Agree or Disagree - The Religion Forum serves no purpose that the Atheists/Agnostics and Interfaith

[el_bryanto]

forum don't serve better. Thus we should just go our various ways.

Bryant

7 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Completely Agree
	1 (14%)
	Somewhat Agreee
	0 (0%)
	Somewhat Disagree
	0 (0%)
	Totally Disagree
	6 (86%)
	These bullshit polls reveal a thoughtless and dishonest mind.
	0 (0%)
	I like to vote!
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[hrmjustin]

1. I think we should continue talking to one another.

[el_bryanto]

2. And the evidence that this is beneficial is what precisely? nt

[hrmjustin]

3. Well considering the fact I have been friendly with some athiests in the forum I think

that is enough for me to come back.

An exchange of ideas is always good. I understand some members are not interesting in talking. I have my own faults such as not listening to others as best as I should.

[Common Sense Party]

51. Very often, though, we are not talking to each other. We are not speaking with each other.

We are talking AT another, or talking PAST another.

On both sides.

[hrmjustin]

52. Yes this is true.

Hopefully we all can do better including myself.

[skepticscott]

4. Of course it serves a purpose

that the other rooms don't. Who ever said it didn't? The other two rooms are safe havens, Religion isn't. The point that has been made is that for the people in Religion complaining about the "tone" and "civility" in that Group, there is no discussion of the kind they claim to want that can be had in Religion that can't be had in Interfaith.

Once again, you've posted a deeply disingenuous "poll" that misrepresents the issue at hand.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Of course it serves a purpose...

without it the few assholes who would rather argue and insult than discuss would pollute other forums.

[el_bryanto]

6. Does it serve a purpose for non-assholes to participate here, then? nt

[TreasonousBastard]

9. That too. This is occasionally a good place to have discussions about...

such things as religious vs secular thought in ethics.

[trotsky]

10. Isn't calling someone an asshole insulting them?

So therefore you just... uh.. well...

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Moment, bitte. I called no one an asshole, just...

suggested that there may be a few lingering about here.

(No doubt a jury is pondering just that as we speak.)

[el_bryanto]

14. He didn't specify which tribe was the asshole tribe

So I think he's ok, as you have to read into it to figure that out.

My money is on both tribes.

Bryant

[trotsky]

15. Well that seems to be in doubt.

Some clearly believe that everything is the "asshole atheist" tribe's fault and that everyone else is a saint and when they do asshole-like things it's only because they were forced to.

[el_bryanto]

16. And others believe that it's the believers tribe

Who are dishonest, thoughtless and disingenuous - all of which are asshole characteristics.

Bryant

[trotsky]

20. I just don't see that claim being made with nearly the frequency nor the intensity...

of the former. I'm perfectly willing to admit my bias and perhaps error, if you have some links.

[el_bryanto]

23. Links in this context would be calling out people

wouldn't it? I'm not sure there's a way I could do it and not get my post alerted on.

Bryant

[trotsky]

25. Bah, there have been callouts galore in many threads lately.

As a current host (s4p) pointed out, the "no call-outs rule" doesn't exist on DU3.

But you could PM them to me as well if you don't want to risk it.

[el_bryanto]

26. Fair enough - i'll put together some greatest hits. nt

[rug]

27. Which he will surely share and bookmark for an opportune moment.

Modus operandi.

[el_bryanto]

28. That implies that Trotsky is being disingenuous himself

Since I get terribly irritated at how often people accuse me of being disingenuous, I don't think I should make that assumption.

Bryant

[rug]

29. I'm not implying it, I'm stating it.

Modus operandi.

[el_bryanto]

35. If he shares it than I guess I'll have learned a valuable lesson. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

54. there is no rule against mentioning people by name or referencing posted messages.

"Ooo that would be a callout" is generally a weak way to avoid backing up an argument with facts.

[TM99]

7. I don't view it as going separate ways.

I view it as removing the battleground or the playground.

I already suggested this idea in the host voting thread. I still feel it is a good option.

The choice to more heavily moderate the forum will not be chosen as it does not fit DU3.

Safe-havens do not preclude members from either camp from posting and discussing with each other. It does, however, make sure that obvious trolls, toxic posters, and just the occasional asshole are stopped from disrupting discussions on topics.

I was told that it would cause issues with GD. Well I have seen plenty of contentious discussion on 'rape culture', 'patriarchy', guns vs knives, etc. that should be in those separate sub-groups (Gungeon & HOF) but are allowed to remain. They get heated and all adults seem to be able to handle it with the alert/jury system. I don't know why obvious religion/politic discussions can not be the same way. Other topics could just go to their respective and appropriate sub-forum.

But really snark aside and I have no problem admitting that after my buttons have been pushed enough I will push hard back, there is a pretty sad pattern in the Religion forum right now. A topic started by a believer will devolve quickly into how bad all religion is by a vocal minority of anti-theists. How can a discussion be had when there is a constant need by some to debunk, insult, and debunk further?

Topics started by non-believers and believers alike on atheist topics tend to be more agreeable. Why? Because at heart all progressives posting here are inclusive, anti-fundamentalist, agree that religion should not be endorsed by governments, etc.

The remaining topics posted by the anti-theists are insulting, mocking, and frankly sometimes just disturbing (like the new old meme about religion = mental illness). These are not discussion topics. These are mind games.

So what does the Religion forum provide that the other forums do not?

[el_bryanto]

8. From many DU Atheists perspective it is the believers who are the aggressors

Who are trying to get them to silence themselves and who are acting in hateful and dishonest ways.

That said I agree that the atmosphere is toxic.

Bryant

[trotsky]

12. Without snark, and without insulting me, could you answer one question:

Do you honestly feel that ALL the problems are caused SOLELY by those you label "anti-theists"?

It's rare to see such absolutist-type thought outside the realm of religious fundamentalists, so I wanted to make sure that was what you meant.

[TM99]

18. I have continued to use the label 'anti-theists'

as that is how a select few, and I know that the word 'few' does get overlooked, individuals self-identify.

There are many atheists, agnostics, ignostics, undecided, whatever, who do not always express hostility towards believers especially those whom they know are in political alignment with them as evidenced by being on DU. I see them as capable of expressing any anger they have towards religion in such a way as it does not immediately antagonize religious believers on the other side of the aisle. Only a select few choose to use insulting and derogatory terms. Only a select few seem to revel in posting threads that mock others, insult others, and express dark humor at a believers expense.

Why?

I am pushing fifty. I have been an unbeliever my entire life. I was fortunate to grow up in a household with parents who respected, allowed, and even nurtured that even as a small boy. I called myself an atheist for a very long time. Then I began to explore all manner of philosophical, religious and psychological expressions designed to provide meaning and purpose during this incredibly short life. I chose the label ignostic because I realized that an atheist needed god or gods as much as a believer. One accepts the proposition and answers yes to 'existence'. The other accepts the proposition and answers no to 'existence'. So yes, both accept the proposition. The believer will act then from that acceptance. What does an atheist do? How do you act on a negative? I rejected the proposition completely, chose to act in other ways, and that discussion is for another post or thread. I see value in both sides and enjoy and have enjoyed discussions and community interactions with believers and non-believers alike. I have spent 30 odd years around a great deal of Buddhists, a religion that is agnostic if not downright atheistic with regards to the question of god or gods.

But until I came to DU, I honestly had never seen such incredible amounts of anger and vitriol expressed at all religions and believers. I don't frequent many forums and I am not on any social networking site so perhaps it is not unique to just DU. This anti-theism is expressed as being anti-religion in totality. There is nothing that is ever good about religion. Period. There is nothing that is ever good about belief. Period. Religion is a mental illness in some capacity always. Period. That is the real absolutist thinking.

I do suspect that most who express this way either grew up in fundamentalists religions and households, grew up surrounded by a large population of fundamentalists, or currently live surrounded by a large population of fundamentalists, for example a gay man in the deep south. I can empathize to a point. Once it becomes just vitriol and rage, it is impossible to continue to do so easily. I can try to see other perspective and normally have little difficulty, but if my buttons are always being pushed with snark, insults, and assumptions, it is not always easy to maintain equanimity.

I see believers fight back, yes. I see some real animosity by some believers towards individual 'anti-theist' DU members, yes. I do not see believers attacking atheism, non-believers, etc. en mass. I see non-believers who can argue with individual believers, yes. I see some real animosity by some non-believers towards individual believers, yes. And sadly, I do see only individual non-believers attacking religion as a whole. It is no longer personal. It becomes collective.

If you treat other individuals with contempt and derision solely based not on them as individuals who may or may not be worthy of such human expressions but instead on the fact that they are religious believers alone, then yes, that is bigotry. If a believer did the same to all non-believers, which is what fundamentalists are expressly known for, then it would be bigotry as well. There are no fundamentalist religious people here that I have seen. Can you specifically point me to such believer members that still retain posting privileges on DU?

I do fight back very hard against bigotry. I definitely fight back against those ignorant enough to equate mental illness with religion. I won't apologize for that personally or professionally. You may label me absolutist about that, and I will accept that label willingly. If someone can not separate their personal hatred for those that did wrong to them from those here who did not, then no, I do not think those people belong on DU or any progressive political site. If the community won't remove them, I will definitely still do my part in minimizing their damage.

I know this was a longer reply than I initially intended. I have no intention of insulting anyone outright. I will fight fire with fire if insulted. Some members have started out with insulting replies to me from the get go.

You did not approach me that way in this thread, so why would I do so with you now?

[trotsky]

19. So the answer to my question is basically...

yes, you think there is a group of individuals (the "anti-theists&quot who get 100% of the blame for everything you think is wrong, and everyone else is a blameless, kind person just pushed too far.

Does that pretty much sum it up?

[TM99]

21. OK, it is my turn to ask.

Are you just trying to be insulting?

Did you read what I wrote. I know it was a bit long, but still, I did try to clarify my points. I specifically took the time and energy to reply to you about what I perceived and where I was coming from.

It sure reads like you are trying to twist what I wrote to lump me in with only siding with one tribe. I am standing with believers AND non-believers alike who can, despite their fundamental differences, engage in adult communication without the need for adolescent dark humor, insulting labels, and vitriol against all religious people in here even when it is only warranted against specifics out there.

Is it necessary for you as an atheist to attack all religious people especially here at DU? I hope not. Is it necessary for you as an atheist to mock and insult religious people and their beliefs? I sure hope not. Is it necessary for you to explain why you choose to reject the proposition that god or gods exist by equating all those that do accept it as mentally ill and expressing delusional behavior? I definitely hope not.

So why then would you have a problem with whom and what I am speaking out against unless you actually agree with all of those things yourself. Do you?

If you do, then, yes sir, you and I will have some issues.

[trotsky]

22. I'm not lumping you in, I'm trying to see if you truly believe things are so black-and-white.

I've given you two opportunities now to clarify if you believe that ALL the problems in this group are solely caused by the "anti-theists" as you call them. Or if are there some non-"anti-theists" who are to blame as well, some who aren't just lashing out at the "anti-theists" because they were pushed too far, but have caused problems themselves? You have written a lot but I am still awaiting an answer. Perhaps I'm just stupid and can't parse your words, in which case you'll have to use fewer and less complex sentences.

The rest of your post contains a lot of non sequiturs and straw men, so I'm going to ignore them, and offer you one more chance to actually answer my question in a way my feeble brain can comprehend it. Could you please try?

[TM99]

30. I guess you can only think in black and white terms

so I am forced to answer in that way.

I see the problem individuals as the 'anti-theists'. I can see animosity between individuals on both side. I am aware the you and Rug have issues. I was not here for the genesis so I don't claim to know the history between you two.

I do not see those believers that atheists have the most problems with here - S4P, Rug, Cbayer, etc. - making OP's or replies calling all atheists insulting names. Do you have a list to the contrary?

I do not see them making OP's or replies stating that all atheists are immoral or whatever would be the insulting equivalent to the religion = mental illness meme. Do you have a list to the contrary?

I do not see any of them making OP's or replies that make fun of a tragedy that might have befallen a non-believer in life. Do you have a list to the contrary?

In other words, I do not see the same level of toxic, inappropriate, or downright sadistic communication coming from that side. I do not see perfection. I see tempers. I do not see hypocrisy either. I have already said that only the most vocal non-believers seem to expect that of their opponents.

If you can sincerely produce such a history, then I will certainly reconsider my position. I will also be as critical and unaccepting of that behavior in them as I am of the 'anti-theists'.

For now, I do recommend that other non-believers do some house-cleaning. I am I so vocal about this because I am fucking non-believer as well and these assholes do reflect badly on atheists, ignostics, and agnostics alike. It does piss me off. We don't have to be so fucking cruel, insulting, viscous, and toxic in communication with those who don't agree with us. I don't act that way with fundamentalists out there off the boards even if I must fight tooth and nail against their bigotry, discrimination, ignorance, etc. Why would I do so here with fellow progressives and liberals who are nothing like those people?!

I may not speak for all non-believers but neither do these individual speak for me either.

Is that clear enough now?

[trotsky]

31. Ah, and just to be clear, would the following direct quote be an example of toxic anti-theism?

(Speaking of the bible...) An anthology of writings collected over several centuries, translated and edited over and over, does not have a "position". It is a bunch of stories, some that make little sense, some that have some historical foundation, but mostly a collection of myth and allegory. Only the most simple minded take any of the stories literally.

[rug]

32. No, it wouldn't.

Nice bookmark though.

[TM99]

33. Give me a link to the full post and thread context please. nt

[Goblinmonger]

36. Here

Enjoy

And, just a suggestion, how about you stop with the adolescent dark humor comments. Just because you, and others, don't like dark and/or gallows humor does not mean you need to dismiss it as adolescent. Shakespeare and Chaucer used a fair amount of dark humor. I realize it isn't for everyone, but I haven't been saying stuff like "people too stupid to understand dark humor."

[TM99]

37. I will respond to Trotsky on the thread once I get back.

I will respond to you quickly as I head out the door.

No, I won't stop. Context is king. Post mocking stories about tragedies at a religious event to make fun of religious people in the Religion Forum is adolescent. Not because it is humor. It is because it is fucking insensitive and inappropriate.

You have a safe-haven for those kinds of jollies. Or better yet, why not post it in the Lounge? That forum is particularly designated for humor and lighter topics.

What possible purpose could it serve being posted in the Religion Forum? Did the poster in question even once consider how it might be taken by others that may not have found it funny? Do you stop and think about it when you waded in?

You are obviously free to post it and enjoy it. An alert/jury may even let it stand. And I am equally free to call it out as juvenile.

[Goblinmonger]

62. I really like that attitude.

I hope you can extend it beyond just yourself.

And I am equally free to call it out as juvenile.

I asked you to stop and explained why. You respond with this. And I'm cool with that. So I can call things juvenile as well? Except when atheists do that, you lash out at them/us because we are being mean and out-of-line. I know, you are going to say what I have said is "insensitive and inappropriate." But that's just as subjective as the "juvenile" argument. I mean, if I had expressed dark humor directly to the family of the person who died, then you would have an argument. But I didn't.

I'm fine with your attitude; please extend that same mindset to others, though. And if you aren't going to do that, then you have very little to no basis to preach to those doing exactly what you are doing.

[skepticscott]

63. I think our friend

is justifying his snark, hostility, and insults under a DU Stand Your Ground law.

[TM99]

65. Such a sadly typical response, and I was expecting better from you.

A new favorite of mine in the 'always intellectually honest' playbook is the now trite rhetorical fallback that is "Well, it is all subjective".

That wasn't insulting, it is all subjective. Until of course, you feel insulted.

That wasn't insulting, mental health professionals are all subjective anyway. Unless of course, you imply that I am delusional and/or mentally ill.

That wasn't cruel. It was just 'dark' humor which is all subjective. So you would be fine with cruel jokes made an atheists expense a well? I doubt it.

Twice now I have seen from you Goblinmonger, a very 'tit for tat' mentality. You don't like what is said in response to your communications so you think you will just twist it around and give it back to that individual.

You called me 'juvenile'. Well, I can call you 'juvenile' as well. Nanh!

Nope, I am not preaching. I am stating personal boundaries again, this time with you as you brought this issue up with me. Agree or disagree with me, and I still know that type of sadistic humor at others expenses is juvenile especially when done by adults in company such as this. I kind of thought we were all on the same side. Stop for a moment and consider if you would have made a darkly humorous joke in a thread about the death of a young African American individual.

So, yes, I will call you out on it. And that has zero to do with our religious beliefs or lack thereof. It is all to do with you and me in interpersonal relationship on these forums.

[Goblinmonger]

66. It's not tit for tat

It is about consistency. I've said many times I don't mind the fight club mentality in here. What I do mind is those that come in here and talk about what others are doing and yet do the same themselves. But of course their's is justified. You were the one to use juvenile first. And now you are conflating dark humor with sadistic.

Once you start realizing you give as good as others and yours is no more justified, then we can have a conversation. Until then, I'll feel free to remind you of the things you have said when you berate others.

[TM99]

70. Really?

We'll see. So far, I have observed it twice. If it happens a third time, I will call it enemy action. And we shall revisit the issue.

Ah, yes, another perfectionistic buzzword of the cabal, the 'consistency' statement.

So if your humorous posting in that topic was not sadistic nor juvenile and merely an example of dark humor that is naturally only subjectively enjoyed, I will expect you to be consistent with it.

Let's see more of it, shall we? I can expect, of course, a slew of upcoming posts in a variety of forums here at DU on a variety of topics with that brand of dark humor on full display. Right? After all it had nothing to do with religion or your issues per se, it is just your nature and others will surely appreciate it without offense.

I want you to be consistent too, my friend. Share it with all of DU, and then we can discuss what it objectively is in a re-visitation of that topic as well.

[trotsky]

67. So, it looks like you're back.

What did you think of the person saying that someone who takes "ANY" of the stories in the bible literally is "small-minded"?

[TM99]

69. I am back and your reply is next in my que.

Sorry I have some medical stuff going on this am as well so please be patient.

Thanks.

[skepticscott]

40. I also wonder what our friend would think

about someone posting that demonic possession is real and that some of the people on psych wards are possessed by real and not figurative demons? Would they be as up in arms over that as they are over the straw man claim that people are saying "religion = mental illness"

[Starboard Tack]

59. Damn, I thought you had me on ignore. You sneaky lil devil.

Looks like you just got your ass handed to you once again. Ah well! Goes withe territory, I guess.

[TM99]

71. I will try to keep this reply a bit shorter.

This subthread is about you wanting a black and white answer about 'anti-theists' being the main instigators here in the Religion forum. I said yes. You then say that it is both sides. I said please provide proof.

You did not provide the proof I asked for.

You linked to another non-believer who made a post. To equate his use of the word 'simple minded' to 'religious belief is delusion and therefore a mental illness' is bullshit, and you know it.

Additionally, what makes a term truly objectively offensive is how the community reacts and the people on the receiving in of the term in question.

In this case, the only people piling on the poster are the cabal of whiners. I have not seen one believer express that this post was offensive. I suspect they would not because read within the context of the discussion it was definitely discussing the simple minded thinking of fundamentalists with their abject literalism. As no believers that I have seen here are fundamentalists, I can imagine that may be another reason why they were not offended.

When Cbayer was told that 'militant atheism' was an offensive term, she agreed to not use it. But in the wonderful thread from last month where believers and non-believers alike said it is fucking offensive to continue to equate religious belief with mental illness, did the offenders stop? Hell no, they doubled-down in spite of the fact that several mental health professionals attempted to educate them on a topic they were obviously ill-equipped to discuss.

Additionally, believers and non-believers alike have said that the way one poster continuously uses 'religionistas' in an obviously insulting manner is offensive. Please stop using that word. Did the poster in question apologize or stop his use of the word. Oh, hell no. He double-downed as well because you know no one is going to tell him what he can't say.

If you want to continue the topic, answer my challenge. Show me proof of the believers acting like these particular 'anti-theists'. Don't insult my intelligence with further red herrings.

I will be busy the remainder of the day and may not feel up for much discussion tomorrow. I will return to the thread when I am able.

[trotsky]

72. I merely asked you if the quote was an example of this "anti-theism" you rail against.

You have declined to answer. I see.

[skepticscott]

74. I had a bet with myself

that his response would be at least four paragraphs and that nowhere in all that verbiage would he actually answer your (very simple and direct) question.

I won.

[trotsky]

76. Yeah I wouldn't have bet against that.

Given the similarities in their outlandishly rude and insulting behavior, perhaps TM99 and Starboard Tack were separated at birth.

[TM99]

82. Either you do require things to be dumbed down

which I sincerely doubt, or you truly just enjoy playing mind games.

You were asked by me to provide proof of equal behavior by believers.

You present a red herring. A red herring is a distraction.

Your distraction does not support your argument. Starboard Tack is not a self-declared 'anti-theist' with a history of insulting believers such that they feel the need to challenge him on his attitudes and communication. His out of context quote that you provide is not equivalent to the bullshit put forth by the cabal of 'anti-theists' especially the issue about mental illness and religious belief, and you bloody well know it.

So yes, I have answered your question. Now how about you actually answer mine. If you can't then have the maturity and courage to admit you can't or you just won't.

I am willing to bet that you will not, so I am quite finished playing games with you in this particular sub-thread. I am sure we will revisit this and much more in future ones.

[skepticscott]

83. You just have to spin everything, don't you?

A direct answer, when it would undermine your agenda or make other religionistas look bad, just can't be tolerated, now can it?

The fact that you try to characterize the quote you were provided as "out of context" shows just how badly you're flailing. You were linked to the entire thread that quote was a part of. How much more "context" did you realistically expect? Starboard Tack's whole posting history, and all of the replies?

And please, stop spreading cow manure about the religion/mental illness threads. Stop pretending that all anyone was doing was saying all religion=mental illness, period. That's just you flailing and attacking straw men again. If you were paying any attention, you know that a much less extreme point was being made, unless you're doing what you decry in others, and just attacking the extreme fundamentalists, because that's what lets you froth at the mouth.

[trotsky]

84. I see.

Since Starboard Tack isn't a self-declared "anti-theist", he can call everyone who believes in a bible story "simple-minded."

You have an amazing double standard - and thus have nuked your own credibility when it comes to calling out any behavior. Well done, TM99. Well done. You are not worth my time to engage anymore - so welcome to my Ignore list!

[TM99]

85. Always your perogative, of course

though not completely unexpected. You can not be direct and yet accuse others of being vague. You will not provide proof for your positions even when others do so with what you. And when you realize that you have simply failed in a line of reasoning, instead of admitting it, you put the poster on Ignore.

Well done, Trotsky. I will not miss your replies in the least. Does this also mean that now that you have me on Ignore that your little shadow will stop following me around as well?

You have a great morning.

[cleanhippie]

73. Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal

So predictable.

[skepticscott]

77. Yes, it is the usual cabal

of whiners who are complaining about the use of the word "religionista". They've simply decided to be "offended" for reasons they can't actually enunciate, over a word whose meaning they can't even agree upon on, and whose intent they have no evidence for other than their own presumptions and dislike for the ones using it. Most especially hrmjustin, who when asked if he would take the same "principled" stand against the use of the word "bigot" in this room, responded with half a dozen exchanges of passive-aggressive weaseling. He has no credibility on this issue. Zero. Neither does cbayer. When the same challenge was posed to her, did she start a thread upbraiding the people who regularly apply that term to other posters? Not likely, since that would have meant calling out her own husband, among others.

But let's just spitball here. Suppose you were asked to stop using words like "whiners" "toxic", "juvenile" and "assholes", or any of a slew of your other favorites, to refer to a certain group of posters here (since there's no doubt what those words mean or that you intended to insult and disparage by using them). Would you:

A. Stop using them

B. Take it as a challenge to your creativity, and come up with new insults and smears that hadn't been mentioned

C. Declare that you considered the use of those words to be entirely justified and warranted, and that you would continue to post exactly as you saw fit, regardless of how anyone reacted to it.

My money's hard on C, and until I see evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to take the same stance, and to regard your arrogant, self-righteous scolding as nothing but rank hypocrisy.

[hrmjustin]

78. You can always just address me if you have something to say about me!

[skepticscott]

79. As noted, I did address you directly

You responded with nothing but passive-aggressive weaseling, over and over and over, also as noted. I'm not going to play whack-a-mole with you any more.

[hrmjustin]

80. You don't like the answer.

I feel it is used as an insult.

[LostOne4Ever]

13. Though it may be presented in an objectionable manner

This forum minimizes the amount of group think.

I say minimize as if we wanted to completely remove group think we would allow conservative believers of the various religions in here as well. To that degree all of DU suffers from some group think.

The question is where to draw the line at how much group think we want to be exposed too. By imposing the limits set in interfaith a great deal of criticism is curtailed. For instance, the criticism that the belief in exorcism is dangerous belief that could encourage mentally unstable individuals to follow delusion to tragic ends.

To many believers, the way that this particular belief has been stated here has been offensive and I would argue that they have been shocked by the number of non-believing posters who, rather than back down from the position, have dug in their heals and keep on repeating this position.

I think seeing how strongly either side supports their position of said issue, even though it has been horribly divisive, was a learning experience to all.

Could it have been said nicer? Yes. But those who level such a position in such an inflammatory manner, and care nothing for the various sensibilities of their opponents are far more likely to bring the issue to the table in the first place.

For instance, I would say that I am one of the more cautious posters on the irreligious side of this forum, and I actively seek not to offend others as much as possible. Similarly I would never post such a thread here in this forum, and thus believers would never see or realize how much (and how deeply) many of us feel about that issue. Conversely, in the AA forum I have in the distant past expressed that I think that belief in demon possessions/exorcisms to be dangerous, and probably in less polite manner than I would ever post here.

Conversely, someone who does not care about others sensibilities is far more likely to post such a story here and they will probably do so in a manner that is offensive to believers.

Without this forum, the way it is, exposure to different issues and rebuttals of said ideas would greatly decreased.

I also want to say that in the handful of times I did post in the Interfaith forum, a couple of them I was afraid that what I said could easily be interpreted as breaking the group's SOP and I had to add extra tact to make sure that what I said would not be taken as such. While this makes it where what is posted is more likely to be thoughtful of others, it could also dissuade others from posting at all.

Finally, to end this long rambling post...some of us just like to argue and appreciate a good dust up. This is true of all forums and why thoughtful posts fall like anchors into the ocean and flame bait flies into the air for all to see.

TLDR: Group think

[NeoGreen]

17. Totally disagree...

... if we did not have the cage (I mean Religion Forum) to host our "discussions" on religious matters, the discussions (and strong feelings behind them) would not magically go away. They would eventually spill over into other DU forums (forums that focus on subjects where DU members on opposite sides of a particular Religious Forum topic might actually be in agreement) and cause all kinds of strife within DU as a whole.

Keep the non-protected Religion Forum, and openly acknowledge that we have subject areas of disagreement, because we have subject areas of disagreement.

We are all liberals/progressives/good people.... aren't we?

May I quote one of my favorite Pixar movies (without being called out as sexist {please understand the context of the quote})?...

Roxanne Ritchi: [exasperated] Girls, girls, you're both pretty! Can I go home now?

edit #1 because I used the #*^%$ square brackets
edit #2 because I failed to include an important "not"
edit #3 because....

[LeftishBrit]

24. Disagree

It is a forum for discussing and debating issues of belief, which cannot happen in a forum where everyone is a believer (Interfaith) or non-believer (A/A). Also, it is a place for discussing relationships between religion and politics, which should be of interest to anyone on any point of the 'belief' spectrum.

I think that it is at times too personally quarrelsome, rather than just philosophically argumentative. I think this is to some extent the legacy of two posters now tombstoned (in at least one case, repeatedly!): one atheist who was a frank troll, and one believer who had a burning HATRED for atheists. But I don't think that this means that the forum should not exist. That would just be dividing us even more.

[okasha]

57. Interfaith is open to non-believers.

The two who were banned were shown the door because each of them quite deliberately violated the group's SOP with his first (and only) post. A third left when it was made clear to him that he would be banned for stalking another poster.

Others have been welcomed there. You certainly would be.

[intaglio]

34. You need somewhere for the discussion to happen

Interfaith, of necessity, is made up of people of faith
Atheists and Agnostics is made up of people without faith

Both are "protected" and hence severe restrictions are placed on the activities of those from the opposite end of the spectrum.

Within the Religion forum the interlocutors can argue it out and those who are uncertain can decide where their loyalties lie.

[Iggo]

38. Totally disagree.

If you want to go, then go.

But leave the ball. It ain't yours.

[el_bryanto]

39. How exactly would I take the ball even if I wanted to? nt

[Iggo]

41. It's tempting to want to cancel the game just because you don't want to play anymore.

Resist that temptation, and if you want to go, just go.

[el_bryanto]

42. How would I cancel the game?

I can't stop anybody from posting here, can I? Unless I'm more powerful than I think I am.

Bryant

[Iggo]

43. You're not trying to get the Religion forum closed down?

[Brettongarcia]

44. Students of "Religion" are usually not just Christian believers;but people seeking objective surveys

Of all religions. Usually from a critical/scientific perspective.

As in "Religious Studies."

This forum, the "Religion" forum, therefore seems an appropriate place for interface between believers and atheists, or those who want a scientific and/or critical review of religion.

[LostOne4Ever]

45. I think you are confusing Bryant with a position proposed by TM99

In the stickied thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=122984

I believe Bryant is just trying to discern what can be gained by coming to this forum as opposed to just staying in interfaith.

[Iggo]

46. Hmm.

Okay.

My mistake.

[Brettongarcia]

47. TM99 does seem to be expressing this extreme opinion: closing the "religion" forum

He recently voiced this position, right after "Stuggle4truth" was attacked as host.

[hrmjustin]

48. When does it matter when he voiced it?

[Brettongarcia]

49. Perhaps there is a growing school of opinion, in the 22% of discontents?

Which recently surfaced in a few members.

Perhaps a movement or trend is currently building?

[hrmjustin]

50. I don't think it really matters when he voiced his opinions.

[NeoGreen]

55. I read his comment as...

...just giving context to the characterization of the post he was discussing as "recent",as opposed to an old post,or a longstanding post?

[TM99]

64. I did make the suggestion as one of many that I have made.

And no it was not with regards to S4P. It was after Skinner posted in the Host selection thread made by hrmjustin after he resigned. I know you desperately want to connect him and I for who knows what inner reason.

Your post above is actually in agreement with me. If the Religion forum is for all types to discuss religion, it should be similar to a religious studies department, or a college philosophy/religion forum, or the like. I have not been in any of those settings where 'anti-theists' were allowed to dominate all the discussions with insults, toxicity, and bullshit like religion = mental illness. Those people would be tossed out on their assess, and you know it if you are truthfully a Ph.D. student or graduate.

When I did a Masters in religious studies it was at a divinity school. There were Christians (obviously), non Christian believers of various religions, and plenty of non-believers. There were lively and spirited discussions that could be quite challenging. There was not the type of bullshit seen here as of recent. Sadly, the DU Religion Forum is not a religious studies department.

[Brettongarcia]

68. In Culture Studies departments, more political opinions were allowed

Much of the rise of minorities, and support for their beliefs, came about through some very animated discourse as a matter of fact. Much of it centered around Culture Studies, Minority Studies, and so forth. The perspective of both your advocacy of an African religion, and S4P's minority avatar and perspective, are in part the fruits of that often animated and public discussion.

Regarding the proper kind of discourses on religion, in our own time, c. 1990-2014 ff, and on our popular blog here?

Today, after many centuries of academic investigation into religion, and many negative findings, it seems time to make the transition to a more popular critique of its excesses. At this point, the dialogue makes a transition from pure academic discourse, to a more popular genre, to be sure. However, both genres will have had their usefulness.

It is today useful to have both an occasional academic perspective; but also some more polemical discourse too. In order to address a wider audience in part.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. feel free to only post in that exciting and entertaining nterfaith forum.

[el_bryanto]

60. Thank you for your permission.

Hey I wonder if any atheists feel that this forum has become to acrimonious to debate in?

Bryant

[skepticscott]

61. Feel free to post another poll

If you're really curious and not just being disingenuous again.

[cbayer]

56. I have met and gotten to know a lot of believers, non-believers and people in grey

areas that I really enjoy talking to and whose POV's I value.

While there are those who are simply adamantly opposed to those who see things differently, they are small in number and the majority of people who post here are tolerant, open-minded and able to embrace the "other".

As I said in a different thread, when there is a need for a "safe haven", it indicates that people are being attacked for who they are. That is the problem that should be addressed and this group is the best place to build alliances, coalitions and nurture mutual respect between atheists, theists, nones, agnostics, etc.

Those that wish only to attack people who experience the world differently than they do are a divisive force within the community of liberal/progressive democrats. The best way to combat them is to not let them succeed, imo.

There is nothing wrong with "kumbayah", though it is frequently ridiculed here. There is nothing wrong with being a religionist, whether one is a believer or not. There is everything right about recognizing that we have more in common than we have differences.

[Renew Deal]

58. Disagree

The Religion group is where we come together. It's healthy for DU overall.

[hrmjustin]

75. This forum does have it's moments and I admit to causing a few.

[Gothmog]

81. I disagree

There is not the first forum that I look at each day but I have enjoyed some of the discussions on this forum. I am happy with my faith and I am willing to explain my beliefs on these threads. I converted to Judaism in large part because I had issues with my former religion. I found a nice home that works well for me.

Again, I have enjoyed participating in a limited number of the threads on this forum and think that the forum serves a purpose.