur less, maybe that'd be a step in the right direction.
Fair enough. As I said, my knowledge of modern history is not that exhaustive. I accept what you say about the 'state religion' of Stalinist Russia, but I don't think that is what T Clark had in mind, so perhaps that would make an adequate example. My main point was that atheists have almost never persecuted the religious whereas the opposite has definitely and frequently been the case, hence entitling atheism to at least the same level of protection. Hopefully my ignorance of the details from Nazi Germany hasn't altered the main point, I appreciate the correction.
Sure, but that's beside the point. I'm not saying that there should be no beliefs which deserve special treatment of the kind that you're talking about. I'm saying that religious beliefs don't deserve that kind of special treatment over and above non-religious beliefs. In fact, not only do they not deserve special treatment in the sense of which you're speaking, some of them actually deserve to be strongly condemned, criticised, or made fun of, including the examples I put to you earlier.
Well I agree with that point, in fact Id add that the only people T Clark is NOT interested in protecting or making a special exemption for are the non-religious. Really, he just wants to exclude non-religious people and do so on the measure of the ones he has found obnoxious. This is precisely the same thing done by racists, bigots and the religious throughout history. A black guy raped my girlfriend, all black people are animals. This gay guys rainbow pants bother me, and he isnt even ashamed..fuck the gays!
And here we see the truest evil of religion, how it makes a virtue of the abominable, how a good man can do, say and believe something evil and not even notice...indeed carry on believing himself not only good but better than others for have doing so.
This is what company T Clark is keeping with his logic/reasoning...bigots, racist and religious fanatics. I fart in his general direction.
Evidently.
I have acknowledged that much of the persecution of religious believers has come from believers in different religions. I don't see how that is relevant to the question at hand.
I disagree.
Does nothing positive to provide a relief
But negatively shows the inability
To directly and completely counter the plea.
Yeah, well, your father smelt of elderberries.
I also am no historian, but I think what you're saying is not correct. The various communist revolutions of the 20th century were inflicted by atheistic regimes intent on destroying the authority of religion. Tens of millions were killed, hundreds of millions were subjugated, although not just for religious reasons.
Historians are better than the rest of you and know more and are right about everything. And this is the case whether they are religious or irreligious. And we are even nice to you ignorant peasants and don't insult you at all. This is called 'being civilised'.
These days, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, but back in the day, atheists were a particular target for the armchair and comfy cushions. So think of their tedious threads as reparations, and tick each one off as a karmic debt repaid.
I have no problem with criticism of religion. I don't even want there to be any official action against the worst perpetrators by the moderators. I just want to call them out on their misbehavior.
Can you offer a reason or reasons why?
For what it's worth, I include atheism as one of the religious beliefs that deserves protection.
I count broccoli amongst my favourite fruits.
They weren't religious.
They weren't christian.
They were political.
If they had a religion, it would be the religion of money.
And the religiom of money is something attributable to the Romans.
The Romans with all their Deus ex Machina are the then equivalent of atheists.
And they had a religious war with Christians, and lost.
How did Christians fight? The same way Socrates did - they died for their belief.
Let's not pretend like the so-called 'religious motives' aren't a false flag, abused today under the guise of 'freedom and democracy'.
Quoting T Clark
All fine and dandy.
But why the thread? Was calling them out to the authorities not enough?
They won't thank you for that, armed as they feel themselves to be, with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of fair play.
Wrong. You dont even like vegetables. Meat is no ones friend but for the devils forked feet.
(I think that's right, not sure exactly how to play but that makes as much sense as any two thoughts T Clark has expressed. Do I win anything?)
Here's what I wrote previously:
Quoting T Clark
I don't want the moderators to be involved. We should be able to handle this ourselves.
You're right, I don't like vegetables. I like fruits, such as apples, oranges, bananas, strawberries, and broccoli.
You win a shrubbery.
You're not saying I'm a good man, are you. Now that would be offensive.
Quoting S
Stop these dastardly attacks!! Haven't you heard. I'm a good man.
I can't seem to read between the lines very well today and can't find a reason or reasons why religious belief deserves special respect and tolerance over and above non-religious beliefs in what you previously wrote.
Do you withdraw the suggestion?
@S, your mother is stupid.
Broccoli isn't a fruit. It's a fungus.
Carrots.
Peas.
Because you do not live in a time or culture in which such a large group of people do believe in those things.
I quite enjoy the polemical approach to philosophy. Though we should strive to be cordial, the sparks from such battles often reveal more than calm reticence ever could.
I find it much more odd to decide to refrain from using the term which is most commonly used just because you have a chip on your shoulder.
Also, you're deliberately picking funny-sounding terms which aren't actually in use. Would you also have a problem calling yourself an ethical anti-realist, an anti-fracker, an anti-natalist, or an anti-establishmentarian, if you were of those positions?
The only real problem is that people actually engage with them, rather than allowing them to dry up and disappear as they naturally should. (What that means is that the noble people are giving their strength to the reprobrates). I could offer you Proverbs 26:4-5 to consider.
It’s more so the adoption of a religious-invented slur that irks me. They now view themselves as the religious have always viewed them, as atheists.
I'm glad that the owner of this site, along with the rest of the site staff, do not agree with you insofar as this forum is concerned. That would be against the guidelines, and I would expect to see the racist views deleted and the member expressing them to be banned, or at least dealt with as the site staff see fit.
When you claimed that:
Quoting T Clark
it became a question at hand.
You raised it as evidence that religion is "special". But it was not simply a matter of protection of religion but a protection from religion. It is in part a statement of the awareness of the power and danger of religion.
Some recent Supreme Court cases have been about religious exemptions, all of which are predicated on the notion that religion is a special case, and so, behavior that is otherwise questionable is protected.
Just how special religion is becomes a question at hand.
As to the problem raised in the OP, yes some members behave badly, but you single out only those who do so on topics dealing with religion. And that raises another question at hand: is the problem bad behavior or only bad behavior is matters you regard as special?
Damn, I must have lost concentration for a moment there. It's all Baden's fault. I don't know why it's Baden's fault right now, but I'll think of a reason later.
No.
I enjoy raising a ruckus, but I get more done when I'm nice.
Quoting S
I agree with you, Coben. I don't have any trouble having civil discussions with people who espouse ideas I find distasteful. On the other hand, S is right. It won't ever happen here, which is fine with me.
The first amendment to the US Constitution does not protect anyone against religion. It protects against government intrusion into religion. That includes preventing government from establishing or promoting a religion. That's the danger - not religion, but religion combined with government.
Whatever, I don't see how that has anything to do with the issue at hand.
The establishment of religion is not an intrusion into religion.
There can be no protection of religion without protection from religion.
Quoting T Clark
Indeed it is danger and today we are witnessing a troublesome religious intrusion into government. But this is only one aspect of the problem. The larger question is one of the limits of authority, and since religions often hold that their God is the absolute authority it becomes not so much a combination of religion and government that is the problem but one of religion's authority over government. As stated, the authority of law stands over that of religion.
Quoting T Clark
I asked several questions regarding that but you ignored them.
If you are speaking about the US, which is what matters most to me, I don't think that's true. What intrusions did you have in mind?
Quoting Fooloso4
That's true in the US, but not everywhere. It's a choice people have to make. I support a separation of church and state. Many people do not.
I don't believe the first amendment says anything about special respect and tolerance for religious believers and their beliefs over non-believers and their beliefs, indeed, that would seem to be against the principle of the amendment, to favor one group over another.
What is your reasoning???
(an answer to Pattern-chaser from page 3)
One clear fact is the media itself of the internet. We are discussing these topics with total strangers who we don't know and who we will not meet. Never underestimate how this discussion would change if we were having this in a physical location sitting in a classroom, an auditorium or a cafeteria with people making comments after the person giving the 'opening paragraph' would have made his or her case. Usually people won't directly want to instigate disputes, spread discord and start verbally attacking others, especially when the occasion is an open forum debate. In a contest of some sort between opposite sides where one speaker represents one side and another the other side it can be confrontational, yet people understand they have a role to play.
Then I have to say that courtesy isn't anymore appreciated so much. It's very unfortunate.
And finally, there are those that view Philosophical discussions as competitions and of one side winning and other losing the argument. I'm not in favour seeing philosophical debates as a 'blood-sport', but some competitive people and many young people see it this way.
Significant the 'non-belief' is regarded as a form of belief. I think that is the underlying issue in many of these debates. The reason being, that unbelief or believing there is no god, is not the same as simply 'having no belief'. For those with no beliefs, there would be nothing to discuss.
Quoting Fooloso4
Does a belief system that (for arguments sake) insist that every individual life is inherently valuable, deserve recognition over a belief system which says that some types of persons ought to be eliminated or imprisoned for the greater good?
----
A few years back, there was discussion about Jurgen Habermas, one of the most highly esteemed social philosophers on the Continent. I noticed a book on Amazon comprising dialogues between himself and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was to become, and who has since retired from, the office of the Pope, about the role of religion in the modern world.
I emphatically agree with this last, because I am of the view that the human is something more than, or other than, a simply physical phenomenon. But as scientific-secular culture has no 'conceptual space' for such notions, they are relegated to the subjective domain of 'individual conscience', or sublimated into the 'quest for interstellar conquest'. And so on.
Does reason know what it is missing?, Stanley Fish.
Long story short, this user has not offered any sufficient reasons to support his points, and admittedly said he was only here to "get back at atheists" after admitting prior to be a man of respect and civil discussion above his (bad behavior-ed) cousins that should all just stop talking! All he has done is virtue signal from his vain (invisible) horse while lacking all self-awareness whatsoever to address the fact that his first post was nothing but a passive aggressive jab exhibiting poor behaviors himself (Hey, worship me!). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this guys patterned motives.
He continues to confuse the anti-religious with atheists in earlier posts, then victimizes himself later on, then goes about passively agreeing to the censorship of others while virtue signalling "freedom of religion" and "love for everyone". Either he clearly does not understand "freedom of religion" even means nor what he's talking about, or is just playing over-generalized "ha! take that back!" games - a behaviorindistinguishable from his anti-religious cousins.
Freedom of religion also entails freedom from religion, which OP hypocritically wants to deny people of. Anti-religious people religiously advocate for "no religion", meaning he wants to ban other crazy nuts just so he can make more room to grow his own crazy tree!
Reasoning with him flies right over his head, clearly.
There would be nothing to discuss if these people with no beliefs didn’t care that people with religious beliefs enjoyed a ‘special respect’ and tolerance not afforded to them. I imagine such people would be curious about the reasoning or justification behind their second class status.
A member of a different tribe gets integrated fully if and only if s/he not only accepts the societal and personal institutions and morals, but also accepts the religion of the tribe adopting him or her.
This is a primal and indelible instinct in humans.
I am an atheist, and as such, try to destroy religionism and recruit more members to my ideology.
The religious do the same thing. Recruit members for their ideology, and destroy other ideologies.
This is so much human nature. Nobody can override this. Not the MODs, nobody. This is the bread and butter of humanity.
But there are practical reasons. The religious claim that the lack of fear of god will release a flood of unethical, immoral behaviour. The atheists claim that the religious suppress the dissemination of knowledge due to their fear of the masses turning away from the scriptures, which teach nonsense in today's scientific realism.
These are logical reasons, but in reality have nothing to do with the issue. They are just rationalizations, in the continuing fight of tribalism.
I don't think anyone here wants to change human nature, or even your warped view of it. We just want to stop the assholes from ruining our forum.
Quoting T Clark
You can't even separate your personal hatred from your world view. You can't not introduce your personal bias into any argument, claim or statement. You are one of the strongest examples of the tribal behaviour I described, along with my own persona.
So, the "bread and butter" of unthinking humanity should be valued? Actually I wouldn't call it "the bread and butter" but the vomit and excrement.
You claim ownership of this forum. This is rich.
I don't hate you or your beliefs. I don't hate anyone or anything. I do find your beliefs distasteful and mean-spirited. I think the unrestricted expression of them hurts the forum. I don't want the moderators to get involved, so I've taken it on myself to do what I can by expressing my disapproval.
You missed the point. This is part of humanity, thinking or unthinking. It is part of humanity that can't be divorced from humanity. You may want to disagree, fair enough. Put your reasons down, this is a philosophy forum.
The forum is a community of which I am a member. It's not ownership, it's membership.
You said this earlier many times. Your religion dictates you to say this. Your other expressions bely your honest efforts to obey this tenet. You are failing at it. (As per your other expressions. I am not inside your head, I can only go by what I read. "I calls them as I sees them.")
I am a member and my opinion is different. This is strictly a value based opinion. I reject the validity that some members' idea what constitutes "ruining" should be accepted by all members. This is my right as a member, much like you think you all members must assume your position. The difference is you take ownership of all members' opinion ("our forum") whereas I allow differences to be coexisting, and to thrive. You deny that right form others, "becaus they ruin OUR forum". This is not a direct quote, but a quote to denote this is what I think you are saying and are expressing with your words.
the description of it does, though.
I already said my peace. If you disagree, fine, state your reasons, but I shan't respond here and now.
I think you damage the forum with your mean-spirited, disrespectful, insulting, intolerant posts. A lot of other members are sympathetic to my position.
I haven't responded to your post yet. I don't want to ignore it, but I don't know what to say next. I gave you my explanation. It's clear you don't find it convincing. What else is there to say?
It appears that you also don’t find your explanation convincing, being that you don’t know what to say in response to a counter-view of it.
I don’t know if you’re religious, but in any case, I sense that you FEEL some degree of reverence for religion in general (if not particular), and that’s why you’re unable to reason out your proposal that religious beliefs should be given “special respect” and tolerance, and not afford the same respect and tolerance to non-religious beliefs.
Is that about right?
It's not that I don’t think my response was adequate. The opposite. I thought I’d said what needed to be said. Nothing you wrote contradicted what I said. I can understand that you don’t agree, but I don’t know what else to say to convince you.
Since it appears to be a purely emotional issue for you, you might try an emotional appeal. I wouldn’t count on success though.
You’ve made a rather big claim, that religious beliefs deserve special respect and tolerance, but are unable to coherently explain why.
I find that when someone is unable to explain themselves it’s because they don’t fully understand what they’re talking about. Again, if this is just the way you FEEL, then say so.
You mean if no evidence or argument for the truth of the belief is given? If evidence or argument is offered and it is not logically inconsistent, and yet you disagree with it, what then?
One can't honestly claim that something is for sure that can't be shown, no matter the argument, even with indirect evidence noted, too.
For example: There was a Big Bang for sure. This isn't honest because we can't yet see through the darkness that there was up to 380,000 years, although we are trying to detect gravity waves and. have noted the expansion of the universe and the CMB radiation, etc.
The problem is, that although faith and mere belief often get mention in the church bulletin, in practice the belief and all its extensions and layers are taught as true.
They even couldn't help themselves later in the church bulletin, as it went on to proclaim that "We were created to worship God."
So, when the whole realm is not visible, the problem would seem to get worse.
To avoid dishonesty, both theists and atheists would have to admit "I don't know for sure," which is agnostic, or else lose credibility.
Yes, none of us knows anything for sure. And if any belief is presented as being certainly true in any absolute sense that is intellectually dishonesty. Yet we all cannot avoid having beliefs. Was the proposition in that last sentence merely one of my beliefs, or is it certainly true?
Personally, I can't see why religious people or atheists bother to discuss their views on philosophy forums, since they open themselves to the kinds of criticism they do not seem to want.
That's not true for the pointed out reason.
You don't know if they don't know for sure.
Tribalism is this catch-all that we are served at the present. As if our society would truly be so rigid and not as permissive as it really is. Naturally it doesn't have to be like this. Where did we lose our individuality or is individuality only allowed when we think about our hedonistic and narcissistic me-myself-and-I lifestyles?
Quoting god must be atheist
You can tell yourself this as much as you want, but it won't make it more real.
The vast majority of people aren't out there to destroy the people who don't think like them. They just leave them alone, avoid the unnecessary confrontation and live their own lives.
I suspect that this might be what @T Clark might be referencing in his annoyance about the anti-religious comments. Racist beliefs might be absurd, they are very likely ignorant, but they're rarely incoherent. Whether they share these same attributes with religion (and I think they don't), what they don't have in common is that the former are patently offensive and degrading, whereas the latter are not (most certainly not in the same manner under typical conditions).
That is to say that this analogy is not at all logical, but seems to just be a way to offer insult, by claiming that the religious and the racist share much in common. In short, it's a comment that will do nothing but derail anyone supportive of religion down the rabbit hole of defending against nonsense objections instead of responding to whatever the OP might have been about.
I obviously do not agree with you on the coherence issue.
And anyone can find anything offensive, degrading, etc. There are plenty of people who see religion as both.
The comment was MY opinion of some features of both religion and racism, by the way. Hence "I think . . ."
And by the way, surely you're overestimating my opinion of the intellectual value of religious belief. Put it this way: it would be difficult to underestimate it.
But the point was one you're proving in your criticism: folks make subjective judgments about stuff, and based on those subjective judgments, they deem that some things are okay to be insulting, nasty, condescending about.
Well, some people make that judgment about religion.
If one is going to make that judgment about some things, one can't be surprised that others make that judgment about stuff that one thinks should be treated with respect instead.
For the Christian religious folks, this is the "judge not, that ye be not judged" idea. You shouldn't have to be very old or wise before you realize that not everyone is going to feel the same way you do about various things. If you're going to start attacking others for stuff that you don't agree with, don't be surprised when they turn around and do the same for stuff you cherish that they don't feel the same way about.
If you want respect, treat people with respect. And not just the people you agree with.
The religious right holds a great deal of power in the U.S.
Quoting T Clark
Our conversation has been about the U.S., starting with my response to your claim about:
Quoting T Clark
Quoting T Clark
In just the last few months abortion is no longer a choice in many U.S. states. The anti-abortionists frame their arguments in terms of morals and rights, but it comes down to the religious beliefs of a powerful few who determine what is permissible.
Yeah, religion has a huge influence on laws . . . and there's no way around that, because we're surrounded with religious folks and they're voting (and lobbying and so on)
I assume you mean every individual human life. Your question leaves open the problem of
the developmental continuum that that define a person as well as the question of the relative value of an individual life and whether what a person does is a determining factor regarding the value of that particular life.
Quoting Wayfarer
I think a distinction should be made between the Enlightenment conception of reason and reason as practiced by the ancients. It is not clear to many, including Habermas, that modern reason cannot accomplish all that it promised. In response some of turned again to some form of religious belief, but others have turned to a more reasonable practice of reason informed by its limits without seeking refuge in unreason or some imagined transcendence of reason.
[i]We were created to worship God.[/I]
More honestly stated:
[i]If there is a God, which we can't show outright to anyone with no possible contesting, then perhaps this maybe God created us, and so it might be that His maybe purpose was so that we could worship this maybe God because perhaps this maybe God wants or needs to be worshiped, and so that is perhaps why we were put on Earth. We are for this notion out of our hopes and wishes that we call 'faith', and if we meant 'truth' we would have said that instead.[/I]
It appears, then, that honesty might not be the best policy for attracting believers and worshippers because the claim no longer has the impact that it did by its declaration supposing, but at least it isn't stated as truth for all any longer, and avoids the immediate indoctrination of children and unsuspecting adults, etc. to the ungrounded dogma.
Similar dishonesty: There is no God. This fails, too, since it cannot be shown.
While you're likely right, I don't think religion holds the weight that you think it does, regarding the matter.
As these beliefs are based on morals that may be upheld by anyone, religious and non-religious alike.
Favouring the fetus' right to live over the mother's complacency isn't necessarily religious.
It is not simply the influence of religion. There are plenty of religious people who are opposed to the power of the religious right, but it does make for some strange bed-fellows, such as Trump hitching his wagon to the Evangelicals. The Evangelicals interest in Israel is based solely on their belief in Armageddon. This is exclusionary politics on the grand scale, orchestrated by God, with a little help from them.
That's true, but if why is it that laws are so in line with Christian morality in the U.S.--and are such a struggle to change from that? I don't think it's just a coincidence.
It is not religion but the religious right. They are enormously influential in matters of reproductive rights, education, limited government, and geo-politics.
Quoting Shamshir
That is true, but one's own views on the morality of abortion and a powerful, well-organized religious movement capable of influencing state and national law are two very different things. One need not be religious to be opposed to or non-religious to be in favor of reproductive rights.
I disagree. I'm okay with describing myself as anti-religious in some important respects. I do feel strongly about some of the claims which are made. There are some claims which I don't treat with mere indifference. It actually offends me when someone doesn't think something through intelligently enough or tries to muddy the waters when I think that they can and should do better than that. A good example would be the false equivalence between religious texts and historical accounts that was recently made by a member of this forum in a separate discussion. Don't try to justify religion by dragging credible academic fields through the mud.
Maybe it's because Christian morality is just right?
There's plenty of people who uphold Christian morals without calling themselves Christians or taking part in any 'religious' activity.
Quoting Fooloso4
Okay, maybe they are.
But I don't see them as more influental than common sense.
Either way, that has more to do with politics than religion, so again it's the same as how the papacy's power crutch has nothing to do with religion.
Quoting Fooloso4
The movement could be non-religious, and accomplish the same results - because it's powerful and well organized.
To summarise:
The problem, if there is one, isn't with religion, but that plenty of money and power hungry people flock to it.
The issues raised are in due to a pseudo or pretend religious mafia.
It isn't. And a few examples here and there which I might agree with won't be enough to make it just right, so don't bother going down that road.
Quoting Shamshir
Don't be absurd, of course it has something to with religion. And that's an understatement. Papal primary is an ecclesiastical doctrine.
And this isn't the first time that you've said something false and absurd, either. The Crusades and the Inquisition were very much religious, and very much Christian.
Point out the examples that are wrong.
Quoting S
Read the fine print, kiddo.
It has more to do with politics.
You're mouthing off gibberish before the statement's even sunk in.
No.
Quoting Shamshir
I wasn't addressing that part, genius. I was addressing your false and absurd claim that the papacy's power crutch has nothing to do with religion. You're also wrong to say that the Crusades and the Inquisition weren't religious or Christian. They obviously were. And you're also wrong that physics and chemistry and music are in essence religions. You're the one talking gibberish. You're attention seeking through outlandish claims, it seems.
You've got nothing to show, and your statement is invalidated.
No backtalk.
Quoting S
Blah, blah, blah.
They weren't Christian since Christianity doesn't solicit war - it calls to love your enemies.
Save your sermons for your cult of ants, I'm not interested.
They were Christian, whether you like it or not. There have been many wars of religion over Christianity. Christianity has blood on it's hands. In fact, it's positively drenched in the stuff.
What's next, Sparky?
Have you read the Bible? It calls for both, why is your interpretation the one true Christian view?
Matthew 5:38-48 New International Version (NIV)
Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
From the New Testament AKA Christian Bible.
Have you seen some of the things he's been coming out with? I'd much rather a bit of the harsh rhetoric that's being complained about here than the outlandish nonsense that he's been producing.
"The North Pole isn't cold!", "The Queen has nothing to do with royalty!", "Spiders are essentially fish!". :roll:
You are either ignorant about the parts of the bible that contradict those passages, or are being dishonest. Either way, you didnt answer my question.
And yes, New Testament. Im aware of the selective reading practices of Christians. (like the new testament has a complete moral guide without the first part of the bible. Please)
You want to quote scripture? Quote the passage where Jesus calls for his enemies to be put to the sword. Do you know that one?
No, like an asshole I just jumped into the middle of your discussion. Not sure Ive ever interacted with Shamshir tbh, I lose track of the names. I had a list going of people not to bother talking to but like an asshole, I lost it.
Christian morality is a misnomer. It ignores both differences in time and between sects. What did Jesus or Paul or the New Testament tell us about reproductive rights? Is what Jesus said about sexuality in agreement with what Paul or Augustine said? Does the "new testament" supersede the Law, which Jesus claimed he came to fulfill? As always, we pick and choose what we accept and reject, and this changes over time and place.
Quoting Shamshir
What does common sense tell you about Armageddon? What does common sense tell you about making Jerusalem the capital of Israel? Was is the influence of common sense that led the Trump administration to declare Jerusalem to be the capital?
What is the influence of common sense that has determined the availability of contraption to fight disease, poverty, and overpopulation?
What does common sense tell you about the rights of the fetus and the rights of a woman who becomes pregnant? If it were simply a matter of common sense then why is it that we have yet to find common ground to resolve the abortion debate?
Quoting Shamshir
It has to do with the power of the religious right to determine political law. The separation of church and state is not a clear dividing line. The boundary between private versus public choice and action is something that continues to change dependent on who is in power.
Quoting Shamshir
It could be but in fact is not. Reproductive rights has become a religious issue. That has not always been the case. Reproductive rights has become a political issue, that too has not always been the case. The two have become intertwined in a way that will not soon become disentangled.
Quoting Shamshir
Since religion is for many all pervasive and absolute, money and power can and have become its instrument. The fate of one's immortal soul is a motivating force that extends far beyond what money and power alone are capable of accomplishing.
Quoting Shamshir
Whether or not it is a pseudo or pretend religious mafia depends on which side of the divide one stands on. While one may in principle separate church and state in practice today the separation is more ideological than real.
Once again, the question goes back to the "special" status and privileges that religion has managed to secure.
Go ahead, enlighten me and quote it yourself.
It's worth drawing attention to them, so here they are, in all their "glory":
Quoting Shamshir
Spiders and flies and ants are in essence fish.
Quoting Shamshir
Point of fact, the North Pole and the South Pole aren't places. They aren't cold.
Quoting Shamshir
The Queen's role as constitutional monarch has nothing to do with royalty.
Ok, but I hope by extending that courtesy you will in turn do me the courtesy of answering my question.
Do not think that I have come to bring peace on Earth: I came not to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's enemies shall be those in his own household.
Mathew 10.34
There are loads of immoral such passages, contrary to what most Christians think. I could do more, but a proper google search should be able to get a bunch of them for you.
So, the counter-argument will be some sort of bending over backwards interpretation of Jesus meaning “enlightenment” rather than “sword” or that the passage is about uniting people under god rather than dividing families and turning the against each other. Ridiculous, but fine, ill just grant that its open to interpretation.
What makes yours the correct one?
Ok, but surely you see how (and why, obviously) he is using a diluted definition from which his point follows? Wrong, but not non-sensical. What I mean is, his point follows from his admittedly faulty way of defining “Christian” but thats not the same as the contradictory or nonsense you are comparing it to.
You understand the point he is trying to make right? He is making a no true Scotsmen fallacy, but not spouting complete nonsense.
Yes, I get that. But it's still really lame. I could do exactly the same thing with those statements I made in response.
Agreed, pretty lame none the less. My point is, its ignorance (of logic and the new testament Shimshir, Im not making a generalisation about you being an ignorant person about everything) rather than delusion. Ignorance at least can be corrected, I have no remedy for delusion.
I'm not so sure how accurate it is to put it down to ignorance. That seems like letting him off the hook. I think that there's an element of deliberateness to it, like with my statements in response to his. He must surely know how it sounds, but it's like he's trying to be a clever clogs contrarian.
I think you are wrong on that, I dont think religious apologisers know how it sounds. I don’t even think some of them realise they are exercising apologetics. Its just that entrenched and familiar they are already well on the road before they have a chance to question the sense of it all.
The problem comes when religious faith, whether positive or negative, is turned into fundamentalism, into something we can (incoherently) argue over.
Quoting T Clark
All off-topic posts are being deleted.
Hmm. :chin: I think you just summarised the OP, or maybe its solution, delightfully. Well said. :smile:
:up: Thank you. :smile:
Although people think of respect differently. The member above seems to think that respect is most importantly about all of the superficial nicey-nicey stuff. A smile here, a thumbs up there. I very much do not think of respect in that way.
You and I have agreed about the importance of being frank with people:
"Definitely some people you know are going to think you're an idiot sometimes. If they don't tell you that, they're not being honest with you".
Those are your words.
S - It isn't that I have no opinions 'against' anything, capitalism for instance, but that I think that except where people have been very heavily brainwashed - in which case we are probably wasting our time anyway - positive approaches are probably better at suggesting a shared humanity in which ideas can be shared. If Socrates had gone around Athens announcing himself to be an opponent of democracy, for instance, he would have lasted even less time than he did.
And one can even be fussy and avoid words that imply the other person is wrong, like 'obviously'.
...obviously.
cause I don't see anything in here...
about using emoticons. Maybe he said it elsewhere.
Maybe it wasn't a false dilemma, perhaps it was a strawman.
Yes. Personally I care about honesty a lot more than respect.
Clearly I disagree with what you said insofar as I disagree with your false accusation that I had put forward a false dilemma.
Quoting Coben
This relates to my own thinking on respect, because asking me that question insults my intelligence.
Quoting Coben
You appear to have completely lost track of things. It obviously definitely wasn't a straw man, because obviously I obviously wasn't trying to represent the quoted text by Terrapin Station with the example I gave of a possible way of thinking about respect relating to smiling and giving a thumbs up, obviously, obviously, obviously. The reference I made to the member above was to the member above, not to the member I had quoted.
And also sad that you are often evasive this way. Under siege. Attacked even by questions and ideas that differ from yours. Attacked on all sides.
I got pulled back in by what seemed like a sense of humor about what actually is a really defensive stance in a world you feel attacked by.
I'll discontribute to what you experience as siege. I will not present ideas that differ from yours to you. I will not differ with your posts. I won't even read them. And I'll hold to that this time, even if you seem to have a brave period.