Are DU theists guilty of intolerance?

[guillaumeb]

Last edited Fri Dec 29, 2017, 12:07 AM - Edit history (5)

I read a response in this group to a post. A response that read,

Edited to include part of the original post:

It seems that our theistic friends here don’t wish to have the claims they make here discussed and examined. Instead they like to waltz in to pronounce “atheists badz” and then make some poorly thought out pontification, and when that is questioned act astounded that on a discussion board the statements one makes might be discussed.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=264296

Now I have been reading things i this group for over 2 years, and I have never read anything remotely like the characterization "atheists badz". Other than in this particular response.

So in the interest of furthering my understanding, I would ask any poster here who can come up with recent examples of such theistic intolerance by theist posters at DU.

[Sneederbunk]

1. Well, er......they can't.

[guillaumeb]

3. More time is needed.

Perhaps much more time.

[Eliot Rosewater]

83. Theists? Well I am an atheist who thinks belief in an invisible man in the sky

is childish and ridiculous.

But I also recognize saying what I just said is unnecessary,. causes people to get pissed at me who otherwise probably agree with 99% of what I believe.

I mean the idea that there are so many different religious with so many different gods and people still believe THEIRS is the one true?



I mean come on.

But hey, I get the whole faith thing, having been a believer once. So I am cool with Christians who walk the walk.

[whathehell]

184. You're also incredibly Ignorant if you confuse the Literal interpretation

of the Torah and the Bible with the VAST majority of modern "religion". Duhh.

[Eliot Rosewater]

261. Modern religion doesnt believe in a male figure as god who lives in the heavens?

[guillaumeb]

2. Or, could this excerpt from today apply?

A quick way of getting rid of an opponent's assertion, or throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.

This is from a post addressed to the denizens of the religion group.

[yallerdawg]

4. 'They' are extremely intolerant of any posts in support of faith.

We welcome most people in our Big Tent - so I was rather shocked to find this level of intolerance and divisiveness regarding a core value of many, many Democrats.

Especially at a time when we need every one of them!

Yeah, DU doesn't matter.

Neither does Russian BS on Facebook news feeds.

And WikiLeaks downloads.

And unprecedented tweets.

[Cartoonist]

7. Here's one of the worst offenders

Yeah, you. How many times have you told us non theists that we are going to Hell? Can you get any more childish?

[yallerdawg]

9. What I have repeatedly pointed out is...

you don't HAVE to go to Hell.

And it is NOT MY RULES!

Now, if you told me I would get extremely nauseous standing on the Moon, I wouldn't argue with you about it or even care in the least.

What I don't understand is why Hell bothers anyone who is absolutely certain they will never go there anyway?

[Cartoonist]

11. So you can get more childish.

I knew you could. I had faith in you.

[yallerdawg]

12. "Are DU theists guilty of intolerance?"

You're disputing this in some way - aren't you?

[Cartoonist]

13. Yes

It's the old cry of "persecuted Christians". Religious privilege means never seeing your own intolerance.

[yallerdawg]

14. I'm a liberal progressive Democrat.

The only thing that really provokes me IS intolerance and divisiveness.

You use a real broad brush to paint people of faith as "intolerant" and that is a mistake plain and simple.

That is an important point some us would like to make.



Among a few others.

[Cartoonist]

16. I have a special brush

It's needed

[guillaumeb]

49. Yes, many of us know about this brush.

It was demonstrated in the post that I referred to here. A classic broad brush attack.

[sprinkleeninow]

165. Whaddya doing with that one. Stucco?

Yikes, we're gonna get plastered.😱🤕

[Cartoonist]

170. Tar

Feathers optional

[sprinkleeninow]

235. Play nice!

[guillaumeb]

134. And this:

It seems that our theistic friends here don’t wish to have the claims they make here discussed and examined. Instead they like to waltz in to pronounce “atheists badz” and then make some poorly thought out pontification, and when that is questioned act astounded that on a discussion board the statements one makes might be discussed.

Either this was intended as humor, or it is the ultimate in unaware irony.

[Voltaire2]

144. I asked elsewhere if faith is like obsessive love.

It seems to encompass the obsessive part.

You really should stop already.

[guillaumeb]

146. And you should acknowledge what you actually did.

Really. If one desires dialogue, it requires actual good faith.

[Voltaire2]

149. What exactly have I done?

What great crimes are you charging me with?

[guillaumeb]

150. 1) Read the post at the top of this thread.

2) Explain what you meant.
3) Give examples of what you claimed.

That simple.

[Voltaire2]

153. So you cannot answer.

How typical.

And who exactly appointed you inquisitor of this group?

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Vile.

[guillaumeb]

157. I disagree.

[guillaumeb]

20. That is obvious.

Some few here, and I emphasize that it is a very few, are obviously intolerant of supportive posts about religion.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Maybe the common denominator isn't religion, it's the 'very few' that whitewash religion?

[guillaumeb]

29. And who are these very few at DU?

Please feel free to educate us all.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. You're one.

I'm perfectly fine specifying people. You whitewash all day every day for religion in here.

How about you? Are you going to identify any of the people in your 'very few' reference?

[guillaumeb]

61. So my posts about religion entitled "bad news"?

Are they cover for my true position?

I prefer to present a balanced view. And that includes what I title as "good news" and "bad news".

Some here prefer to focus exclusively on bad news, and broad brush attacks. Like the one so well illustrated in the original op, with accompanying link.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. An enormous number of your 'good news' articles consisted of

'too little too late', or 'too little period', or secondary consequences you didn't think through.

As I have pointed out IN those threads.

[guillaumeb]

72. Ah yes, the "too little" argument.

Unfortunately, humans are not perfect. Religion has nothing to do with it.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Disagree.

I've personally witnessed a lot of religious people become better Humans when they abandoned religious dogma. You're kidding yourself if you think it doesn't hold people back.

Religious texts/dogma often limit progress in people that might otherwise be very different. Religion can be both an excuse for people who don't want to change, and a limiting factor that causes people to avoid change.

[guillaumeb]

79. You are free to disagree.

I witness acts of intolerance and acts of tolerance from all types of people.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Show me a religious person and if they're in a religious bloc large enough to be identified in the

PEW survey by political affiliation, I'll show you the regressive or anti-Democratic Party platform positions they either directly hold, or tolerate to enable their faith.

Tolerance isn't always a good thing. For instance; tolerating your religious leaders suing to overturn the birth control mandate of the ACA. That's not a 'good' kind of tolerance even though it fits the dictionary definition of the word.

[sprinkleeninow]

167. Please cite the 'blocs'.

"The google is not my friend."
(Oy. That suggestion busts my advanced chops.)

[Lordquinton]

223. This right here is what he is talking about

In defending yourself against white washing religion causing troubles, you white washed religion causing troubles.

I'm really leaning heavy towards Poe...

[guillaumeb]

242. No, I merely pointed out the fallacy behind the observation.

There is no perfection among humans. None. Any who look for it are deluding themselves, and any who criticize its absence are similarly deluded.

[Lordquinton]

263. White-washing by any other name...

A typical framing you are guilty of, separating religion from humans. Religion never does anything wrong, nor is it responsible, it's always humans who do wrong. Of course when a human does something good religion gets all the credit.

[guillaumeb]

269. You misframed my argument.

Or misunderstood it.

Humans are responsible for their own actions. Patriotism does not fight a war, humans do. Religion does not fight a war, humans do.

[Lordquinton]

282. But if humans get along, then Religion is given credit

see another thread about how great religion is for humans getting along in one part of the world for 2000 years if you ignore all the times they didn't.

Yea, I didn't stick to your framing, I brought in information that upset your argument.

[MineralMan]

27. "posts about religion?"

That's the entire point of this Religion Group on DU. Discuss religion. So, pretty much all posts in this group are about religion. Not just your religion, but religion in general. I post on religion here. I even include scriptural references of interest.

This is not the Religious Group. It is the Religion Group. Adherence to any particular religion or any religion at all is not required to participate in the discussions.

Do I question religions? Yes, I do, including Christianity, the religion with which I'm the most familiar. But I'm an atheist, so it would be foolish to expect me to be supportive of that, or any other, religion. I can almost guarantee that I'm not going to be supportive of religious beliefs. I don't have any such beliefs, and I'm willing to talk about that. That's why I'm here, as a guest of the administrators of this website.

[guillaumeb]

30. Did you read this part of the original post?

The part that claimed:

"It seems that our theistic friends here don’t wish to have the claims they make here discussed and examined. Instead they like to waltz in to pronounce “atheists badz” and then make some poorly thought out pontification......"

A totally unsubstantiated, broad brush argument that is designed to put all theists at DU on the defensive. What would Schopenauer say about this blatant attempt to shut down all debate?

As to irony, the clip presented here epitomizes what the poster claims to oppose in theists. Proving something.

[MineralMan]

35. I didn't write that. I didn't even see that.

You appear to have the mistaken notion that all "non-theists" are somehow the same. You call them "the choir" sometimes. I'm a member of no group whatsoever. I am an individual. What someone else says has nothing to do with me, nor do references to some imagined "choir."

Why are you so fearful of atheists? I don't get that at all. We are not numerous enough to have much influence. We mostly just discuss things. Do you want us to stop doing that in your favored place? Well, we probably won't stop. It's one of my favored places, as well.

I like discussing religion. I have a great interest in the subject, and some knowledge of it, as well. I'll be here.

I stopped singing in choirs a long time ago. I used to do that all the time, but have moved away from vocal music.

[guillaumeb]

39. I made no such claims.

I repeatedly emphasize that a very few non-theists make certain claims. And the "atheists badz" claim is typical.

And I presented a portion of the "athesits badz" claim in the original post so I assumed that you had read that before responding.

As to your next claim, that I am fearful of atheists, what would Schopenauer make of this particular technique? Is this an attempt to divert, or to put someone on the defensive?

Perhaps you should reread your previous post about debate.

[MineralMan]

46. Did you think I posted Schopenhauer's 38 strategems for your

benefit, Guy? That's interesting. Did you see it as an attack on anyone in particular? It's not an attack on anyone at all. It's a little instructive post about techniques people use in arguments. Actually, I have posted that on every discussion forum I've ever been on at one point or another. It's valid on them all.

[guillaumeb]

47. No, but I did assume that you liked what you posted.

And had decided to follow the advice. THAT is interesting, that you used some of the techniques referred to in the post in a response here.

Please explain to me about irony again.

[MineralMan]

52. I did not say I do not sometimes use those fallacious techniques.

No doubt I have done so and probably will again. They are very common, which is why I posted that.

Your assumption was incorrect. But, this discussion seems to have strayed far from the original topic of the thread, I think.

[guillaumeb]

54. Which was actually the broad brush post that I included in this post.

And that broad brush post was meant to put theists on defense and establish what the poster claimed.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. I think most of us do a pretty good job of being clear about shifting gears from clinical/specific

debate type language, into 'Done With Your Shit' mode. However, that differentiation is often ignored by posters like Guillameb (Fuck I still can't spell his user name right without popping out of this post and looking at the thread)

[sprinkleeninow]

168. Are you fearful of atheists? I'm not fearful of atheists.

Hi, Guillaume,
DU love....😉

[guillaumeb]

206. Hi sprinkle,

No, I am not fearful of atheists. At one point in my life I had a crisis of faith and considered alternatives. But after reflection I found the path that works for me, and has worked for many years.

I realize that each of us must find a path, and I believe that any path that leads to respect for the rights of others is a good path.

[sprinkleeninow]

246. I did not know that. A crisis.

Someone asked if "fearful of atheists".

Apologies that I posted under yours. I meant it to be rhetorical.

I appreciate your expressions. 💜

[guillaumeb]

247. No apology needed.

Feel free to be rhetorical, or whimsical, anytime.

[sprinkleeninow]

250. I adore whimsical and quirky!

Had a 'folksy' charge lodged on me here recently.

[guillaumeb]

257. Not the dreaded "folksy" charge!!!!!

There is no hope for you at this point. Folksy is the ultimate.

[sprinkleeninow]

260. Oh, yaasss. And I truly 'resemble' that. 😆

These non-theists are adept at casting asparagus.🤣

JK youse guys and lovely ladies!

[whathehell]

136. Isn't your point of view represented in the atheists & agnostics forum?

[MineralMan]

183. I don't participate in that group, nor in any group that focuses only

on one point of view. the Religion Group is designed for discussion of religion by everyone, regardless of their own personal beliefs.

[Lordquinton]

224. Atheists created a whole group for religious group hug

And we leave it alone.

[yallerdawg]

228. Again with the guest thing?

You're a member of the community, you create the content, and you pay for the privilege to post!

You may even enforce standards and guidelines!

I'd say you are also one of the reasons many of us continue to remain in the community!

[MineralMan]

24. Dude! It's not YOUR tent. Really.

This tent was erected by the folks who own and operate DU. We're just guests here. I'm just a guest, and so are you.

We disagree on some points. That's OK, see. That's how this place works.

[yallerdawg]

32. I'm speaking of the Democratic Party.

And tolerance. And inclusion.

Our core values.

[MineralMan]

36. This is the Religion Group. It's not about politics.

GD is about politics. Democrats come in all flavors of religious beliefs, and even in no flavor at all. The "Big Tent" is open to everyone, regardless of their attitudes toward religion.

[yallerdawg]

55. I don't check my core values at the door.

Tolerance and inclusion.

That is a core value - political and religious.

[MineralMan]

60. Nor do I. If I criticize bigotry in the name of religion,

I am talking about bigots, not religious people in general. Christianity is also a big tent. It contains the full range of human error and faults, as do all big tents. Right now, we're dealing with a White House resident selected by religious bigots. Should I not criticize the kind of religious beliefs that lead to bigotry? I'm sorry, but I won't accept that limitation.

Any Christian who is not a bigot is not being targeted by any post I might write on Christian bigotry at all.

[yallerdawg]

70. But there are two sides to this coin.

The broad brush doesn't apply to everyone - and there has to be 'understanding' included.

The vast majority of Democrats are people of faith. Period.





http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/racial-and-ethnic-composition/

[MineralMan]

74. The converse, however, is not at all true.

The vast majority of people of faith are NOT Democrats. The division is pretty much equal. And on that note...

[AtheistCrusader]

82. Why did you post race while talking about political affiliation?

http://www.pewforum.org/interactives/religion-and-politics/

The data you seek was in this link, not what you posted.

Another way of looking at it, Atheists/Nones are the single largest 'religious' group in the Democratic party. Largest by an 8% margin.

You have to start lumping rival religions that otherwise have nothing to do with each other together to overcome our lead.

[yallerdawg]

95. Intolerance and bigotry has popped up in this OP thread frequently.

The vast majority of Democrats are people of faith, regardless of your twisty wordings.

Are you surprised most DU'ers avoid this Religion group like the plague?

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Facts are Twisty Wordings now. Thanks for that.

Sounds like something the orange road rage simian in the White House would say.

[yallerdawg]

104. You're implying a minority is the majority.

THAT is White House territory.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. You're trying to fabricate a bloc where there isn't one.

These people are Democrats, not Religious Democrats. Nor is a 'majority' an automatic good thing. How do you think Prop 8 passed in California? BECAUSE PEOPLE PUT RELIGION ABOVE/SEPARATE TO political affiliation.

A Democratic Catholic and a Democratic Mormon aren't necessarily going to vote the same as a Democratic Atheist on any given issue. You can add all the religions together within the party and say 'see, we bigger!' all you want, but it doesn't MEAN anything.

[MineralMan]

116. The Religion Group is one of the most popular Groups on DU.

Last edited Thu Dec 28, 2017, 06:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Go look at some others. It's popular because it's active. Most DU groups are pretty much dormant these days. Not Religion, though.

ETA: I just checked. The Religion Group is THE most active group on DU. By far. Go look for yourself:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forums

[yallerdawg]

186. It's the same cadre of posters over and over.

Considering how "freely" people are allowed to express themselves, in every other group most of us would be banned!

Half the "conversations" are at the famous Pee Wee Herman level, one-liner "I know you are, but what am I?"

There can be no substantive discussion on the subject of religion and faith.

"You can't prove it" is the very definition of faith - there really is no argument.

And yet the faithful see proof and evidence in every aspect of their lives!

Each of us has this in our lives - "I can't prove it, I just know it's true!"

[MineralMan]

188. Nevertheless, it remains the most active DU Group.

In reality, most posts everywhere on DU are made by a group of regular posters on the site. It's not a large group, either. But, many people read posts on DU's main forums. Many also read posts in the Religion Group, but choose not to post within the group.

There can be many substantive discussions on the subjects of religion and faith. Sadly, there are fewer of those than might be.

[Lordquinton]

225. If the faithful could have discussions in good faith

That may change. Sadly that has never been the case in this group. New faces, same bad faith from the faithful.

[sprinkleeninow]

248. My DU 'face' is renewed from the early 2000's when the mad cow-boy

shrub got selected to occupy our House.

Am I quilty of 'bad faith' flavored posts?

[Lordquinton]

266. If you feel I was talking about you

then maybe you should examine your behaviour.

[sprinkleeninow]

272. I'll go right now and examine my behaviour and my conscience

to see if I feel you were talking about me.

Nope. I don't feel QUILTY.

Just what exactly constitutes an acceptable post of 'good faith' as opposed to one of 'bad'?

[whathehell]

189. It's bigotry and bullying..

and we know what bigots and bullies are about.

[Eko]

5. Pretty Bad.

"As to secular governance, and as examples of secular societies with a history of massive violence, I suggest the following societies as my own examples of the author's point:
USSR,
Peoples Republic of China, and
North Korea.

All were founded as explicitly non-theistic societies where reilgion was prohibited or allowed but severely discouraged in a variety of ways. "

[Igel]

31. But in an argument by example,

they're valid examples.

"Xianity bad because Crusades" has as a proper rebuttal "Atheism bad because GULags."


Neither's much of a valid argument, but if you're in a poo-throwing contest you throw poo. I'd like to think we're above that, but in the end we're all primates who like to toss poo.


"Xianity bad because Crusades" is a proper rebuttal to things like, "Xianity is always good"--that 'always' cries out for a single counterexample--but it seems to be used mostly to buttress the claim "Xianity never good." It also assumes that there's a singular Xianity, and that all actions taken in its singular behalf by anybody follows from that one Xianity.

Then again, it's a discussion board. To start to begin to summarize the arguments in a reasonable way would easily exceed 1000 pages. Single spaced. Narrow margins. Ledger paper. Two sided. 4-point type. To do them justice would require far more.

[guillaumeb]

33. Actually from a response in another post.

My point, one I make regularly, is that violence is a characteristic of nearly every human society. And I make that point regularly when I read an unsupportable claim that religion is responsible for most of the violence in the world.

[longship]

81. Oh boy!

You forgot Nazi Germany and Cambodia under Pol Pot (sp?).

As to USSR, it was a totalitarian dictatorship built on top of a theocratic czarist dictatorship. Stalin was educated by those same theocrats. He knew what to do.

North Korea is a necrocrisy. They worship their only true leader, Kim il sung, who has been dead since 1994.

[Lordquinton]

226. Poll Pot based his views on buddist teaching

Ok, buddism is technically atheist, but splitting hairs here.

[longship]

253. That's what I was thinking, too. nt

[Voltaire2]

6. The post I was referring to started out "And the predictable attacks begin..."

You continuously refer to non-theists here as "the choir".

A recent post here claimed "The less religious a person is, the more intolerant and divisive they become." when asked to provide evidence, and shown data that clearly demonstrates just the opposite, the poster claimed that it was based on posts here in this group "Just looking through "Religion" OP's and comments" effectively calling non theists here a bunch of bigots.

Did you want more?

Nice call out by the way. More of your "christian morality"?

[yallerdawg]

10. Look through any post in support of faith...

and point out the supportive comments from the "non-theists" which demonstrate tolerance and inclusion.

"Bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."

[Lordquinton]

15. So anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot?

And people wonder why discussions never go anywhere. Thanks for the relevation, this post will surely get linked to many times.

[yallerdawg]

19. You just want to justify your intolerance.

Look at any post that has a positive or supportive message about faith, and there is the avalanche of attacks from the 'non-theists.'

If this isn't 'intolerance,' I don't know what is.

Most of my comments are on threads I started - in defense, in response, in debate regarding the attacks on MY thread. THIS is what you call bigoted?

[Mariana]

28. Criticism is not intolerance.

Those words mean different things. Expressing disagreement is not intolerance. Argument is not intolerance. Differing interpretations of written material is not intolerance. Asking awkward questions is not intolerance. Pointing out logical fallacies and dishonesty is not intolerance. Etc.

You choose to post in a group that permits those things. No one here has tried to shut you up. No one has repeatedly alerted on you, or tried to get you banned from this group. No one has said or implied that you don't belong here, or that your presence here is offensive. No one has been intolerant of you.

[guillaumeb]

40. What do you think the poster meant by the comment referred to in the OP?

The part about theists and the supposed comment about "atheists badz"?

What point could the poster be making?

[Lordquinton]

64. Something taken out of context

Theists are good at that.

[guillaumeb]

69. A very weak response.

I included the post, and a link to the original thread.

You might wish to try again.

But the claim is unsupported, and so far, no non-theist has addressed the claim, admitted that it is unsupported, or even tried to clarify it.

Is it fair to assume that you agree with the claim?

[Lordquinton]

227. Yea, I do agree with it

Just go up a couple posts to where one of your chiormate's called anyone who disagrees with him a bigot.

[guillaumeb]

243. Feel free to validate it with actual examples.

Actual examples of the meme. I have been called many names by non-theists here. Should I condemn non-theists as hostile to theists?

[Lordquinton]

264. You would just be the latest in a centuries

well, 300,000 year according to your claims, line of theists who condemn non-theists as hostile to theists. Of course we can just shrug you off, you can't actually burn us at the stake anymore. Well, not in the US at least.

You are blinded by your privilege.

[guillaumeb]

270. Lend me a light.

Or shine a light.

[Lordquinton]

283. Shining a Spotlight

that's what we're trying to do here.

[yallerdawg]

58. I have no problem with differing opinion and argument.

You did make it clear that you feel you could "alert" or "ban" me, that I could be "shut up."

This you define as your proof of tolerance. You "allow" me to post here.

How magnanimous of you. Thank you so much.

[Lordquinton]

67. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about

In regards to the post you just replied to.

Which seems right, as you just called everyone who disagrees with you a bigot.

Congratulations on bringing this forum to a new low.

[yallerdawg]

77. A new low?

In this OP thread, I am identified as "worst offender," "childish," "privileged," "intolerant," and "vile."

The post I replied to cannot be seen as anything but a veiled threat.

And now I am "a new low."

Is this the debate and argument you want (rhetorical question)?

Or is it just personal attack time?

[Lordquinton]

229. You and G always toss in a personal attack

Past theists did the same thing. One banned poster would always respond with outright agressikn and hatered when discussion was attempted.

The things that the poster described have happened to people here and across the internet and they are not happening here, it was not a threat.

They were pointing out that no one is being intolerant of you, and you jump immediately to "I'm being threatened" what was the term used? "White house talk?"

[yallerdawg]

239. Personal attack. Ouright aggression. Hatred.

You have GOT to be kidding, right?

And trotting out that "banned" thing again? No threat there, of course.

I often respond in kind, which for me is the "spirit" of the conversation. If you want to get personal, snarky, threatening - I'm assuming that is the rules of the game.

I'm not all that new to DU. I understand the "purpose" of provoking posters, getting them to "cross that line."

Fortunately, the administrators tend to look at the ENTIRE conversation - and side with the "provoked" quite often!

[sprinkleeninow]

169. I was poked fun at.

[sprinkleeninow]

252. And some of my posts labeled 'folksy'.

YEE HAW! 🤠

[guillaumeb]

37. And the "atheists badz" claim?

Will that also be held up as "proof" of DU theistic intolerance?

Please! The totally unproven claim is a prime example of why some people avoid this forum.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. You haven't been around here long.

I recall the days when offering the sort of data you requested resulted in accusations of maintaining stalker-like dossiers on posters.

[guillaumeb]

90. I understand that.

But, if the original poster had not made the actual post, and more like it..........................

[MineralMan]

118. Then, perhaps, a more effective strategy would be to take it up

with that poster in the thread where it occurs. I have no idea whatsoever what person or thread you're talking about.

[guillaumeb]

125. The actual post, and the link,

are referenced in this post at the top part where I made my points.

[MineralMan]

185. That was not so when it was originally posted.

[guillaumeb]

208. A fragment was originally provided, absent a link.

And I indicated that it was edited in text.

[MineralMan]

212. Yes, I remember that very well.

[trotsky]

18. Brilliant response. n/t

[guillaumeb]

22. I do not refer to non-theists in general as "the choir".

The reference is to a very very few, a small subset of non-theists here, with incredibly similar responses.

So where are the "atheists badz" comments actually at? Personally, I see far more "religious people badz" responses here than what you claimed.

[trotsky]

63. LOL

“If one person says you have a tail you can probably ignore it, however, if two or three people say you do, then you better turn around and look.” – Anonymous. Also cited by a famous sailor.

Naw, easier to just dismiss a bunch of different individuals with a generalization. Oh, wait, that's what you were just criticizing someone ELSE for doing.

Awkward.

[guillaumeb]

65. Which of course says nothing about the actual subject.

I understand why some wish to avoid it, because it is so blatant an attempt at mis-framing. Another illustration of how actual debate is avoided by some.

[trotsky]

73. "actual debate"

I wish you'd actually try that for once.

Go ahead, insult me again. Illustrate another of Schopenhauer's list items.

[guillaumeb]

76. Keep avoiding the cited post.

And focus on other things.

I understand.

[trotsky]

78. The cited post doesn't say what you claim it does.

That's why I have dismissed your ridiculous claim.

[guillaumeb]

80. Right.

So the post that I fully copied, and the accompanying link, literally do not exist on DU?

Now that is an interesting line of argument. And easily refuted by simply clicking on the link and reading the copied post in the original thread.

Speaking of ridiculous...............

[trotsky]

84. Does context matter, gil?

I welcome everyone to read the full CONTEXT of the discussion in which that post appeared, and draw their own conclusions instead of simply accepting yours, as you demand everyone should.

I sadly missed that thread because I have the poster on ignore. But fortunately DU will still let me visit links to the thread that people post. I can see the context in which the post was made. No reasonable person would think that Voltaire2 meant what you are claiming s/he did. You are being dishonest and vicious for absolutely no reason other than to promote yourself, and put down others.

Consider some self-reflection here, gil. What are you really trying to do? Does this thread foster actual debate? Or are you just singling out an individual to attack them for saying something they didn't really say?

[guillaumeb]

86. Right again.

Double plus right, in fact.

Nice try.

[guillaumeb]

88. Another post from the same thread:

Voltaire2 (1,704 posts)
8. So faith is like psychotic rage?

Or just nice emotions? How about obsessive and unwanted love? Is faith like that?

My dogs have dreams, probably of unseen bunnies.

Yes, fostering actual debate indeed.

[trotsky]

89. You claim to want actual debate.

Do it. Show everyone how it's done.

Right now you're continuing to single out a DUer, taking their posts out of context, and bashing them (and by extension, other atheists) to try and raise yourself up.

It's not very cool behavior, gil.

Show us how you want people to behave.

Can you?

[guillaumeb]

91. Address the actual posts, and explain how they should be taken.

As to the charge of taking out of context, the actual post and the link to the thread are included so anyone who wishes can read the actual thread. And all of the posts.

For actual debate, it is productive to refrain from ad hominem tactics and other debate inhibiting tactics, such as were discussed in another recent post about debate techniques.

[guillaumeb]

93. And, from your earlier response:

No reasonable person would think that Voltaire2 meant what you are claiming s/he did. You are being dishonest and vicious for absolutely no reason other than to promote yourself, and put down others.


Interesting response.

[trotsky]

97. I stand by every word I wrote.

I have dealt with you enough to make my own judgments when it comes to the behavior I have observed.

I gave you a chance to demonstrate what you claim you want to see, and you responded as I knew you would.

[guillaumeb]

100. I believe you. eom

[Lordquinton]

231. What definition of "believe" are you using here?

You use several so we need to know which one you are using here.

[Voltaire2]

94. This aspect of the claim that "faith is like emotion" was left un-argued.

Instead it was dismissed, apparently as it didn't fit into the meme of the "bad atheist" who just jumps in to wreck all the nice threads about how beautiful religion is.

Try to engage in dialog and our friends run away as soon as it gets beyond platitudes. They then return, as in this op, not to discuss issues about religion, but to attack people who regularly post here.

[guillaumeb]

96. I asked you to explain your previous post,

the one with the "atheists badz" claim.

Feel free to explain what you really meant, and how such techniques foster debate.

And in your response here, you reword the "atheists badz" meme to "bad atheist". You are consistent.

[Voltaire2]

99. I did explain it. The poster I responded to drops into this forum to denounce atheists

"And the predictable attacks begin..." - who do you think that was referring to? Do you need a clue? Oh, you do. "Atheists Badz" was "hyperbole". Obviously the phrase itself was not used. Need more clues? Perhaps a sacrifice to the Great Clue Fairy will bring forth an intercession.

[guillaumeb]

102. Another claim.

Yes, you are consistent.

Cultivez votre proper jardin, M. Arouet.

[MineralMan]

218. Did you mean "votre propre jardin?"

I don't believe "proper" is what you meant to say...

In fact, it is a misquote either way, if you're quoting Voltaire. The phrase you are probably thinking of is "Il faut cultiver notre jardin" which is typically translated as "We must manage our own affairs."

However, "propre" would be a good substitute for "notre" in that sentence, of course, changing the meaning to "One must manage one's own affairs."

I don't believe "proper" is a French word at all.

Perhaps autocorrect has changed things you did not wish to be changed. Who can say?

Sincerely,

Dr. Pangloss

[trotsky]

106. You need to link a post from EACH and EVERY theist on DU that has the literal phrase "atheists badz"

Because as everyone OBVIOUSLY can see, that's exactly what you meant by your post.

[Lordquinton]

232. Reworded?

Are you some kind of "atheists badz" literalist?

[guillaumeb]

161. The meme returns in this post.

" the meme of the "bad atheist" who just jumps in to wreck all the nice threads about how beautiful religion is. "

[Lordquinton]

230. Maybe he felt those other things were the real content

Why are you projecting motives onto him?

[guillaumeb]

245. Perhaps he did.

But again, no examples were provided.

[Lordquinton]

265. Maybe he thought you were following along the conversation

and could recall threads you posted/participated in within the last week? Too much to ask? I know you think the world started last tuesday, but when it's referring to a post you commented in the same day...

[Voltaire2]

92. I had to look that up. Yes indeed.

[trotsky]

101. If we could convert irony to energy,

I'm pretty sure gil's threads could power the entire country.

[guillaumeb]

135. From one of your posts:

It seems that our theistic friends here don’t wish to have the claims they make here discussed and examined. Instead they like to waltz in to pronounce “atheists badz”
and then make some poorly thought out pontification,
and when that is questioned act astounded that on a discussion board the statements one makes might be discussed.


The ultimate in irony, correct?

[Voltaire2]

141. Its the same post. Must have struck a nerve.

You seem obsessed with it.

You seem obsessed with attempting to demonstrate “atheists badz” instead of discussing religion.

Sad.

[guillaumeb]

145. What is sad is that you complain of what you actually demonstrate.

And others try to defend it. That is sad.

Sad, and ironic.

[Voltaire2]

147. Utter bullshit.

You really should stop.

[guillaumeb]

148. I agree with your first phrase.

More unintended irony.

Alternatively, explain what you actually meant, and why you wrote it that way. Perhaps I am totally confused.

[Voltaire2]

151. Ive explained it here in this thread several times.

I suggest that you have become obsessed and are engaged in some bizarre campaign against me. Please stop. Do yourself a favor.

[guillaumeb]

152. You made an unsupported claim.

And now you are accusing me of engaging in a campaign because I highlighted that baseless claim. Do yourself a favor and abandon this defense.

Bizarre indeed. Good bye.

[Voltaire2]

155. I suggest you step away.

Your obsession with me has become bizarre.

[Eko]

8. You should watch this.

There is a lot of killing there, and it aint limited to the USSR, China and Korea. Matter of fact, there's a whole bunch of killin going on from the US, GB, and Germany. Lots and Lots of civilians getting dead there. Mighty Christian of us, at least old testament, carpet bombing cities. So you can point all the fingers you want while not pointing backwards of course, wouldn't be prudent,, 20 million civilian deaths,most from religious countries. Interesting.

[guillaumeb]

25. Proving that all humans are violent.

No matter if the country is theist or non-theist, or any blend of the 2. And I have made that point repeatedly here.


But the actual post concerned a claim by another poster that theists are making a claim that "athesits badz", and as much as some here apparently feel that is correct, the actual posts here do not support the hyperbolic claim.

[trotsky]

50. Not all humans are violent.

Though some ideas help foster and encourage violence in people who might not normally have been violent.

[trotsky]

17. Some absolutely are.

"So in the interest of furthering my understanding, I would ask any poster here who can come up with recent examples of such theistic intolerance by theist posters at DU."

Considering your absolute refusal to cite YOUR claims of past activity in this forum, I don't think anyone has any obligation whatsoever to indulge you.

[guillaumeb]

26. Another unproven claim.

Did you read the MM post about Schopenauer and the various ways of controlling debate?

The totally hyperbolic claim of "atheists badz" made by a non-theist certainly illustrates what Schopenauer was talking about.

[trotsky]

42. Unproven, like all of yours you mean?

Sure thing, gil. Though what's hilarious here is that you're basically illustrating the "atheists badz" meme with this thread. Good job!

[guillaumeb]

45. Now claim victory, and that I was humiliated, and I will get a DU Bingo.

Schopenauer would recognize your tactics.

[trotsky]

48. Congrats! You have a new favorite meme!

Schopenhauer would be proud!

[guillaumeb]

51. So you approve of broad brush attacks on theists?

Okay.

[trotsky]

53. Welp, looks like another irony meter bites the dust.

Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted.

Hide your conclusion from your opponent till the end. Mingle your premises here and there in your talk. Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order. By this circuitious route you conceal your game until you have obtained all the admissions that are necessary to reach your goal.

If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him or her to carry it to its conclusion. Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.

If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had bearing on the matter in dispose. This may be done without presumption if the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.

Carry on, gil. I am having a wonderful time observing you.

[MineralMan]

57. Schopenhauer was a genius at recognizing things.

His satirical list is, of course, based on what people do, rather than what they should avoid doing. The longer version of his list, with additional explanations and examples is even more fun.

And now, the discussion has shifted once again. I love Schopenhauer's list. I've posted it in many places. And, of course, I've been caught by his points, myself. We all have.

[trotsky]

59. Of course, and in fact, I'd say his list actually describes most Internet arguments.

But when you come across someone that is both illustrating that list so perfectly, while simultaneously being so oblivious to what they're doing (or just not caring), it's truly a sight to behold.

[MineralMan]

62. Which is why I have posted that list on so many discussion forums

over the years. Do I amuse myself? Why, yes, I do.

[guillaumeb]

159. Posting and following are different things entirely.

[trotsky]

107. I'm just going to provide this for anyone interested.

This was me asking you to simply link to one of your OWN posts to back up one of YOUR claims.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218259249#post83

Your response says everything one needs to know about your demands to have someone else link to something you THINK they claimed.

[guillaumeb]

109. So you are admitting my points?

Good to know, but it really is obvious.

Another example of harmonious responses.

[trotsky]

110. If that's what you need to think, sure.

I posted it for the benefit of others though. Just to illustrate your consistency - or lack thereof.

[guillaumeb]

128. The post, again.

It seems that our theistic friends here don’t wish to have the claims they make here discussed and examined. Instead they like to waltz in to pronounce “atheists badz” and then make some poorly thought out pontification, and when that is questioned act astounded that on a discussion board the statements one makes might be discussed.

[trotsky]

277. Out of context, again.

You be you, gil. Keep on being an exemplary Christian and you'll continue to drive people away from religion. I love it.

[Lordquinton]

234. You should dig up the one where he was caught deleting posts

Of his that we're linked to.

And the follow-up one where he whined about being called on it citing the site guidelines there there were no consequences for doing so that one was hilarious, and cause for no one to ever link him a past post of his ever again.

[trotsky]

278. Totally.

Some of them I'll give him a pass on - like when he posted those daily devotionals from a homophobic site and eventually, after enough people complained to him, he finally deleted them.

[ollie10]

34. I never quite understood why anyone would care what beliefs someone would have

I am a Christian. But I never understood why people looked down on people of other brands of Christianity....or Buddhism....or Islam....or Judaism.....or atheism.....or agnosticism.

My view has been to each his own.

I hate it when someone looks down on a religion or atheism.

It is arrogance that causes the problems....not religion.....and not atheism.....and not agnosticism.

There are, unfortunately, arrogant Christians, arrogant theists of every stripe, and there are arrogant atheists and agnostics too.

Just believe what you choose to and don't look down on Christians, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims. or anyone else for their beliefs.

Is that difficult?

[guillaumeb]

38. Some prefer to blame others, or specific categories of others,

for all that is wrong.

And, as you stated, their are examples from theists and non-theists. But at DU specifically, I read far more insults and attacks from one side than the other.

[trotsky]

43. Right, I mean who cares that there are people who believe abortion is murder...

and are willing to kill abortion providers in order to stop it? I mean, totally harmless belief that has never led to anyone actually being killed, ever, right?

Who cares that some radical religionists believe they will be rewarded by god in the afterlife if they kill heretics? Well, maybe the 3000+ people who died on 9/11 might care, if they were alive to answer the question.

But really, let's not look down on ANY beliefs. Because that's the REAL problem, lack of respect for religion. Not the people who kill others according to their religious beliefs. Nope.

For those who need it:

[ollie10]

117. Why don't you chill out?

Religious people are not the only ones who have killed people. And they are not the only ones who have killed in the name of a cult like belief.

You are painting yourself out to be an intolerant person who cannot abide by the concept that people have a right to their own opinions.

Good luck with that. That is the type of crappy logic of those who think all Muslims are terrorists....

[trotsky]

119. "Religious people are not the only ones who have killed people."

I never claimed otherwise, so I don't know why you are attacking a straw man.

You said "I never quite understood why anyone would care what beliefs someone would have".

I gave you my answer: because some beliefs are very harmful. Religion isn't all sunbeams and rainbows and unicorn farts and happiness.

I'm not terribly surprised that you would turn around and attack me rather than acknowledge that some beliefs ARE harmful. But whatever. Hope you find peace. Attack me again if you want. Make claims about me that are false. I don't really care. Shows more about what kind of Christian you are than what kind of atheist (or human being) I am.

[progressoid]

120. Unicorn Farts. There's a scientific explanation for that too.

[ollie10]

121. We have differences.

You believe in orthodoxy. That is, certain ideas are orthodox (yours) while others are heretical or apostate or worse (the ideas you deem in your othodox opinion to be harmful).

While I do not have a very orthodox position....I think people's beliefs should be respected.

Oh well. You are entitled to your opinions, even though you don't think religious people are entitled to theirs. Pity

[Mariana]

122. You're being dishonest.

Trotsky has never said religious people aren't entitled to their opinions. He said some beliefs are harmful, which is not the same thing. Why did you lie?

[ollie10]

126. Not much different

Last edited Thu Dec 28, 2017, 11:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Let's put it this way.

I am a liberal democrat, so I can say this.

What if someone said liberal democrat is HARMFUL idea. Would that show ANY RESPECT FOR LIBERAL DEMOCRATS AT ALL? I rest mt case.

Hitler said Jewish religion was harmful.

On DU I read similar logic?pfft

[Lordquinton]

236. Comparing atheists to Hitler?

On DU? More likely than you might think.

In fact many theists are comparing atheists to Nazis in this thread... White house thinking, this Hitler comment...

I think the question in the OP has been answered many times over.

[yallerdawg]

256. You keep citing my RESPONSE upthread to this comment towards me:

"Sounds like something the orange road rage simian in the White House would say."

I believe I was just a shade more respectful with "White House thinking?"

In other words, "I'm rubber, you're..."

[Lordquinton]

268. You literally said you think people who disagree with you are bigots

[ollie10]

258. Not really.

Hitler thought the jewish religion was harmful. One of the posters here expanded that to include ALL religions!!!!!

Maybe shouldn't point out Hitler. Let's talk about Trump. Trump thinks Islam is harmful......

If you go about saying religions are harmful, you have bad company.

Yikes.....

My one and only point is that I think people's religious beliefs should be respected, theists and non-theists alike. I made that point and I was confronted with the idea that religious belief is harmful period. That, my friend, is what you call bigotry.

[Lordquinton]

267. Man, people are leaping out of the woodwork to call atheists bigots for expressing their opinions

while saying opinions (theists like to call them beliefs) should always be respected.

Does that seem like I'm min-representing the argument? Good, it's what you are doing so I'm just responding in kind.

[ollie10]

273. Yes, bigots are bigots

Last edited Tue Jan 2, 2018, 09:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Some bigots are theists. Some are atheists. The inverse is also true: Some theists are bigots. Some atheists are bigots.

Nasty people, whether they are atheists or theists.

Isn't it interesting how bigots think the "other side" has the bigotry?

[Lordquinton]

284. Well, it sure wasn't Trotsky

He even went out of his way to say "Some" and pointed to specific examples, then some theist came along and called him Hitler.

[ollie10]

285. My original post.....that created such a stir....among non-thests.....

I am a Christian. But I never understood why people looked down on people of other brands of Christianity....or Buddhism....or Islam....or Judaism.....or atheism.....or agnosticism.

My view has been to each his own.

I hate it when someone looks down on a religion or atheism.

It is arrogance that causes the problems....not religion.....and not atheism.....and not agnosticism.

There are, unfortunately, arrogant Christians, arrogant theists of every stripe, and there are arrogant atheists and agnostics too.

Just believe what you choose to and don't look down on Christians, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims. or anyone else for their beliefs.

Is that difficult?

=======

I guess it is that difficult....

[Lordquinton]

286. And Trotsky's original post... which created such a stir... among theists...

Right, I mean who cares that there are people who believe abortion is murder...

and are willing to kill abortion providers in order to stop it? I mean, totally harmless belief that has never led to anyone actually being killed, ever, right?

Who cares that some radical religionists believe they will be rewarded by god in the afterlife if they kill heretics? Well, maybe the 3000+ people who died on 9/11 might care, if they were alive to answer the question.

But really, let's not look down on ANY beliefs. Because that's the REAL problem, lack of respect for religion. Not the people who kill others according to their religious beliefs. Nope.

For those who need it:

And then you called him Hitler.

[ollie10]

287. No I didn't call him Hitler

If you are going to misrepresent what I have had to say, there is not point in continuing this discussion

He did call religious ideas "harmful"

This is a slippery slope.

When you attack groups, such as Jews or Muslims, because their religion is "harmful".....hell, it is really arrogant to call someone else's beliefs harmful.....

But whatever. I don't like it when religious extremists say nonbelievers are harmful......and I don't like it when non-theists are equally arrogant. When you are as arrogant as a religious extremist.....and call religious people harmful.....well that is projection

[Lordquinton]

288. You misrepresented what Trotsky said

And now that it's coming to bite you you run away?

Another reason why discussions are hard to have around here.

[ollie10]

289. So quote me....where did I say Trotsky was Hitler......?

You flat out said I did. HA!

[Lordquinton]

298. Ok

Hitler said Jewish religion was harmful.

On DU I read similar logic?pfft

There's the Hitler remark. Well the first one, then you swiveled to trump.

[ollie10]

300. So you failed.

I pointed out that bigots, such as trump and hitler, use the idea that religious ideas are harmful ...


I did NOT call someone hitler.

I don't like bigotry.....the bigotry of calling entire religions harmfyl.

[Lordquinton]

303. Of course saying that someone sounded exactly like hitler

And when called out on that, you changed course to trump, is completely different. You must be one of those literalists your friend talks about so much.

You can't even keep consistent within the same post, you start off with trump and Hitler saying religious ideas are harmful, then switch to "entire religions" which is something no one said.

I think it's worse when someone constructs a strawman around someone's argument then label them a bigot for something that they never said.

[ollie10]

291. My point was we should respect ideas....religious, non-religious, we should be respectful

Trotsky came out and said.....what about all those harmful ideas the theists have?

You can run around in circles all you want, but my position is and always has been that we should respect each other's ideas, religious or non-religious. Whereas this got other people upset because of their belief that religious beliefs are harmful.

To each his own. I think the narrowmindedness of one group is just as big as the other. The only difference is that one group narrowmindedly calls the other narrowminded.

[MineralMan]

292. When religious beliefs cause harm to others, then they deserve contempt.

When religious beliefs support racism or slavery, then contempt is the only appropriate response.

There are many other examples that could be offered.

A blind acceptance of evil done in the name of religion is deplorable at best and evil in itself at worst.

[ollie10]

293. but religious beliefs do not ipso facto cause harm

any more than non-religious beliefs cause harm.

Racism is bad, granted. So, are all theists racist? Are all non-theists non-racist? How about those who because of their religion consider racism a sin? Does that not fit?

[MineralMan]

294. That is utter nonsense.

That is all.

[ollie10]

297. Do you have a reasoned ....never mind

[ollie10]

302. I am not standing up for evil.

Racism is evil. It is also pretty inconsistent for a religious person to hate reaces. If they believe god created blacjs, browns, whites in god's image....then racism is blasphemy against god.
Similarly, fouling our planet is blasphemy.

Racists try to use religion to excuse their hate...but most religions teach love not hate

It is the extremists who foul things up

If religion teaches hate, you would expect priests to be more hatefull than others. The people of the cloth I have known are more kind, gentle, educated, and loving than most. They also crave social justice issues. And tend to be more liberal than theur flock

[ollie10]

308. Do you blame racism and slavery on religion?

OK. Take a visit to a local church. Any church. Talk to a lot of congregants. Choose any you want to. And ask them their views on slavery. Report back to us on how many say they are in favor of slavery.

One would think, if religion supports slavery, as you imply, then there would be a lot of religious folks who openly support slavery! Hate to burst your bubble, but I go to church and I have never talked to anyone who advocates slavery. Heck, I am social security age, so I have attended several churches in my day, and I can't recall a single sermon advocating slavery.

As for racism and bigotry, most religions teach love not hate. Yes, there are racists among religious people. But ....hello....wake up and smell the coffee....there are racists among non-religious people too. Donald Trump is not particularly religious, but his racism is documented. I dare say he didn't pick that up from any sermons he heard. And, come to think of it, I can't remember any sermons that I have heard advocating racism either.

Racism and support of slavery are harmful, I don't dispute that. And many religious people are racists. However, we must remember that the cock crowing at dawn does not cause the sunrise, and likewise we cannot blame racism on the Gospel of Love any more than we can blame it on any other group of people in our society, including non-religious groups.

I could argue that people who use their religion to make excuses for their racism are not being religious enough. If they actually followed the dictates of their religion (virtually any religion) they would follow the path of love. not racism. Every religion has the golden rule as one of their dictates.....hard to follow the golden rule and be a racist.

I would recommend that bigotry against religious people, regardless of what religion they follow, as well as bigotry against non-religious people should be worthy of comtempt. Not for being religious, or for being non-religious, that is not the issue. Bigotry is bigotry.

[Lordquinton]

299. So we should respect the harmful ideas?

And you misrepresent Trotsky again right here, he actually did say "some" to attempt to stop the usual derailment that happens when the bad stuff is brought up, sadly someone had to try it anyways, and then we went to "atheists badz" like the OP was asking.

[ollie10]

301. If you disagree with an idea, refute it

Simply saying religious ideas are harmful....well that us such a gross over-generalization......

[Lordquinton]

304. Ok, Trotsky did

He laid out several, and got called a bigot for it.

Again why discussion can't happen.

[ollie10]

305. No. He attacked religious ideas as harmful

He did not support his preposterous claim.

[Lordquinton]

307. I guess it was a couple days ago

and are willing to kill abortion providers in order to stop it? I mean, totally harmless belief that has never led to anyone actually being killed, ever, right?

Who cares that some radical religionists believe they will be rewarded by god in the afterlife if they kill heretics? Well, maybe the 3000+ people who died on 9/11 might care, if they were alive to answer the question.

But really, let's not look down on ANY beliefs. Because that's the REAL problem, lack of respect for religion. Not the people who kill others according to their religious beliefs. Nope.

I never claimed otherwise, so I don't know why you are attacking a straw man.

You said "I never quite understood why anyone would care what beliefs someone would have".

I gave you my answer: because some beliefs are very harmful. Religion isn't all sunbeams and rainbows and unicorn farts and happiness.

I'm not terribly surprised that you would turn around and attack me rather than acknowledge that some beliefs ARE harmful. But whatever. Hope you find peace. Attack me again if you want. Make claims about me that are false. I don't really care. Shows more about what kind of Christian you are than what kind of atheist (or human being) I am.

[ollie10]

306. Not even close

[trotsky]

275. LOLOLOL

Well now I know where to file you. Your insults and mischaracterizations of what I believe are laughable. Thank you for exposing your bias.

[Igel]

41. Some are, some aren't.

And some of what people call "intolerance" is disdain or disagreement.

Disdain or disagreement these days is often perceived as intolerance. If you don't celebrate what I am and encourage me in solidarity and good will it's obviously entailed that you hate me and want to incarcerate me in the 7th level of hell, right under Satan's butthole and next to Trump, you intolerant pus-filled bubo. Right? It's like a Monty Python skit where we're all the performers.

I freely disagree with all kinds of people.

Heck, I freely disagree with myself. I know my philosophy isn't consistent. I have odd, discordant facts sticking out all over the place, and odd, discordant things-I-like-to-think-of-as-facts in even greater numbers. I rather enjoy that sea-urchin of a worldview, actually.

It doesn't help that many facts I've used to build my philosophy were later disconfirmed. If the facts turned out to be not-quite factual, what hope do the things-I-like-to-think-of-as-facts have?


I also tend to be sarcastic and sometimes snarl. Oops. My finger-filter usually revises "snarl" to "snark." I actually view it as a happy happenstance that they differ by one letter shifted a mere one position in the arbitrary, conventional ordering we place them in in both the alphabet and on the QWERTY keyboard (but not the Dvorak keyboard).

Sadly, there is no English word "snarm". But there should be.

[guillaumeb]

44. True, but yours is a nuanced view.

And some obviously prefer a simpler view.

Some might read my use of italics for the word simpler to be an indication of sarcasm on my part, but I simply like to exercise my fingers by italicizing and/or highlighting certain words.

Snarm? Charm and snarl?

[longship]

68. Let's start with your lying sig line.

Delete it. Then we can discuss theist intolerance.

First remove yours.

[Irish_Dem]

103. I'll take a moral atheist any day over a bigoted religious zealot.

People have a right to believe or not believe.

[guillaumeb]

108. True, but when people frame in this manner,

can it possibly lead to any real dialogue?

[trotsky]

111. "in this manner"

You mean like in the manner of singling out a DUer, taking a post of theirs out of context, assuming a meaning, and blasting them for making a blanket attack on others that didn't really happen?

I agree. Dialog is difficult when people frame like that.

[Irish_Dem]

113. Are you talking about one of my posts Trotsky? nt

[trotsky]

114. Nope. n/t

[Irish_Dem]

115. Good. Thanks. nt

[guillaumeb]

124. No, the reference was to Voltaire's "atheist badz" post.

Where he said theists call out atheists. No actual proof was provided. I copied the post and a ink to the original thread in one of my posts.

Edited to add:

This is the post:

It seems that our theistic friends here don’t wish to have the claims they make here discussed and examined. Instead they like to waltz in to pronounce “atheists badz” and then make some poorly thought out pontification, and when that is questioned act astounded that on a discussion board the statements one makes might be discussed.

[Irish_Dem]

171. Thanks for clarifying this...

[guillaumeb]

123. And when has this happened?

The post was clearly written, and the original poster has not denied it.

A very weak attempt on your part.

[trotsky]

276. Ooh, I struck a nerve again.

Go figure.

Be the change you want to see, gil.

[Irish_Dem]

112. What about the framing don't you like? nt

[guillaumeb]

130. This is the post:

It seems that our theistic friends here don’t wish to have the claims they make here discussed and examined. Instead they like to waltz in to pronounce “atheists badz” and then make some poorly thought out pontification, and when that is questioned act astounded that on a discussion board the statements one makes might be discussed.

It makes it seem as if theists are doing this at DU, and when I asked the original poster to provide any proof, he did not. Now another prolific poster in this group is trying to say that this was not an actual claim of Voltaire's.

The irony is that Voltaire is doing exactly what he complains theists are doing.

[Voltaire2]

154. Your behavior here is obsessive and disturbing.

You should stop.

[Irish_Dem]

172. These tactics remind me of someone.

Don't fall for the bait Guillaume.

[guillaumeb]

207. Thank you for the reminder. eom

[Irish_Dem]

262. They can wave a hook at you.

Don't bite on it.

[whathehell]

140. Um, but how 'about a moral believer over a bigoted atheist?

Try that on for size..

[Irish_Dem]

173. Religion or non religion does't matter.

That is beside the point.

The point is can we be decent human beings, with character, integrity, and a moral core.
Belief in a god has nothing to do with that.

[whathehell]

175. Not "beside the point" when the entire thread

is devoted to rabid atheists trashing Christianity, um.."religion" for sport. Fuck them and their "selective" bigotry.

[Irish_Dem]

176. Some people like to fight....

especially on a popular forum, with popular posters.

[whathehell]

179. Yeah..

and some people really need to be with the "cool kids" even at the expense of their principles. They're pathetic.

[Irish_Dem]

180. Yes. Don't match their energy.

Hit the ignore button....

Save your energy for the real evil out there....

[whathehell]

181. I don't like bullies, especially those who pretend to be "progressives"

and I don't back away from them.

[Irish_Dem]

182. I agree totally.

I tend to stand up to bullies, but have learned to be a bit more
selective. But one day I will wrestle with them here I am sure.
In the meantime I just put the trouble makers on Ignore.

[Lordquinton]

237. What thread is that?

Cause this thread is the exact opposite.

[Irish_Dem]

174. A moral atheist is better than a moral theist??

The atheist has no one telling him to be a good person.
He does it because it is the right thing to do.

??

[whathehell]

177. Huh?

Absolutely nothing to prove that the non-atheist does not ALSO do it because it's the "right thing"" and it just happens to conflate with a religion...As a former believer, now agnostic, I can assure you my moral code has never changed.

[Irish_Dem]

178. Yes, same with me. nt

[stonecutter357]

127. WHAT A wast of time ..........

[guillaumeb]

133. I am happy that you enjoyed it. eom

[stonecutter357]

139. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a National Treasure .......

[guillaumeb]

143. He is an expert in his field.

That does not automatically make him an expert in anything else.

[marylandblue]

201. He has more than one field

His background is in astrophysics, but much of his career has been in science education, which includes, among other things, philosophy of science, which itself includes, among other things, science and religion.

[sprinkleeninow]

249. He was on ' The Match Game' last nite and he's got a way cool personality

for a scientist. He 'got down' and 'got giggy".

[whathehell]

129. .When I see entire threads dedicated to the mockery & insult of Atheists

instead of believers (mainly Christian), I might give this claim a second's consideration.

In the meantime, I'd suggest those asserting this notion look up the word "projection".

[guillaumeb]

131. It is ironic and obvious.

To many here.

[whathehell]

132. It should be.

and given DU rules, there should be more done about it. It really sours the air.

[Lordquinton]

238. He says

Posting in a thread dedicated to the mockery and insult of atheists.

[StTimofEdenRoc]

137. While I am not a member of "The Holy Sea" I will quote Pope Francis

The disciples, Pope Francis explained, "were a little intolerant," closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that "those who do not have the truth, cannot do good." "This was wrong... Jesus broadens the horizon." Pope Francis said, "The root of this possibility of doing good - that we all have - is in creation."

http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077

[guillaumeb]

138. Welcome to DU, and this conversation.

Intolerance is much discussed here, but little understood by some it seems.

[StTimofEdenRoc]

142. Thank you

I am not sure I should have joined this conversation, but ...



“And so it goes...”
Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

[marylandblue]

156. Please define "intolerance"

Dictionary.com provides the following possible definitions:


1. lack of tolerance; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own.
2. unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect persons of a different social group, especially members of a minority group.

#1 appears too broad, since it would apply to almost any disagreement. #2 could apply, when the arguments gets overheated and some of us make disrespectful comments, as often happens on any internet board where controversies occur.

Merriam Webster supplies the following:

a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights

a. and b. would both meet my own definition of intolerance, but seem inapplicable here, since nobody's free expression or other other rights are being denied.

[guillaumeb]

158. I asked a question based on a post.

A post that, based on your #1, broadly suggests intolerance by theists at DU for atheists.

So I asked for proof, and I asked a question.

[marylandblue]

160. Based on defintion #1, I've never seen a truly tolerant internet board

And this group is certainly not an exception.

[guillaumeb]

162. True, but if one chooses to make a claim,

and reference that claim in a following response, others might question the claim.

And if we truly desire dialogue, this type of tactic is guaranteed to not result in actual dialogue.

I do not call atheists bad, nor have I read such talk from posters here in the time that I have been here. So making an assertion that it does happen, or that it is a meme here, is a hindrance to actual dialogue and is intended, in my view, to put others on the defensive.

Perhaps it demonstrates an intolerance for dialogue.

[marylandblue]

163. Voltaire2 can be rather harsh, but he did have a point

And I did not find TreasonousBastard's prior comment about "predictable attacks" to be particularly conducive to dialogue either.

[guillaumeb]

164. What do you feel that the point was?

Your personal opinion.

[marylandblue]

166. That classifying faith as an emotion does not lead to a higher truth

Emotions can be dangerous, they can blind us. They tell us what we feel, but they don't tell us the truth.

[guillaumeb]

205. Faith is not, in my view, "truth" in that it rests on what

cannot be proven. But if that was the point, it would have been better in my view to not wrap it in a claim about theists at DU that has nothing to do with that point.

[marylandblue]

210. He was responding to TreasonBastard's failure to defend the view in the article

Just because it would have been better to say it differently, doesn't mean he is being intolerant.

But if faith does not lead to any kind of truth, then why believe things that aren't true?

[guillaumeb]

211. We all believe in things that are unprovable.

Prove that love exists. Or patriotism.

[marylandblue]

213. I believe love and patriotism exist because I can feel it

And other people act in ways consistent with the same feelings. I also believe faith exists for the same reasons. But I don't believe that feelings of love, patriotism or faith mean the objects of those feelings exists. A person can love Princess Leia, be a patriot of Narnia and have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. None of those things exist, but the feelings can be real.

[guillaumeb]

214. Yes, you categorize those feelings as love.

But what you feel and categorize are specific to you.

And if you drop a hammer and it falls to the ground, you can observe the action and make a judgment.

[marylandblue]

216. As I said, the feelings are real, but the object of those feelings need not be

I am not sure how your answer is responsive to that point.

[guillaumeb]

241. Your feelings are undoubtedly "real", to you.

Different from the "reality" of gravitational attraction.

[marylandblue]

244. Feelings are also physically real

We can see certain areas of the brain light up and measure physiological changes when people feel fear, for example.

But I can see you might want to make feelings not "real" so that you can maintain an unreal belief in a real God. I understand.

[sprinkleeninow]

251. I saw somewhere in that a brain was examined at autopsy and

the person was known to be exposed to a spiritual conditioning/environment (I assume 'Christian'), and their brain was way different in a positive condition than someone not, mb someone incarcerated with no nurturing.

[marylandblue]

254. I suppose it's possible there is some benefit to a spiritual life

but I can't imagine what they would see on an autopsy to show rhat.

[sprinkleeninow]

255. I might've had it somewhat amiss.

It could've been a brain scan of a comatose person who lived in a spiritual environment and of one who knowingly did not. You could see an extraordinarily different pattern.

Somebody help me out with this?

A mini circus is what's going down in our household each day at this time!

[Voltaire2]

190. We just had a long discussion here about the vileness of the Exodus myth

perhaps you weren't paying attention?

By the way thanks for providing another example of theists who pop in here to pronounce "atheists badz", make some ill thought out pronouncement and then disappear.

[whathehell]

191. No, perhaps I haven't noticed an "Exodus holiday".

I stand by my statements.

[Voltaire2]

192. It is called "passover" in english.

Bless you.

[whathehell]

193. Yeah, and like Yom Kippur, I see NO threads devoted to trashing it.

Next.

[guillaumeb]

259. Again?

Sigh.

[MineralMan]

194. You may have noticed that none of those other holidays have angry

white people insisting that we celebrate them. Or, you may not have noticed that.

Say Merry Christmas, Dammit!

[yallerdawg]

195. You have one dumbass in the White House...

a couple propagandists on a cable news channel...

and the rest of America scratching our heads in bewilderment.

Check posts in support of faith - at Christmas! - and you'd think there really is a War on Christmas!

[MineralMan]

196. It IS silly, isn't it?

But, there's nobody clamoring about any of those other religious celebrations at all. It seems as though only the most dominant religion gets all the persecution somehow. Isn't that odd?

[yallerdawg]

197. Most religions aren't as tolerant as Christianity.

The other two Abrahamic offshoots get rather irritated and violent when they are disparaged in any way.

I don't have to draw you a picture - do I?

[MineralMan]

198. Well, as long as it's not a picture of Muhammed, it should be OK.

[whathehell]

199. Um, I don't know any of those "angry white people". Do you

or have you just heard about them on TV?

[MineralMan]

200. Yah, I do know some of them.

They're really, really annoying, too. I'm surprised you haven't encountered any of them.

[whathehell]

202. Have they ever insisted that you say "Merry Christmas" instead of

"Happy Holidays"?

[MineralMan]

204. Sure. That happens fairly frequently.

"Say Merry Christmas, Dammit!" You've never heard anyone say that? Really?

Often such people are easy enough to spot. When you do, you can just wish them a cheery "Happy Holidays!" to elicit their angry response. You can find them everywhere in the run-up to Christmas. Just try it next year.

[whathehell]

215. No, I really haven't, but I live in a blue state near the blue city

of Chicago...Do you live in a red state or area?

As I told another poster, I grew up in the religiously diverse city of Philadelphia among Catholics, Jews and Mainstream Protestants...They rarely, if ever discussed religion, and basically, not only got along, but sometimes even formed religion - oriented partnerships like the school uniform store my Catholic parish patronized, Eisenberg & O'Hara's. No one was out to convert anyone nor did anyone care what holiday greeting to use
or have the gall to insist they use another..

The closest personal exposure I've had to Fundies and/or an Evangelical was a run in with one at a demonstration in a rural area close to me...She was trying to explain to me why she was against Obama, and, closed our discussion, per nothing at all, with "The Lord Rules"!.. Riiight.

Beyond the VERY loose association of growing up in one of the many different Christian denominations, these people are foreign to me -- ,They seem to be mostly rural and I relate to urban people of all Faith's and none far more than them.

[MineralMan]

217. These days, there are fundies almost everywhere.

Here in the Twin Cities of Minnesota, we're fairly progressive politically in Minneapolis and St. Paul, but there are plenty of folks around who aren't. We have our pro-life billboards, etc., too. Some of the hundreds of churches that dot the landscape are bible-believin' fundamentalist enclaves.

We have "Christian" businesses, galore, as well, each with a Jesus fish in the window and an attitude inside the door. During December, venturing into any of them will get you a stern "Merry Christmas," spoken as a challenge when you pay for your goods. If you offer some other well-wishes, you're likely to get an argument.

See, just a couple of miles away, is the congressional district where Michelle Bachmann was elected. It's not a uniform sheltered, progressive place, the Twin Cities. You can find just about anything if you are aware of your surroundings.

[whathehell]

222. I don't think so, actually...The Midwest is different from the Mid-Atlantic

states, and I think Illinois may differ from Minnesota, too for whatever reasons..
A Jewish friend of mine from suburban Chicago visited Minnesota (area unknown) and someone, upon learning she was Jewish not only told her ""you don't look like one of them" but actually dredged up some medieval shit about "horns on her head_.Uh huh. She'd grown up in Illinois, but came away with a very different, less positive view of Minnesota.
As for Michelle Bachman, no, an idiot like that couldn't represent Illinois much less the Mid-Atlantic states of Pennsylvania or New York.

The larger point is this:. The Evangelical and Fundies, despite their high profile, represent a minority of Christians and likely NONE on this board..Bashing all Christians because of a minority is about as fair as judging all Muslims by ISIS.

[MineralMan]

233. Illinois is not just Chicago. There are Republican congressional

reps from Illinois and the southern part of the state is home to some very fundamentalist Christian folks. Parts of the state are also home to KKK organizations.

I think you mentioned Pennsylvania, earlier. It's also home to a number of Republican representatives. It also broke for Trump by a very narrow margin. Pennsylvania is also home to several hate organizations. http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/03/19/hate-groups-pennsylvania-splc/ There are many fundamentalist Christians in PA as well.

Every state has its conservative side.

[MineralMan]

280. A few have attempted to insist.

I'm a pretty stubborn guy, though. Actually, though, I tend to try to use the holiday celebrated by people as a greeting, if I know it. If not, I usually say, "Happy Holidays," to make sure I've got them covered. That has resulted in a few demands that I say, "Merry Christmas." When that happens, I just smile and walk away.

[Mariana]

271. They're definitely more common in some parts of the country

than in others. My daughter, working in a supermarket, was told that it's "unAmerican" to say Happy Holidays this year. That makes exactly one we've come across since we've lived in Massachusetts. In Texas, it was a different story.

Nothing makes one appreciate the love of Christ more than having some Christian snarl at you because you said the word Holiday to them in December - especially when they know you're on the clock and aren't in a position to tell them to fuck off.

[marylandblue]

219. Christianity is the religion most Americans were raised in and are familar with

So it's natural it would be the most common religion talked about on a board like this. But start a thread about whether Islam or Judaism are any better and I am sure you will get plenty of answers.

[whathehell]

220. and most of those are NOT Fundamentalists

who believe in "sky daddies""talking snakes" and the like.and while they love lobbing those cheap shots, it's actually a reflection of their own ignorance.and/ or sheer hostility.

[marylandblue]

221. The New Atheism attacks religion in general

But focuses most of its wrath on the fundamentalists. Personally, I don't have a problem with progressive religion. I am not sure why New Atheism does. Maybe they think progressive religion is just a watered down version and prettied-up version?

[Lordquinton]

240. So now we don't hate enough?

Thanks for that square on my atheist bingo card, getting closer!

[Mariana]

295. Also, we persecute Christians.

Although I'm sure that square on your atheist bingo card has already been filled many times.

[Lordquinton]

296. That's the free space

Want to keep the cards balanced.

[Tikki]

203. There are so many stars with planets in the sky above, but god (gods) loved......

only this one so he only put life here.



Tikki

[guillaumeb]

209. Indeed. eom

[PragmaticDem]

274. No.

[Brainstormy]

279. There's another group, you know

Atheists and Agnostics. I always assume that folks posting in this one are not anti-theist, or are at least are genial in regard to organized religions. I rarely post here but try to be diplomatic as well as sincere. I respect the believers if not the beliefs. But for anybody who gets beat up in this group, you can bring your wounds to the other group.

[guillaumeb]

281. A and A is limited to non-theists. eom

[Act_of_Reparation]

290. No, they're not.

"Tolerance" (i.e., to endure) describes rather aptly how many theists here approach atheists.

It's empathy and perspective they're lacking.