Religion
Related: About this forumDoes anyone here think there is too much religious entitlement here on DU?
If so, I'd love to hear your reasons for thinking so. I don't see any entitlement, based on belief, being handed out to any particular group on DU, unless one wants to consider "safe havens" as having some kind of privilege.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think the membership here is fair.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And for an example simple questions about religion, or pointing out problematic issues in religious institutions is often called hate speech.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Like pointing out massive problems in the hierarchy of the RCC in regards to sexism and homophobia (for an example) are met with:
a) apologetics (it's not homophobic, they can be gay as long as they don't act on the urges)
b) reduced to emotional appeals to individuals (many catholics don't believe what the higher up says)
c) reducing it to a personal attack (why do you hate catholics?)
d) straight up declarations of bigotry.
Just as an example.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Saying we suspend critical thinking.
Making fun of our beliefs.
You never see me challenging others beliefs but mine are non-stopped challenged and I feel like I am looked down upon here.
I don't post ops to irritate or mock atheists but some atheists here post ops to mock believers all the time.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 18, 2014, 10:12 AM - Edit history (1)
That is one of the reasons we are atheists. If you wish to take that as a personal attack on you, that is your problem, and would be as ludicrous and artificial as an atheist taking offense at being informed that they were destined for eternal damnation. It is in fact your privileged status that leads you to believe that other people are attacking you personally by not pandering to your ridiculous religious beliefs. Further, you all ridicule religious beliefs outside what you consider normal all the time, right here in this forum. So it is only your specific beliefs that you think ought to be held above reproach. It is rank entitled hypocrisy. Thanks for bringing up the whole delusion issue. A fine example of religious entitlement.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Prove that!
Where have I ever said my approach is above reproach?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But here you are ridiculing somebody else's religious beliefs:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=146619
How do you square that up with your alleged outrage at atheists describing your religious beliefs as a delusion?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You have to have better than this!
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Your sense of entitlement is so ingrained that you are either being entirely dishonest about this or you have no clue at all that you were doing that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lord please help me!
whathehell
(29,067 posts)A little objectivity, please. 
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I have no problem with mocking religious beliefs, they are all ludicrous and delusional. The selective outrage engaged in by theists, they want their beliefs deferred to, but feel free to savage beliefs outside of what they consider normal, is immensely hypocritical and is precisely an example of religious privilege in action.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)"A partridge in a pear tree" is a lyric from a song -- not a religious belief.
I fail to see any "outrage" or "savaging" of others beliefs by hrmjustin,
so frankly, I have NO idea what you are talking about.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)'cause the op's numerology beliefs are, you know, ridiculous. So again, ok to join in the mocking of other religious beliefs, just not yours.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)and you and others were busy having a mock fest at the op's expense. It seems you were only marginally aware that the op, posting in the religion forum, was expressing his religious beliefs, perhaps because they were so odd to you that you never considered that. I would suggest, since you are so sensitive about mocking religious beliefs, that you consider all posts in the religion forum to be about religious beliefs and not mock any of them, just to be safe.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Thank you for pointing it out.
I will go post in the thread again.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Just personally, I think most of your positions are laughable, but I don't make fun of your atheism or regard you as psychiatrically ill for holding that position.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And clownishness is not a mental illness. Obviously you should know that. I certainly haven't described you as mentally ill simply for being ridiculous. Lots of people are ridiculous, but don't hold delusional beliefs.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Astrotheology may be a religion, but I doubt it. It seems to be a constellation of esoteric practices, of which numerology and astrology are the two we've seen here. I don't see any evidence of a credal structure or ritual observance.
Better go back to being offended by the "disgusting" impersonal pronoun.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The op obviously thinks it is, but you just up and dismiss his religious beliefs because they are too odd, even for you.
okasha
(11,573 posts)You are making the assumption that it is solely to further and unfounded accusation against Justin.
I still say you're better off trying to make a slur out of "it."
Edited to add: In post #27 in the astrotheology thread, Viva Daddy makes clear that astrotheology is not a religion. It seems to be a way of identifying archetypes common to religious structures.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)last I looked, numerology wasn't a religion.
rug
(82,333 posts)
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)How can you possibly respect holders of delusion and entitlement enough to have any kind of meaningful dialogue? You might as well dialogue with a wall, for all you apparently think we understand.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)grownups who claim to actually believe on this sort of nonsense. I am fascinated by car wrecks too. And road kill.
rug
(82,333 posts)Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)I can see why you think we feel entitled, since we don't think of ourselves as equivalent to car wrecks and road kill the way you do. That means more work for you if you're going to bring down our self-esteem and self-confidence to the levels you deem appropriate.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Every president swears on a stack of bibles that he believes fervently in utter nonsense. Your religion is woven through the fabric of society, I can't get away from it, and you are so blind to that you don't think it exists.
But why are you here, debating primarily with atheists, if not for your amusement?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Second, per your post on privilege and the DSM, it seems like the currency and the president are almost beside the point, that you won't be satisfied until every believer is officially declared mentally ill, and if I disagree, I'm supporting religious privilege.
The way it looks to me, you're not asking me to surrender "religious privilege" in the name of fairness and equality. You're asking me to recognize atheist privilege, so that the social hierarchy is reversed instead of equalized. I would happily vote to get "in God we trust" off the money, or for an atheist president. When I say the pledge of allegiance, I drop the "under God" part. That's movement towards equality.
Declaring believers mentally ill goes right past equality, and towards supremacism in the opposite direction. So if that's what you want to do in this forum, are you opposing privilege with equality, or privilege with more privilege?
And I debate to test my ideas, to get closer to truth. I don't come here to degrade atheists for my own amusement.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)proof.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Your language is disgusting.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You are a hypocrite of the worst order Justin.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)if it weren't so unintentionally funny. "It is you..." is exactly the same kind of usage you're trying to pretend is offensive.
How'd it go with the jury, by the.way? I see Justin's post is still there.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)worst change du3 made, well next to 7 person juries and forced timeouts.
On reflection, it was likely a typo to begin with, or I hallucinated the initial wording, either one is a possibility.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I did not understan what his response to you meant.
okasha
(11,573 posts)He didn't say he alerted. But I'd like to see the results if he did.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)that the accusation is simply ridiculous.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But indeed I could very well have misread the post.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)If I think something is nasty I just say so. I don't go passive aggressively alerting on people. Of course if somebody just chimes in "fuck off you fucking fucker" I might make an exception.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Like I said, I might have misread what you posted or you might have fixed it up within the edit without history window.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, sorry for misreading your post.
Anytime you care to apologize for your fucking appalling behavior toward me, let me know.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Are you really going to try to worm out of it that way?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Tell me what I did please. Oh and btw I did not edit my post.
rug
(82,333 posts)To feign something that isn't there is what is disgusting.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)So while there is a level of privilege in society, DU doesn't have "in God we trust" as it's forum motto, nor does not have only religious leaders.
On DU, believers find themselves having to explain why they shouldn't be described with words that have connotations of mental illness. And then they are charged with "tone policing," a charge which is itself an attempt to assert power over the discourse.
Being on the defensive like that is not a privileged position. It's a degraded one, and you appear to support that and want it to be considered the norm in this forum, and in society at large.
So which do you want: fairness/equality, or a reversed hierarchy and atheist privilege?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Sorry if I don't buy that assertion.
The outrage at atheists expressing the obvious atheist viewpoint that religious beliefs are delusional is a prime example of religious privilege in action. Right here in river city.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We are not allowed to fight back?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)anyone being validly annoyed with it (on pain of being accused of asserting religious privilege)? That in itself is an expression of privilege. And that's your attempt to show that believers are the ones asserting privilege?
I think we're just going to end up agreeing to disagree on this one.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And can see the signs of people either struggling with their beliefs, or who have never been fully challanged about it. Why do you engage with people you believe are eternally dammed?
To say that atheists simply think believers are delusional is to extremely simplify the issue. It's closer to say that atheists think that many believers are deluded by multi national, multi billion dollar corporations and we care about our fellow humans because we don't believe there is an afterlife so we feel that there should better treatment here.
Plus there are far more people reading that participating so they should see that some people disagree with the religious stance, and that major religions are very problematic.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)I thought anyone was eternally damned? In fact, I haven't said that, because I don't believe it. But I join you in believing that corporations are too corrupt and powerful, and that there needs to be better treatment now.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I don't knownif you do actually believe anyone is going to hell. It's a standard and common belief so you'd have to excuse that. There are people here who do believe that some here are going to hell, or will only go so far as to imply that they merely follows doctrine that says people are.
The problem is that many here see callouts of these churches as direct attacks against the individuals, the rest of the argument is ingored and the conversation turns to atheist hates believers. The term one person throws around "anti-theist" isvery misleading, implying the person hates believers when they have made it clear that that is not the case.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)of people who are struggling with their beliefs, or who haven't been fully challenged?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I can't exactly say what it is, but I know it when it see it.
Dorian Gray
(13,493 posts)"another way of knowing....."
stone space
(6,498 posts)...are also deluded by those those same multi national multi billion dollar corporations.
It's not really about religion.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)We're talking about DU and religious entitlement, not the outside world.
rug
(82,333 posts)Elevating one's own perspective to that a of a defined group is a delusion of grandeur.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Obviously he doesn't understand the word delusion either. 
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)And get back to us.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Come on GM, you know this!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Unless, of course, you agree with him, and in that case, I'll explain it to you, because I know you probably have a better grasp of English, being a teacher and all.
So, here is what Warren said
That is one of the reasons we are atheists.
The "atheist position" is something Warren thinks exists. ie a delusion. We don't have a position. We have a non-position. We lack a belief in a deity. Not a religion. We know that religions exist. It's pretty obvious to those who are not delusional.
He also thinks he represents this so-called "atheist position", as he talks about "we", as in "That is one of the reasons we are atheists."
That is not why I am an atheist, nor is it why many of us are atheists, YMMV. The reasons are many, and vary from individual to individual. Furthermore, we don't need a reason to not believe something, and thinking we do is, in itself, delusional.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)all these people who surround us, who DO believe in it?
They believe in something that does not appear real to you. What word would you use to describe that perception of supernatural thingamajig's, by other people, when you, and every tool humanity has ever devised, cannot detect it?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)or you think gods are not real but people who believe in gods are not deluded? How does that work?
stone space
(6,498 posts)I have many thoughts that have little or nothing to do with atheism, as do you.
You mentioned one of them, and mistakenly referred to it as "THE atheist perspective".
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)That is not the "atheist perspective". It is what you would like the atheist perspective to be, because it is your perspective, and your "ridiculous belief". Fortunately, you do not speak for us. As you have pointed out many times, we have no pope, and if we did, you would not be it.
You attack people personally for their beliefs, on a daily basis.
Just like your specific beliefs that believers are delusional and psychotic. That, in itself, is delusional.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)I'm in love 
rug
(82,333 posts)amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)Of course you wouldn't...Duh! That's a given
rug
(82,333 posts)Enjoy your bliss.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)that simple fact.
They gleefully mock and disrespect the beliefs of many DUers here, mostly Christians,
and no, they don't limit it to RW Fundies..
Surely you were here last Easter Sunday when they were posting images of a crucified Christ
and laughing their asses off over it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)When I objected the poster acknowledged my concern but I was told by others to get a sense of humor.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Judaism or Islam, if you've noticed.
They WILL say things like "all religion is evil", but I've yet to see ANYONE mock any
other religion but Christianity....Attempts to mock or even criticize Islam, even in its most
extreme, misogynist expressions will get you called "intolerant", if not an outright bigot.
It's "selective" religion bashing, you might say.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AA has posts going after other religions other than Christianity but yes Christianity gets the brunt if it.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)but, as we know, there are MANY denominations and the right wing crazy part are a minority,
although too large a minority.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Christianity comes up a lot more often though, because of two reasons:
1. This country positively marinades in christians.
2. Of the less than 1% of Americans that are Islamic of one sect or another, fundamentalism is not widespread/publicly visible, and moreover, they have no political power in this country whatsoever.
I talk about problems that are real. Such as the intersection between politics and Christianity in the US.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)you only address Islam, not Judaism, which is at a higher percentage,
both in numbers and in sphere of influence...Do think America's completely NON balanced support for the state of Israel may have something to do with "religion" ?
The intersection between politics and Christianity -- or any religion -- IS a problem, you will get no argument from me there, as I'm strictly separation of Church and state.
The problem with many atheists here, is they stray SO far beyond that issue, which is one I believe ALL, or certainly virtually all, DUers agree upon.
They're not content to stay there -- They feel some perverse need
to mock and belittle Christians for their religious belief alone and
THAT my friend, is nothing but bullying and persecution and does
NOT belong on a progressive board.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)acceptance of issues like Same Sex Marriage.
So, again, I talk about problems that are real. As I have mentioned many times, when the intersection of religion and politics stops being a problem, I will stop talking about religion.
The only issues currently on the plate for Judaism in the US as a political issue, are the circumcision thing, and tangential reference to Israel, but that's mostly actually the evangelicals all hot and bothered to come to Israel's defense.
The christian faith is a major factor in multiple knock-down-drag-out political fights nationwide, for a very good reason, and bears some criticism for that fact. (And the ephemeral nature of the source of such largely regressive doctrine.)
Where it gets fuzzy, is with a growing number of christian sects that are more politically progressive.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)at the same time!
Kind of knocks down a lot of your argument right there. 
By the way, Judaism is NOT alone in being accepting -- Episcopalians now
have gay married priests. 
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)other conclusion can one reach?
Yes, I read and understood your post -- just not in the way
you would have preferred.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Where it gets fuzzy, is with a growing number of christian sects that are more politically progressive."
So, your 'counterpoint' isn't actually a point at all. Nevermind that Episcopalians as a group don't score better than Atheists on that matter.
Of course Atheists can be homophobes or bigots. There's nothing inherent in not believing in an imaginary friend that makes people more accepting of other humans. There is no atheist doctrine. No word of non-god. No anti-bible, full of non-social law.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)The fact is, atheists on this board are constantly calling religion "evil' and/or blaming it for all the evils of mankind.
I guess when the stupidity of THAT is revealed, you're move is to go to another "point', which prior to this, hadn't been part of the discussion, until that, of course, gets knocked down, leaving you to scramble for one more.
Sorry, honey, I'm no longer interested in the game, so I'm afraid you'll have to find someone else to play with.
Have a nice 'crusade'. 
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Nice cover though.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)but why bother when you do so well on your own?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I didn't name specific churches, but I clearly allowed for the phenomenon of some christian churches going progressive on these issues. If your position now is that you read that and STILL thought that a valid counterpoint, then, well, I would be worried.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)That being the case, it seems I'll have to put you on the "I" list.
Buh Bye. 
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)burnsei sensei
(1,820 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts)
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts) whathehell
(29,067 posts)it hardly matters what their "status" is or was.
As I understand it, ISIS in Iraq are now crucifying -- yes, crucifying --
other muslims and other "infidels", I presume, whom they may come upon.
These bastards were expelled by Al Queda for being too brutal.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And I was a bit upset I was scolded because I spoke up.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)you know "respecting" the opinion of other DUers"?
but the very spirit of humane, progressive politics.
FWIW, I've been told by more than one here that DU is biased in favor of atheism
which means, IMO, that we get little if any support from the Admins.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)They do not want religion debated in GD because they know it will get ugly so they don't allow it.
I personally think there are more active posters who are atheist than believer but I think most are fair on both sides.
I think it is usually the same people who cause disruption and I think they isolate themselves by their actions.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)there's no "both sides" when it comes to slamming religion and slamming atheism.
As you said, you don't post nasty, disrespectful stuff against atheists,
and I don't remember anyone doing that here. That being the case,
atheists post nasty, disrespectful stuff about believers.
Have you ever seen them shut down a thread, such as that at Easter,
that was hatefully disrespectful to DUers of faith? I haven't.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)My Easter thread in GD was alerted on but was allowed to stay.
I think the hosts allowed a few threads that should not have been allowed.
And yes too many posts here are posted just to spite religious people.
It is not equal at all.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)But yes, way too much shit is thrown at religion and religious DUers.
You're right -- It's not equal at all.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You want to see vitriol? Go post something religious, preferably something from the RCC on a social issue, in GD.
There's a reason this is the faith based version of the Gungeon, to which all religious threads are banished, when posted in GD. If you think WE are 'mean', hahaha oh shit, hang on to your ass.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)and, sorry to disappoint, but no, I'm not interested in seeing more..Added to that, the administrators have indicated they don't want religious (or irreligious, I assume) threads in GD.
At this point, it seems like anyone who is NOT an atheist is treated
like a second class member here, to the point where some of us are
wondering if this site should be renamed "Atheist Underground"
instead of Democratic Underground.
I'm SICK of people who insist, directly or not, that one cannot be respected as a progressive or a Democrat, without undergoing what's fast becoming a kind of "Atheist Loyalty Test".
Fuck that shit, along with the smug, condescending attitude that basically tells us to "not complain", because there are even "meaner" actions to which we could be subjected....What a shitty, bullying attitude to take to fellow DUers.
What people "believe" or don't 'believe" in terms of the presence or lack of presence of a higher power is highly personal, and, in my opinion, shouldn't even be part of the conversation on a POLITICAL board, especially if that person's beliefs have ZERO to do with their politics.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You can't post a positive thread in DU about a leader of a group of people that promulgates sexism, homophobia, and misogyny, and opposes family planning, abortion, contraceptives, etc, unless that leader/group is religious. Then, somehow, it gets dispensation to exist on DU.
THAT is privilege.
Show me a positive thread about a group that also holds it to be a sin to engage in same sex marriage, that also spends millions lobbying against it, that survives on DU and ISN'T religious. Just one. (Substitute non-religious word for 'sin', like 'bad' or whatever you want, I don't care.)
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Why do so many here want to believe that all Christianity is of the science denying, pushy Right Wing Fundamentalist type?..Is it true ignorance or the willful variety because you need a scapegoat?...The truth is, evangelistic fundies are a MINORITY of Christians, even though they're loud and "active", unfortunately....I have ALWAYS believed in separation of church and state, and one hardly needs to be an atheist to believe that.
By the way, though, apart from Christian Fundies, do you not think American Jews have a LOT to do with our policy in Israel, and if so, can you explain to me how that would be "different" and why you're not
including the effects of Judaism as part of "the problem"?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Who believes that all christianity is of the science denying RWF type?
Link to supporting post?
"do you not think American Jews have a LOT to do with our policy in Israel, and if so, can you explain to me how that would be "different""
Jews in America are a political minority. 2.2% at best of the population, not all of voting age. And only a bare majority, 54% believe US policy towards Israel is correct. Remove evangelical embrace of Israel, and they are just background noise. I do not believe American Jews are somehow mental mastermind-overlords, driving the entire government's foreign policy without any help whatsoever. There's very little evidence, for instance, that AIPAC actually has any pull with voters.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Those who look down on you are standing on shaky ladders and riding in hot air balloons. Your patience and decency is commendable, and well recognized here. You roll beautifully with the punches, most of the time, and you struggle, as many of us do, not to rise to the bait. If more people of faith were like you, the world would be a better place.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I can always do better but I try my best.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)What...no Unicorns? Oh wait..that's your crowd.
cbayer
(146,218 posts) amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)assumption, I would suggest you look into other ways of figuring things out.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Je suis content. Et maintenant, pour votre amusement, je vais chercher une belle licorne.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)You already have plenty to choose from
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Il doit être votre nom. Ça m'embrouille.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)Shocker
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I suppose they are useless if you have no desire to go up.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I would love to go up in one, but I am unlikely to spend that kind of money on something like that.
enki23
(7,788 posts)You never stoop to smell the fox piss on the mound that leads to the nasty leg hold trap, and remain ever below the fray. I salute my hat at you, for always being smarterer and beterer than the mean people who say that you are not smarterer or beterer. Maybe one day, they will be saved from the trembling goldfinches. Which are useless. Like ladders. And bicycles. And other things that fly.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
whathehell
(29,067 posts)They mock and insult DUers with Christian beliefs like bullies on steroids.
It can get pretty sickening. like last Easter, when they posted images of a
a crucified Jesus for "laughs". 
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Especially on the internet. Christians in the US are fortunate to never really face any real oppression or bigotry because of their beliefs. This makes it all the more shocking to them when someone does ridicule their beliefs.
If people want to act like jerks, they will, especially on the internet.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)offer one exception that becomes very evident here.
Because the religious right developed such a strong power base, there has been the tendency to throw all christians into the same basket with them. That has meant that liberal/progressive christians have been attacked and painted with the same brush in a way that is really unfair and unjustified.
Even now, you will find threads and posts here that say that moderate religious people enable extremists just by being believers.
I agree that those who just want to act like jerks are best ignored, but there is a somewhat pervasive trend on this site to openly attack people of faith just because they are people of faith.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)to "fuck off you fucking fuck ".
Oh wait, I've never done that.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Some people have problems recognizing what is wrong and some people have problems recognizing what is good.
In terms of your example, I've not seen any examples of members here saying that the RCC position on GLBT rights is not homophobic. Do you have examples.
It is absolutely true that most catholics disagree with the position of the church on multiple matters. That's not an emotional appeal. It's facts based on data.
The personal attacks go both ways, as do the accusations of bigotry. Some times the accusations are warranted, other times not so much.
At any rate, none of this backs up your assertions that there are accusations of hate speech. Not even close.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And there is a whole new post in this group implying atheists are racist, so have fun with that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And that still doesn't back up your claims that people are accused of "hate speech", so I'm not really having fun with that at all.
FWIW, criticism of the pope and the RCC is not bigotry, but there are those that are bigoted when it comes to the pope and the church. Religious bigotry is a real thing and it is actually against the rules of this site.
I can't even imagine a post that called atheists racists, so you are really going to have to show me that one.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)status.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And given the discussion here seems to be less "why do you think it's a problem" and more "no it's not, stop hating believers" just piles onto it.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)If we did, there wouldn't be the frequent accusations that religious belief equates to stupidity or mental illness.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)Most astute comment yet on this question.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Gothmog
(145,193 posts)whathehell
(29,067 posts) rug
(82,333 posts)That said, the DU community does not reward trollish behavior from any quarter.
CountAllVotes
(20,868 posts)The bashing of the Roman Catholic Church and the pope went beyond the pale IMO.
The DU almost lost this member here (me) because of the extreme bigotry and hatred towards Catholics that was openly flaunted during these ugly times which I sincerely hope are a thing of the past. Sadly, we lost many other members too that are of this faith because of the blatant racism/hatred being flaunted ad infinitum in the archives of the Democratic Underground.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So, fair game.
Especially when the current head of the RCC is on the record as stating that Same Sex Marriage isn't a political issue, but rather, a "move" by the devil himself.
That church has earned every shred of derision that has been slung here.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Even the religion of insulting all religions or calling them all fake is given it's space, provided personal insults are avoided.
Exceptions exist only in the way some jury duties come out, I suppose, but the administration of this community is, I think, very inclusive.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Dishonest or naive. And that was in reference to their religious beliefs not their totality as a person.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Calling atheists a religion is very dismissive and insulting. Mislabeling minority groups ls a big tactic of the privliged to keep the others down.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I'm not a member of a religion, not a member of the presumed "entitled" group.
The OP question refers to the DU community, I wouldn't bet that most posting members are of a singular religion, or even mostly of a Christian religion.
But even if they are, I'm not of the opinion that they enjoy a preference here.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I don't know how else to explain how this...
...gets transformed into this:
I can see quibbling with the subject line doubting the existence of privilege, but this seems directed not at that assertion, but rather at the quoted sentence that dies not even mention atheism, much less call atheism a religion.
As to atheism's PR problem, the mere fact that when somebody reads "the religion of insulting all religions", the word "atheism" pops into their heads means that atheism is very poorly understood, it seems to me.
I don't mean to pick on your post here, since you are just displaying a general societal misconception about atheism, but it is interesting to see the associations that people have with the word "atheism".
I wonder where the idea that atheism is all about insulting religion comes from. It certainly isn't part of any definition of atheism that I've ever heard (regardless as to whether the particular definition is one that makes sense to me or not).
Indeed, in my experience, the strongest and deepest criticisms and critiques of religion have come from religious persons themselves, not from atheists.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't think there is any validity to that claim, though I have see it made repeatedly.
My guess would be that if we asked for the actual data, we would find that believers and non-believers are alerted on at about the same frequency and that their posts are hidden (or not) at about the same frequency.
There is some urban legend going on around these parts about this, but the claims are not based on anything but belief and faith, imo.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)In other words, was there a conflict of interest?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Does that answer your question?
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)In effect, anyone who has been on DU for some time is "in the conversation" so to speak. Yet at any regular poster on DU is often usually also an interested party; one who may typically have a religion, or fairly strong stance regarding it.
You yourself of course, have more than 130,000 posts on DU. You describe your own view as not "a believer." Though I am not sure that you are say, "not a Christian," say.
Though at times you post anti-religious OP's, certainly your normal or majority position is a defender of Religion. I would therefore not consider you "neutral" as regards religion. I would regard you as an interested party.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)on a jury that involves you. So if you have frequent conflicts with an individual who you feel would not be impartial, you can prohibit them from judging your post.
I am indeed a defender of religion, even though I am not personally religious. I never claimed to be neutral. No one on this site can claim to be neutral about everything.
The same argument you are making can be made for the anti-religious. They are also not neutral on the subject.
I guess I am missing your point here.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)What I'm doing to be sure is roughly, exploring the possibility that there is or was a privileging bias in DU religion section juries. Or in other forms of DU oversight of this section. But I wish to make no firm statements or judgments until after a careful objective investigation into the facts of the case. Particularly I am interested in the exact DU mechanism by which posters' comments are deleted or censored.
Clearly there were moments when a poster might be a victim of discrimination. Personally, I specified to DU that I do not wish to serve on juries. But to be sure, I admittedly neglected to specify anyone that should not be in a jury on any case involving me. It would seem important for people to do that. To help insure neutrality/no privilege in jury decisions. Those who did not know or do that, might have suffered some bias.
But are there other, even more serious loopholes in the overall monitoring/censoring system? Here we need to understand the fuller DU process.
My rough understanding of the overall process was that (perhaps until recently?) the DU religious section WAS overseen by a panel of its own members. This would at first seem to be in danger of conflict of interest. Though apparently DU attempted to take care of this. By having a panel (not a jury?) balanced between believers and nonbelievers. With one neutral decider, to break tie votes.
But in that system note, it would be important, in the interest of neutrality, that ms. cbayer would be accounted as one of the pro-religion voices. Was that always the case? At times ms. cbayer has said she was "not a believer." Was she ever therefore accounted as the neutral decider? Or even a nonbeliever on a jury?
Here I see potential problems, which ms. cbayer's testimony and further investigation might help resolve.
Could any past problems with the jury sysem still continue today in DU? I did not follow the recent full discussion on how censorship/juries are currently configured. My rough understanding that it is now handled entirely out-of-house? That is, by persons who are not active in the DU religious section at all? This might take care of local religious bias. However? If the out-of-house monitors are mostly Christians, as statistics say is likely by 78%? Then...?
Here and elsewhere I see POTENTIAL problems, possible conflicts of interest, bias, a possible "privileging" of the pro-religious standpoint, in the way Democratic Underground handles discussions.
Currently I make no accusations. And I am not coming to any conclusion. Prior to an adequate uncovering of relevant facts. And testimony from interested parties.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You would need to know how many alerts there are, who makes them and what the results are. The administrators of the site have that data. Without it, any claim of bias is unfounded and just based on emotionally based beliefs.
The religion group has 5 hosts who oversee the group and have some specific responsibilities and authorities. This is separate from the jury system.
I was a host of this group and was in the slot of "believer" because I am a religionist. Although not religious, I am a religionist in the way a man might be a feminist. I voluntarily stepped down because of some other obligations.
Juries are chosen randomly every time there is an alert. Anyone who is willing and is on the site might be asked The only exceptions would be if they were active in the thread in question or were on the alerted members "no jury" list.
The statistics on how many DU members are religious vs. not religious are not known. It is not possible to take data from the general population and apply it to this site, as it would be totally incorrect. And even if it were possible, the vast majority of christians on this site are also liberal/progressives and are highly unlikely to be anti-atheists.
In fact, I would propose there are far more anti-theists on this site than anti-atheists.
The persecution claims of some members might be considered delusional, if one were juvenile enough to use that term to describe others with differing points of views.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Since the general population is 78% CHristian. And more believers.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The fact that 78% of the US public are christian does not mean that 78% of DU members are christians.
There is no data to support that at all.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Currently the percentages claiming some religion - including some "nones" claiming no specific affiliation, but claiming some kind of vague religion - are even higher than 78 % Christians nationwide; they are closer to 88% religious overall.
Statistics can be used to predict just how far an organization like DU would deviate from the norm. And? Statistically it seems highly unlikely that DU overall (not just the religion section) would deviate from the standard norm significantly; enough to even out the percentage to a fair 50/50. Not when the percentage in the general population is roughly say, guesstimating, 88/12. That is a VERY high statistical advantage.
So that? It is extremely unlikely that there is no significant pro-religion bias in jury decisions on Democratic Underground.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)significant nonbeliever bias in jury decisions on DU.
What you state is merely your belief. You have nothing to back it up.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)And, contrary to your own assertions, this can be done.
It should be fairly easily possible for a professional cultural statistician to roughly correlate political preference (i.e., say, Democratic),and other data, to religious preferences. Then based on that and other data, predict probable deviation from the cultural norm on specifically DU.
Like too, to many who study culture and religion professionally, it would seem all but inconceivable that after an statistical analysis (and even questionnaires), that an 88/12 general advantage for religious persons, would statistically get whittled down to 50/50. Even here on DU.
cbayer
(146,218 posts) hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1264 Interfaith has 66 subscribers.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)It'll probably be a wash.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Did you just make that up?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)But counting there are 14, so I was off by one. Apoplexy accepted.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Buddhism
Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity
Christian Liberals & Progressive People of Faith
Interfaith Group
Jewish Group
Muslim/Islam
Prayer Circle
I don't think you can count these as "religious" and even if you did, you wouldn't get 14.
Ancient Wisdom and Pagan Spirituality
Astrology, Spirituality & Alternative Healing
Seekers on Unique Paths
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Ms. cbayer's simply discriminating against Pagan religion and so forth as not religious, is simple religious bias/bigotry.
In addition to Ms. cbayer's expanded list of 10, there are also two more sections:
1) Atheists and Agnostics. DU considers these "religious"ly oriented. And
2) Religion
These would not necessarily be called "religious." But they would be said to be ADDRESSING religion.
So regarding the subject of religion on DU? Tallying the number of sections devoted to the subject of Religion, pro and con, as one useful statistical index, it would appear that the bias in favor of religious persons might be between 11 to 1. Or at most 10 to 2 (if we do not consider the "religion" section religious overall).
So on Democratic Underground there is roughly a 5-to-1 advantage for religious folks. By this particular index. We will need to look at other indices as well, of course. But the preliminary indications are not good. Especially when we consider the advantage for believers in the current jury system too.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The issue was to compare the number of subscribers in the believing and non-believing groups.
Not to compare the absolute number of groups. I guess we could have separate atheist, agnostic, humanist, secularist, atheist2, I'm not sure and my religion is none of your business groups to even things up.
Feel free to start any one of those.
Look, I'm just going to concede this utterly ridiculous debate to you. Religion wins….. and, as you say, that's not good.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)while yours aren't. You it seems have some sort of bias, while cbayer, as we all know, is the superior sort of intellect that just knows what is without having any actual data to back it up.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)You - Ms cbayer - here note of yourself that "I am ... a defender of religion." Though you immediately add, "even though I am not personally religious."
This position statement from Ms. cbayer represents an extremely problematic ethics position in many ways.
First 1) in effect you are defending a position that you yourself do not support for yourself. This raises the issue of sincerity. Or in biblical language, hypocrisy.
Related to this, it raises the question whether you are 2) being patronizing or elitist; since you advocate for others what you do not deign to do yourself.
Your position raises many moral or ethical questions. But especially, one of them is that your position is consistent with the notion that religion is OK for "Child"ren or the less privileged say - but not for adults or successful people. Or at least, everyone else, but not you yourself.
More specifically, interestingly, your position in some respects corresponds to the "White Lie" idea of religion; the view that religion is not entirely true. But that it gives uneducated, unwashed masses, a vague myth and dream to help their miserable lives (allegedly). Even though it is not strictly true. So that it is thought that religion might be a permissible "lie" in effect. In particular, it is often thought that telling the People that there is in invisible bearded guy or saintly god in the sky, monitoring us all the time, prevents people from doing bad things, even when the police are not around to see them or stop them.
All of this would put Ms. cbayer into a problematic kind of elitist or "privileged" position.
My own position by the way, would probably be that many members of the elite have in fact bought into the White Lie theory of religion. But I disagree with it. I argue that even if religion functions as a simplified form of truth, or as a kind of painkiller, the people would have done much better in life, and we all would have done better, if they had simply been told a straighter truth from infancy. As it is, they were told untrue stories that would merely confuse their thinking. Which in fact, made them worse - more confused and immoral, less materially productive - than they would have been otherwise. When in fact a far better and straighter form of education is now available in our time; one which would have made them better people, right from the start. Rather than a people lost in "false dreams," "false prophets," and as the Bible itself said, "delusion."
If Religion is not true, and is even in part a deliberate deceit, then in fact, therefore, it is not a harmless or "white" lie or "illusion" or "delusion," which the Bible itself warned about. It is destructive untruth. Because it actually takes people who could have learned rationality - and teaches them from infancy, irrational, magical thinking instead: "pray and get miracles." Or "ignore material reality altogether"; concentrate on the phantasms of the mind or "spirit."
In this way, I suggest that Religion actively destroys part of the budding Rationality and intelligence of children. And by disabling their intelligence in childhood, infancy, Religion and its anti-rationality, its "faith," its "hate" for material sense, finally does the people today, far more harm than good.
In supporting the Religion that they themselves explicitly do not believe therefore, our privileged and patronizing elites, our "leaders," have not done the people a favor. The untruth was after all, a black, not a "white" lie.
We should have known; since the Bible itself told us that our religious "leaders" and holy men would "deceive" us with untruths, "delusions." In part they were foretold to deceive us, by "white"washing. Covering up deep cracks, structural flaws, in our holiest men and institutions. And the lessons they patronizingly taught everyone else. Even as they explicitly did not believe in them, themselves.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...supports gay marriage has similar "ethical problems".
cbayer
(146,218 posts)What about those who advocate for those with psychiatric disorders but don't have one ourselves???
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Nah, it really is quite simple. Her claim is one of "agnosticism" not "unbelief" and her behavior leads to the obvious conclusion that her agnosticism is one of theistic agnosticism, that is that she believes in gods but cannot prove that her belief is correct. Mostly she appears to present a façade of "non-believer" status in order to be a "good" non-believer, as opposed to the "BAD ATEYAEISTS!!!1!!" who misbehave here with such depraved regularity.
See also another poster with similar dubious behavior.
It is a fun game on the internets though.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)They are advocating tolerance ... as we seek to cure what they have.
So those who advocate religion, but don't believe in it themselves, who don't try to stop it, are not like advocates for the mentally ill.
The upper class sometimes thinks it is “helping” the lower classes, by giving them religion. But?
Actually it is actively holding them down. It believes that the lower classes are stupid, and like “child”ren; and cannot really understand the reason for things. So it tells them to simply believe things blindly, on “faith,” without hearing reasons. The way you would tell a child just to “do what you say,” and “trust mommy” that it is right. Even though mommy can't explain the reasons for her rules right now.
But while the privileged or upper class says (and in some cases actually believes) that it is helping the lower classes by giving them religion, simplistic formulas, in the end it actually exploits and suppresses them. By refusing to give them a real education; refusing to teach them critical thinking, and reason; but insisting on blind belief in the “lord”s.
The upper class patronizingly believes that the lower classes are stupid, and can only follow half-understood formulas, followed by rote, and religiously repeated over and over. So it gives the people religion, ritual. But actually, the people are far more capable than their leaders think; the people could have learned reason at childhood, if they have been taught it. Taught reason, critical thinking, rather than blind faith in authority and simplistic “rules” and dogmas.
Ironically in fact, the “help” that the upper classes (including bishops and popes, priests and ministers) give to the middle and lower class, does not help them; but actively keeps them down. Believing our lower classes are stupid, our patronizing paternalistic exploiters do not energize the educational system to teach Reason, critical thinking. Which in the end, actively prevents exploited workers from developing the critical thinking skills that would make them competitors in the work place.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Not even that they would lean one way or the other.
But the opportunity exists for an influence to be had by any dominant opinion, be it from a Christian or anti or other point of view, when the jurors are anonymous.
Said differently, I feel that the design and administration of the community is inclusive and that IF there's any 'entitlement' present, it might come from the jury system.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I agree with that and to claim that there is some kind of trend that favors one group over another is without any support. If there are such trends, only the admins would have the data to look at it.
There is that opportunity, but I'm not sure what the demographics are when it comes to religion on this site. And even if they show a majority of people are believers, I don't think that necessarily makes it more likely that juries will favor believers.
But I see what you mean.
Hope you are well and enjoying your summer by the sea!
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)When I see posts stating Scientology and cults are not valid or legitimate religions, as opposed to Christianity and Hinduism, I suspect this comes from a place of religious entitlement.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)How is saying that they are all equivalent not reflect some non-religious entitlement? For example, is it not a point of privilege to say that one has the legitimate position and everyone else is occupying some other position?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)When we claim to know that someone's beliefs are not religious, we are saying we know them better then they know themselves. It's patronizing.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's an imprecise science to be sure, but those that see no distinction are basically saying that it is all bullshit.
I think it is disingenuous to try and take the position that you are somehow more liberal/progressive by grouping them all together. I think it is BS to try and make the claim that you are giving them all equal respect, when, in fact, you are giving them all equal disrespect.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)People who embrace one faith usually do so at the expense of other faith. For example, generally speaking, Tibetan Buddhists don't accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior. Seems to me very few people accept all religions as equally true, which is why so many people pick one or none.
However, there is more to a religion than a series of related beliefs. There is also the perception of community, identity, and life style. In many people's mind, religion is a relationship with something greater than themselves and/or their own ego. Scientologists have this. Catholics have this. Tibetan Buddhists have this. Wiccans have this.
Why are the experiences of one group more or less valid than the experiences of the rest?
I don't think my position is the liberal/progressive position. I think my position is the sociological position. I developed my position while reading the works of Joseph Campbell, and this position was reinforced by the sociology of religions classes I took in school.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)While there are some who embrace their own faith at the expense of other, there are many who do not. They see their experience like one of the blind men who is touching a part of the elephant. Their experience is real and it is theirs, but it doesn't mean that no one else experiences are invalid.
I don't know what the numbers are, and I doubt the you do either, but there are those of all stripes.
Your position is valid…. and so is mine.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)It seems to be cults are less valid than other religions because cults are bad. Is that a fair description of your position?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think there is more risk that they will prey upon those that are most vulnerable.
I think there is less opportunity to be an individual or question doctrine.
I thin there is more potential for abuse.
While the lines are not always clear, I think there are lines.
Those that take the positions that they are the same or that the only difference is in numbers, make a mistake, imo. They miss the opportunity to see situations where some individuals may be seriously injured.
You can make the argument that this is true for religion, but it is not. You can make the argument that I am a hypocrite because I accept religion and reject cults.
The ability to discriminate between things that may or may not be harmful is an asset, not a fault.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)as opposed to grouping them together? Instead of saying cults are harmful, we could say some but not all cults are harmful. For example, the Church of Satan has politics I don't agree with, but they are not abusive to their members, and most of the Satanists I have met are very nice people.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I hope that I accept whatever each individual believes as long as it does not harm them or infringe on the rights of others.
But if they do hurt people or infringe on the rights of others then maybe I need a term to distinguish them from other belief systems.
And if "cult" is the term I use, then that is just what it is.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Why pick on the underdogs?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)On this site, I see people use "religion" for belief systems they don't like on a daily basis.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)beliefs.
I will maintain that here are dangerous or potentially dangerous groups out there. Whether we call them cults of something else doesn't matter to me, but we should distinguish them from what I would call legitimate religions.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Why not just call out behavior you don't like and avoid the labels all together?
How can anything be legitimate? Isn't legitimacy strictly a product of the imagination?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I call bad things "cults". You seem to thing that there are things called cults that may or may not be cults.
Religion is complex and difficult. It is important to be able to distinguish when it is or may be harmful.
It is a matter of judgment. If you thing all religions are cults, then you have given up the distinction.
I have not.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Modern sociology and comparative religion consider cults to be small religions. Sociologists are starting to use the term "new religious movement" instead of the word "cult" due to anti-cult bigotry, but the two terms mean the exact same thing to them.
No. All cults are cults until the membership of the cult reaches a certain number. I don't know what that number is, or even if there a specific number. Once the cult membership becomes large enough, it becomes a major religion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)has meaning and can be accurately used to describe some movements, including rather large ones. I don't think it is mere numbers that make the differentiation.
I think scientology is a cult and it's very large. I do not think it will ever be a religion. The only reason the IRS sanctioned it as one is because they tired of fighting with their lawyers.
Based on your reasoning, is there is cause to believe that atheism will meet the criteria of a religion?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Not by itself. Zen Buddhism is both atheistic and a religion. Religions answer philosophical questions, such as "is there an afterlife" and "how should I live my life." Atheism doesn't address those questions.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)do address philosophical questions. Some even attempt to do it using quasi-scientific reasoning.
So while atheism in general is not a religion, there is the possibility that there will be branches that meet the criteria you describe.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Taoism blurs the lines between spirits and gods, in my view, so some may consider Taoism to be an atheistic religion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)eomer
(3,845 posts)The term cult has been a point of contention, misunderstanding, and even abuse. So I think it will be helpful (necessary?) to clarify what one means when using it.
Even if we stipulate ad arguendo that the term cult really means groups that really are dangerous, and there surely are some of those, the term is still often applied to groups that don't fit that definition but rather merely have beliefs that are not mainstream. And there are people who apply it without being careful about the distinction and can do harm as a result. Here's an example:
http://www.culteducation.com/group/1138-satanism/18244-legal-action-set-to-go-all-the-way-to-scotlands-highest-court.html
There is also the possibility that when you use it people will mistake what you mean and think it is bigotry against all small groups with beliefs that aren't mainstream. I believe that exactly that happens most of the time when you use it in this group without clarification and that you could avoid a lot of "talking past each other" by just being more clear when you use it.
It's natural for people to mistake your use of the term as bigotry because when some people use it that is exactly what it is. My mother-in-law told my wife and I that we are members of a cult. The "cult" in our case is a UU congregation. /sarcasm
Maybe an alternative would be to say "harmful cult" instead of just "cult". Or maybe there's some other way to clarify that isn't a lot of extra trouble. Submitted for your consideration. 
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think there is more potential for danger in a cult.
I have seen a few tables comparing cults to religion that I though made some valid points, but I really haven't seen anything I would consider definitive. Even the site you link to seems to struggle with this.
Agree that there is the risk of the word being misused and that it could lead to bigotry. The differences to me have been in the area of brainwashing, though I am sure that many would argue that there is a lot of grey area there.
My objection comes up when the weak statement "religion is just a cult with more members" is made. That means nothing and completely ignores that there really are valid differences.
Using the term "harmful cult" might help defang that position.
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I don't think it is likely to be resolved, but i do think we can be clearer when we speak to each other.
eomer
(3,845 posts)The terms tend to obfuscate more than elucidate in this case, in my opinion. That's because the things of substance that we should be concerned about can occur in entities that may or may not fit into whatever definition we settle on for "cult" and "religion".
For example, there are men in our US military whose religion is the cause of them seeking combat duty in order to kill people. Some of them have used rifle scopes with verses of scripture on the lenses. It's also common to see bombs on which religion-inspired messages have been written, sometimes also by women and children. All these people are probably some minority percentage of the religion that drives them but because the religion is large then a small percentage is still enough to be a significant harm.
There are obviously other examples of religions that cause similar harm, both currently and historically. So in my opinion the distinction between cult and religion isn't so important. What's important to me is the aspects of religion/cult that can cause these kinds of harm.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But then there is also the case of zealots within what are otherwise harmless religions.
Should their behavior be attributed to the religion or should they be marginalized? Does the religion actually hold any responsibility for their behavior or would they have found something to give them an outlet if the religion had not be available?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)These are conversational arguments concerning the validity of certain groups forming, what they consider to be, a religion.
By "religious entitlement" I think we mean that certain individuals are more entitled socially, because of their religious affiliation. I don't think DU hands out those kinds of entitlement.
I recall, many years ago, I was on a bus in Rome, Two nuns boarded the bus and told me, not asked, but told me to give them my seat, so they could sit together. I politely pointed out that there were many vacant seats on the bus and that I was quite comfortable where I was sitting. They took offense and ordered me to relinquish my seat. I politely told them to fuck off. Obviously, they felt some kind of entitlement, which I could not relate to, and in fact, found offensive. I had no issue with their chosen path in life, but I did with their behavior.
In a situation such as that, I consider the elderly, the infirm and pregnant women are entitled to my seat. Entitled because of their condition or frailty, not because they wear a religious habit.
If groups of individuals want to gather in sanctuaries, where they are protected from the outside world, then they should be left in peace. But if they gather in those sanctuaries, thinking they are entitled to spit out the windows at those outside, then they are abusing their "sanctuary" status and are likely to come under attack.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Plus, here at DU, you (and to be clear, that means the "generic you" not the "you" you) can hide any group (including those safe havens) you don't want to look at....if religious discussions are upsetting you, your DU experience can be enhanced by making them disappear. I urge you (the generic you, again!) to try it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Do they feel entitled to do that?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I suggest you research what entitlement and privlige before continuing any of these conversations.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Whatever the case our conversation is at an end.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I have researched it and try to see where my own is. You very clearly don't. Not an insult but stating you should look up what privileged means. Insults and declarations from atheists online are merely words. Religions saying homosexuals are responcable for the world's problems causes people's deaths.
The two sides are not equal and to claim they are is to be very dishonest about the issue, and to excersize your religious privilege that the non believers are the same as you, or worse because they don't respect your beliefs because they see how problematic they are.
Also: a privileged person talking to a non privliged person just declaring the conversation done is abusing your privilege.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You've ignored everything I've said and now are claiming I'm the one dismissing you?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)So one of mine saying that you are not understanding the issue doesn't really compare (and see my comments about trying to make the other side seem equal to your side.)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If I am wrong I can admit it.
Please show me.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)All those subject line only replys that ignore anything that has been said, there's severel inthis thread.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And I said I meant no disrespect, just that you displayed a lack of understanding on the issue.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You can have the last word on this but I am done.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I think some come from a position of intellectual superiority and feel justified in calling believers "delusional" and "psychotic".
The irony is, of course, that they suffer from the delusion that most atheists agree with them.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Gods are part of beliefs. Beliefs exist, so they are real. Beliefs stem from ideas, which are real.
God is a concept, and I doubt any 2 people share an identical concept of what God is, or what gods are, not to mention goddesses.
Anyone who has an imagination, ie. is alive, probably has a concept of god/s.. For some, especially the Xian fundies and anti-theist fundies, God seems to be some kind of "Sky Daddy". Very simplistic, two dimensional thinking.
Most of us, believers and non-believers have a more nuanced concept of God. You don't appear to share in that.
I have more of a Zen concept of God, though I rarely use the word, as it may cause confusion to my two dimensional friends. I don't believe in creation, for example. I do believe in heaven, because I live in it. Some I know, call it "hell". I equate God with infinity. Every nano particle in the universe is god. All that exists and doesn't exist is god. God cannot be defined, as infinity cannot be defined. Using words to argue the existence of something that is not definable is pointless. I suggest you try meditation if you really want to find the right question. The answer will always elude you until you ask the right question.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)God exists as a concept. That is something real. I've already explained that my concept of God does not include creation of life or the universe, or anything, because I do not believe in creation. I accept infinity as a reality, and by doing so, I cannot conceive of a finite existence. So, the classic concept of God, by the Abrahamic Religions does not fit my equation.
OTOH, it could be argued that in an infinite reality, all things exist, including those that do not. I'm not trying to make your head hurt, but you are asking questions to which there are no finite answers. Once you start asking the right questions, life will become much easier.
What do you think Warren? Do you think gods exist outside of people's minds? And why do you worry about it so much?
Belief means "thinking something in one's mind is true". It isn't complicated.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)However if your claim is that "gods" exist in the sense that math exists there is a huge amount of fail in that.
Let's start with verifiability. Regardless of whether numbers exist outside of human experience, we can verify that the huge body of theoretical work by humans on numbers applies to the real world. For example we can use math and physics to predict with great precision where an orbiting body will be at a certain point in time, and our predictions can be verified. Math is hardly in the delusional category.
Where is the verification for the ideas about gods? Oh right, there is none. Nothing. It is all nonsense and fairy tales. Just so stories that explained the observed world to ancient people, that then became institutionalized and millennia later, completely obsolete in their explanatory power, are instead indoctrinated into people and used for social control.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Does 5 exist?
eomer
(3,845 posts)Helpful fact: I'm thinking of him right now.
pinto
(106,886 posts) 
Warpy
(111,255 posts)Every religious person who answers to this thread will likely say "what entitlement? People pick on us all the time."
That's not what entitlement means.
Entitlement means religious people feel completely entitled to go to the Atheists' protected forum and troll for things to get other believers upset about. Atheists generally stay out of particular/protected religious forums because we are not entitled to go there.
This thread title is an example of that. The A&A thread with this title was started yesterday.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The non-believers think they are being persecuted and subject to religious privilege and the believers feel the same.
Let's try this:
Entitlement means that anti-religious people feel completely entitled to go to the Interfaith protected group and troll for things to get others upset about. BTW, you are completely wrong about who is visiting which groups.
The fact is that this is an internecine war in which each side feels they are being persecuted. It's utter bullshit.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Here we don't suffer consequences, in the real world religion actually kills people, much as you'd like to not talk about it. Atheism doesn't do that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But that is not the case on this site. Here, there are likeminded people. Some of them are religious believers, some of them are not.
There is not competition between who is better. People just are who they are. If they are accepting and embracing of those that are different, the world becomes a better place.
So as long as you are dealing with religious people who are accepting and embracing and otherwise share your values, why attack them or work in a divisive way?
BTW, I post articles here frequently about how religion kills people, so, once again, your assumptions about me are wrong. It's a meme that you should take a look at and reconsider.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Contrary to revision attempts. Unless you mean that our vary presence set him off. I did nothing to him to make him respond as he did.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Are you saying I'm a religious person who trolls a protected forum for things to get believers upset about?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)"Do you believe there is too much religious entitlement" - to which the theists answer is "no there isn't too much". There is a fine amount, for them.
Warpy
(111,255 posts)It wasn't incriminating.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Are all believers. That's kind of interesting. And ironic.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I count 8 non-believers (AFAIK) who say there is no privilege
And 3 non-believers (AFAIK) indicating that there is. (4, if you think there is.)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 18, 2014, 02:01 PM - Edit history (1)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Maybe Goblinmonger can give you a hand. He's very good at Englishy things.
stone space
(6,498 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)as opposed to not being religious.
For those that answer yes, what kind of advantages do you think religious people here have?
While there is no question that there is religious privilege in this country (if you are christian that is), I don't think there is any evidence that that is the case here.
For those that maintain there is privilege, I think some data based on reason, free thinking and rationality should be offered.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)despite what it says in the constitution.
rug
(82,333 posts)Somebody has to alert Skinner.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)enki23
(7,788 posts).
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Do you have any demographic data that would support that contention?
I would bet, but can't know for sure, that there is no advantage to being a believer when it comes to juries on DU.
enki23
(7,788 posts)You'd have to have one hell of a positive selection bias for atheists to be equal to Christians here. Without very strong evidence to the contrary, actual evidence, then there is every reason to assume your assumption is wrong. But that should be obvious to someone who isn't so ridiculously privileged that they see any lessening of their grip on the conversation as evidence that they are being outnumbered.
So, now we have a second example of privilege.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Though not at all reliable, various polls on this site have shown that the demographics of the general population are not reflected on this site when it comes to religion. And although I have no data, I would guess that there are many more atheists and agnostics than some of the major religious groups.
In addition, the christians that do participate here are very likely to be liberal/progressive types who do not have any prejudice towards non-believers.
And finally, only in a very few circumstances would a jury have any idea of the religious position of a member they were judging.
You could probably get the data from the administrators, but my hypothesis would be that there is absolutely no religious privilege on this site when it comes to juries.
What do you imagine my point of privilege to be? Those that make assumptions about others based on no actual knowledge are much more likely to be looking down from their place way up high on the ladder.
Are you white? Straight? Male? Living in the US? Employed? The demographics I have seen on this site would make it highly likely that you are those things. So you may not want to compare points of privilege.
Yes, I would agree that you are setting an example of privilege and it has nothing to do with religion.
enki23
(7,788 posts)then you are wrong. The burden of evidence is on you. Perhaps fortunately for you, the standard of evidence doesn't require "proof." Just some sufficiently strong evidence to account for the unlikelihood of the proposal. As you say, you don't have this. So your argument is, honest-to-god, invalid. (Oh, but I know. You have "faith" anyway.)
Second, liberal/progressive Christians will absolutely still be Christians, and be more likely to be on the side of other liberal/progressive Christians rather than on the side of liberal/progressive atheists. It would be stupid, barring extraordinary evidence, to think otherwise.
Finally, people on DU juries absolutely *will* be in a position to see the religious preferences of people's posts when those posts relate to religion, which is the entire fucking point here.
Any more absurd objections?
(Addendum: seriously? Yeah. I've seen a lot of white people in the hellhole in which I currently live talking about the horrors of black American privilege too. Privileged people who are also assholes seem to be like that.)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)elsewhere in the universe, and I don't think I'm wrong.
The burden is on me only if I want to prove it to you or someone else. There is no burden if it is simply my belief.
But if you tell me I am wrong, then you have made an assertion and the burden is squarely on you.
You don't believe? That's fine. Others do, that's fine too.
Did you catch the recent hide in this group? If you did, I'm not sure how you can continue to take the position that there is bias towards believers. Here is a piece of evidence for you. Are you going to reject it?
No need to get yourself all wound up there, enki. We are just having a conversation. And believe me, I know a lot about privileged people who are also assholes, like people that imply that others are stupid just because they disagree with them.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You make a claim, you are burdened with providing proof of said claim.
Unless, of course, you're religious. Then you get a free pass. Because religious ideas are "different" than non-religious ideas, and it would be unfair for us vex believers with the tasking prospect of actually having to defend their positions such as is expected of the rest of us.
The privilege of religious belief is the ability to hold and express positions that are unsupported by evidence, and to be excused from justifying those positions where others are not. There's no rule here protecting the beliefs of anti-vaxxers, homeopaths, or chiropractors, but woe upon anyone who dares chuckle aloud at the thought of a cracker turning into human flesh. That could very well earn you a hide.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The claim is that there is significant religious privilege here. I do not believe that is true. As I have been told over and over and over again, the burden of proof is on those making the claim, because proving a negative is impossible.
BTW, I don't completely by that meme, but it's used here frequently.
Religious ideas are not different than non-religious ideas, but they are protected both by our constitution and the standards of this site. Do you think they should not be afforded such protection?
It's not a privilege to hold beliefs that are unsupported by evidence and unless someone is making an assertion of certainty, there is not reason that they should have to prove anything to you or anyone else.
You don't like the rules of the site? Take it up with the administrators. I would love to see you make the case that we should be able to express our prejudices and sometimes outright bigotry towards those with religious beliefs. And don't' forget this - if that rules changes then it would be fair game to attack people for their lack of beliefs also.
Is that what you want?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The Constitution ensures the right to hold religious beliefs. It does not protect those beliefs from criticism. Nor does criticizing a person's religious belief imply, in any way, that belief should lose its constitutional protection.
Are you trying to insult me?
It's not a privilege to hold beliefs that are unsupported by evidence and unless someone is making an assertion of certainty, there is not reason that they should have to prove anything to you or anyone else.
No, they don't have to prove anything. Neither do anti-vaxxers, or chiropractors, or psychics. The difference is anti-vaxxers, chiropractors and psychics can't fall back on the TOS if someone were to call their beliefs ridiculous.
Deflection denied.
This is a discussion of religious privilege as it exists on DU. It seems to me this is an ideal place to, I don't know, discuss religious privilege on DU.
I would love to see you make the case that we should be able to express our prejudices and sometimes outright bigotry towards those with religious beliefs.
And I would love to know why you think I would make such a case.
Are you honestly confused, or this some lame, passive-aggressive attempt to impugn my character?
Since I am talking about criticizing ideas, not attacking people, this is a moot point.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If you have to ask, I am not, lol.
Yes, I am very, very confused and a lame, passive-aggressive person to boot.
I have no need to impugn your character. Your resorting to personal attacks does that without any assistance.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I can't help but notice that, despite the rudeness of your reply, I nevertheless addressed every single one of your points.
"Resort"? This word... I don't think it means what you think it means.
Then you are simply unaware that putting words into people's mouths is considered impolite?
Curious.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)When you start opining on my state of confusion and passive-agressive behavior, you have moved from a civil discussion about ideas to a personal one.
Now, we may have both crept into that area because we are pushing each others buttons. In that case I would suggest that neither of us is really hearing the other. I can say that I don't feel like you are hearing me at all and I suspect, based on your response, that you feel the same.
The line here is between challenging ideas and personally attacking individuals with those ideas. As long as people stay on the side of that line, I don't see that anyone is going to have a problem with it.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Which is precisely what I did.
When you start misrepresenting peoples' positions -- be it deliberately or unintentionally -- such personal questioning becomes relevant. Throughout your post, you insinuated I hold deplorable positions... that I oppose the religious protections afforded by the First Amendment, that I would like to see prejudice and bigotry allowed in the DU terms of service. This is libelous crap, and in the interest of making the best use of my time here, I think it entirely pertinent to know whether this was a case of misunderstanding or deliberate hostility.
If my reaction was a bit strong, it is because I have no idea why anyone would think I hold to such patently illiberal positions. Seriously, why in the hell would I even be here if that was the case?
I think I am reading you loud and clear: You don't want to encourage or allow prejudice and bigotry at DU. The problem is I am not proposing we encourage or allow prejudice or bigotry at DU.
In theory that line exists. In practice, it is often blurred by peoples' personal feelings, biases, and personal attachment to their beliefs. You cannot expect me to believe that every single believer who frequents this forum is simply fine with having their beliefs challenged. I've been here long enough to know that's not the case.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You have come across to me as an anti-theist, as one who holds negative feelings and perceptions about religious people in general and as someone who make blanket statements and assumptions about those people.
My perception of you in this regard is not due to my personal pathology and your opining on that is really not appropriate.
What I see now is something different. I do have a fairly strong reaction to those who I feel are prejudiced against religious people simply because they are religion and I admit that I sometimes go overboard in my responses when I thing that is what I am reading.
If I have misjudged you, then I apologize. As you say, the line is often blurred by people's personal perspectives and that is certainly true for me.
No one really enjoys having their beliefs challenged, and I would say that is equally true for the religious and the self-identified non-religious. The goal would seem to be allowing everyone to rest in their own place and to not judge them merely based on whether they have religious beliefs or not.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I think, though, we are not on the same page where that term is concerned.
I hold that antitheism is a position contrary to theism, not theists. In practicality, this simply means that I will challenge claims to the general benefit of religious belief. Again, it has more to do with ideas, and the moral and ethical implications of those ideas, than the people who hold them.
My lack of belief may put me in the extreme minority, but I don't live in a vacuum. Most of my family and closest friends are religious. I understand perfectly well there are good, decent religious people out there. I still think they're wrong, but lots of people are wrong about lots of different things. Being wrong doesn't necessarily make you a bad person.
And, being opposed to particular idea doesn't mean one would favor its forcible removal from society.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I see anti-theism as bigotry against theists without any regard to the differences between them or the similarities you may have with them.
I see anti-theism as the inability to acknowledge the good things that religious groups and religious people do in this world.
But here we agree. We both see anti-theism as taking the position that you are right and those that believe are wrong, despite any evidence to support either case. You have no standing to call other people wrong. That is an assertion and would put the burden of proof on you, despite the meme that states otherwise.
"Being wrong doesn't necessarily make you a bad person." The implication here is that they are not bad, just stupid.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I don't see it that way at all.
If the good and bad things religion has accomplished were physical objects, and we put them on a two-pan scale, I think it would tip towards the bad. That doesn't mean I don't think the good things aren't there, merely that the overall effect is negative.
I'm not talking about whether or not there is a god here, but whether religious belief, generally speaking, is a force for good or ill in the world. It is a positive claim, and it does assume the burden of proof, but it is also a measurable claim and there is evidence to support it (and evidence against it).
You might not find the evidence convincing, and that's fine. We'll simply have to disagree there.
Being wrong doesn't necessarily make you a bad person." The implication here is that they are not bad, just stupid.
That's not the implication at all. Plenty of smart people arrive at incorrect conclusions every day. My dad, a PhD chemist, thought it would be a good idea to buy a Ford Pinto... proof positive you don't need to be stupid to be wrong about something.
And, for the record, I said "I think they're [theists] wrong". Such is my opinion, and I fully recognize that it is an opinion. You can disagree with someone without thinking they're stupid.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I'm glad, though, that you are able to recognize that there is some good. That's a start.
I also agree that if someone makes an assertion, that it is there responsibility to provide evidence. But I also believe that most religious people are quietly and privately religious, and make no assertions that need proof.
Again with the "incorrect conclusions". That puts the burden of proof on you. If you assert that their beliefs are incorrect, it becomes your responsibility to show that to be the case. If that is just your opinion, it is good that you make that clear.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)and get posts deleted... then there is no doubt about religious entitlement
Anyone saying otherwise is not telling the truth...to say the least
cbayer
(146,218 posts)haven of believers and get posts deleted, is there also no doubt about religious entitlement?
I would agree that anyone saying otherwise is not telling the truth or has a very distorted view of the truth.
Rainforestgoddess
(436 posts)That the hides in interfaith were the result of a conversation directly with a/a members participating there, while hides in a/a can come out of nowhere and be unrelated to conversations happening outside of a/a.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Let's all stop trying to be martyrs here.
This is a stupid, destructive internecine war. Nit picking and splitting hairs about who did what is just stupid.
Any group that puts energy into calling out and attacking others is setting themselves up for retribution.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Rainforestgoddess
(436 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)beliefs that they can't make objective decisions about what is and is not offensive and worthy of a hide?
Please.
Rainforestgoddess
(436 posts)That it's not necessarily their own religious beliefs, but the desire to protect the hurt feelings of others.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)it is going on from both sides. People want to protect those on their team. The lengths they will go to do to that vary, but it happens.
It is not more frequent within one group than another. Your posts in this thread are a testament to that.
Rainforestgoddess
(436 posts)Beware the wrath of the Rainforestgoddess! She may dampen your spirit!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You generally lift my spirit.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It would appear to be, when some of its members presume that it is safe to personally insult those who cannot respond.
Entitlement, in itself, is not a bad thing. The problems arise when there is abuse by entitlement.
Captain Bligh is a perfect example.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)No, especially when it's for a minority group overrun by bigfoots
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Are they the "bigfoots" you refer to, who overrun the safe havens? I know what you mean, there are some nasty types who like to set the tone for all who seek sanctuary. Kinda defeats their purpose, IYKWIM.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And this is the same sort of argument used by privileged classes of individuals to deny that their privilege exists.
rug
(82,333 posts) hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)People are allowed to alert in any safe haven as long as they are not flagged.
If you want this changed then all safe havens will have to have this same privilege.
I think if people don't want hidden posts they should be more cautious on what they post.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)The entitled believe they can control all things.
"they should be more cautious on what they post" So as not to offend the delicate flowers that shouldn't be there in the first place? Ridiculous
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Interfaith has had people get hidden posts.
We canLways argue a jury decision but I think people need to remember that safe havens don't mean you can just say anything and not worry about cs issues.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)That's the problem with delicate flowers with no spine. They can't survive a stiff breeze
One day the weeds will choke them out
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Who wants a garden full of choking weeds?
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 18, 2014, 07:20 PM - Edit history (1)
and can't hold up under a stiff breeze and end up with a garden of weeds
No wonder there are so many magical thinkers. They just skip over facts
cbayer
(146,218 posts)No wonder there are so many weeds. They don't see the value in anything but themselves.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)Look it up
I have zero respect for magical thinkers.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I have zero respect for people that have zero respect for whole swaths of people simply based on their religious beliefs.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)Indeed Captain Obvious
" people that have zero respect for whole swaths of people"
There are entire groups that deserve scorn and condemnation.
I happily detest everyone associated with the KKK and homophobes
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That is very sad.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)KKK hates brown people.
Homophobes hate GLBT people.
This member hates religious believers.
See how that works?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I won't let it stop me but it is how I feel.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That's just a fact.
If it gets to you, take a break. It's not personal, it's pathological.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)It only 'works' in the mind of a magical thinker
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And it still works for me. It's completely logical and based on reason.
How are these things similar? They all involve hating groups of people out of ignorant prejudice.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)therefore, antitheism is the natural and logical conclusion
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That's why you are an anti-theist.
Your statement is wholly illogical. Many people don't believe in magic, but they don't hate religious believers. That's your game.
We could call it religophobic, if you like.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I was expecting you to say that a hatred of magicians is the natural and logical conclusion.
Not that that would be any more justified.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Should this just apply in one direction and not the other?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)We all get to blow as much smoke as we like and we all get to clean the air every now and then.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Thou shall not self-delete
cbayer
(146,218 posts) Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Thou shalt participate in all thy threads.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Other people here, almost all religionistas, insist no such privilege exist and are generally insulted by the suggestion.
Oddly familiar.
White Privilege - same results.
Male Privilege - same results.
Straight Privilege - same results.
Cis privilege - same results.
In almost every case one can get a majority of the privileged class in question to both deny the privilege exists and attempt to turn it around via various counter examples, into its opposite.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)There's always gonna be a handful of people who can't knock the chip off their shoulder, even among friends.
Which begs the question, why would they hang out with people they look down on because they consider themselves entitled?
Isn't it amazing that we can all belong to the same social club and yet see it through a completely different lens.
We have a small subgroup of anti-theist malcontents who spend so much of their time mocking and insulting their fellow DUers for their religious beliefs and yet they see those same believers as being privileged, in some way, entitled in some way. The irony here is so stark.
The delusionists versus the religionists. The only difference between the two is that the delusionists are all anti-theists and the religionists are an across the board mix of believers, non-believers and everything in between and more atheists think there is no entitlement here on DU. Deal with it. Meditation is good.
Warren, you make me think of a guy rowing with one oar. I've tried it and it can be very frustrating.
rug
(82,333 posts)Why didn't I ever see this clarity of analogy?
agbdf
(200 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)You should expand it into a full OP in its own right.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)And does safe haven no disagrees with you or criticizes your religious practices?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Many examples in this thread. Everyone complaining about having religious beliefs criticized. Why should they be exempt from criticism? Because religious privilege.
Then there are the many Pope love threads. Takes a lot of privilege to turn a homophobic bigot into a DU darling.
And the privileged don't see it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But you should be up for some pushback on criticism.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I rarely see any relevant responses to criticism of religion, mostly personal attacks and "my feelings are hurt", which is how conservatives respond to white privilege being pointed out.
And you gotta admit, if the Pope had the same beliefs with no religious foundation, DU would not pour on the love in the same manner.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Some criticism is not meant to start a conversation but id hurled as insults.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And nobody here has expressed support for those "beliefs". I totally oppose the RCC stand on homosexuality, but I also doubt that the Pope is a homophobe, anymore than I think Obama is a warmonger.
Regarding religious entitlement on DU, the jury has spoken http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218146632#post298
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Just ask conservatives. Responses on a thread don't strengthen an argument.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)We were talking about DU. I think a 7-0 hide of exactly the same OP, except for the word "Atheists" being substituted for "religious people" says it all. I don't take any pleasure in being one of the "entitled", but that is the reality.
Which, to me, means that we need to get over ourselves, as far as thinking we are in some way persecuted here on DU, and realize that the opposite is true. Once we recognize that, maybe we can start working with our fellow DUers who happen to be liberal, Democrats, and yes, people of faith. We're all on the same side here.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)The fact that you have to rely on such things as part of your argument shows you have no substantive points to make.
In fact, I could just as easily say that the jury ruling is evidence of religious privilege.
Religious people have lots of privilege on the US, and it crops up on DU. Nothing you have said has shown that not to be true, I see examples of it on this forum all the time.
Religion is put on a pedestal, and it is part of why the Pope is praised and criticism of religion (at least, major religions) is attacked on DU.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)If not for religion. His bigotry is excused due to his piety.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)But the treatment of one bigot to another on DU shows the privilege.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Both have similarly bigoted views towards homosexuals, not sure if Bachman thinks the devil is behind marriage inequality like the Pope.
Heck, Bachman may be more progressive than him when it comes to women.
Yet, not hearing much praise for Bachman.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Scan the thread and see for yourself. And don't come back saying all who said "No" are believers, because that is not so. You, my friend, are part of a small minority here on DU, who carry your prejudice against believers here, where you are with friends who don't deserve to be treated as the enemy.
Criticism of religion is constant on DU. And there is nothing wrong with that. I see little criticism of atheism, but there is much criticism of individuals who spew hatred toward other DUers, be they believers or non-believers.
I'd love to see one OP in this group, or elsewhere on DU, where religion is "put on a pedestal". A link would be helpful.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Criticism isn't prejudice.
Most of the responses against criticism of religion in most any thread is outrage, offense, and flabbergasted horror that "religion" has been criticized. That's where I see it put on a pedestal constantly. Not only are none of the points made against the religious belief ever discussed, but the whole conversation is deflected to personal attacks and making it all about the believers and their feelings.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=144229
Reply 8 brings up some points, reply 20 deflects. I see that over and over and over again.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218145244#post76
Reply 76 and 81.
A lot of it seems to be that people think religion is somehow a special idea deserving of more respect than any other type of idea.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)What I do see is negativity displayed by trotsky. His criticism's are both petty and fallacious and are meant to ridicule. He shows no desire for reasonable, civil debate and this is a huge turnoff to those who actually want a conversation. Let's examine his comments.
1. “Live and let live.” Everyone should be guided by this principle, he said
His outright hypocrisy on #1 unfortunately diminishes any useful advice found in the rest of his list.
A total dismissal of what Francis said, which is something we should all do "Live and let live" if we want a more peaceful and respectful world. The bias that trotsky shows here is extraordinary. How can an unbiased, unprejudiced person not embrace such advice?
Pure pettiness on trotsky's part. The Pope's "tips for a happier life" were published in an Argentinian magazine. Sunday is the traditional day of rest in Argentina. I'm sure he would have said the Sabbath, had he been in Palestine/Israel.
7. Respect and take care of nature. Environmental degradation “is one of the biggest challenges we have,” he said. “I think a question that we're not asking ourselves is: 'Isn't humanity committing suicide with this indiscriminate and tyrannical use of nature?'”
And you talk about "deflection"? trotsky tries to equate climate change with the RCC's stance on contraception. Quite a leap there, especially considering the huge decrease in population growth throughout the Catholic world. In fact, it is rapidly approaching zero, despite RCC policy. So, here trotsky is both deflecting and introducing a fallacious argument, all in an attempt to bolster his prejudice.
8. Stop being negative. “Needing to talk badly about others indicates low self-esteem. That means, 'I feel so low that instead of picking myself up I have to cut others down,'” the Pope said. “Letting go of negative things quickly is healthy.”
This backhanded compliment is as close as trotsky can get to making a positive comment. The irony is that Francis was addressing trotsky and those like him, who only see the negative.
9. Don't proselytise; respect others' beliefs. “We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyses: 'I am talking with you in order to persuade you,' No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytising,” the Pope said.
Once again, trotsky takes the negative, absolutist approach. He thinks "respect" means "accept". Whereas Francis encourages dialog and communication.
Was this necessary? Or did he feel the need to reassert his prejudice?
You call this a deflection? I call it a response to trotsky's parting shot.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)The point was that it was ignored and deflected. And it was.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)That's what you are ignoring.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)that rarely happens.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)So do many others.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Reply 76 and 81.
A lot of it seems to be that people think religion is somehow a special idea deserving of more respect than any other type of idea.
I didn't pick up that message at all. Looks to me like a good dialog ensued, or did you only read those 2 posts?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And for doing that, is labelled a bigot. Criticism of ideas is never bigoted. But religion seems to get a special exception.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The ensuing conversation clarified that there was no bigotry intended and an appropriate apology was made.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I'm glad the person found they were wrong, but I see criticism of religion likened to bigotry often enough.
Even broad brush attack doesn't make sense. It's criticizing an idea. I don't hear about broad brush attacks against supply side economics, for example.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The bigots are those who blame all believers for any sins committed in the name of religion. Blaming a religion, or some religious dogma for specific faults is fine, but saying shit like "Islam is the greatest force of evil in the world" is pure bigotry.
It's the same as saying the US Constitution is the greatest cause of madness in the world, because of the current SCOTUS interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Criticizing religion is not bigotry. I do it all the time. Calling people "delusional" for believing in a deity is bigotry.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Saying Islam is the greatest force of evil in the world isn't bigotry. It's an opinion. Some might think it's wrong or hyperbole, but it's not bigoted.
Otherwise, saying Fascism is the greatest force of evil in the world is bigotry, or capitalism, etc. etc.
Calling people delusional for believing in a deity isn't bigoted. It's actually pretty reasonable, given the definition of delusion. However, calling one group of individuals delusional for believing in one type of supernatural phenomena but not another is hypocritical.
Now, saying Muslims are the greatest force of evil in the world may be bigoted, depending on the context. If the context is that Islam is a force for evil because you disagree with the moral positions it takes, therefore it's followers are a great force for evil, then it's not bigoted. It would be like saying Nazis are the greatest force of evil in the world because you think Fascism is a force for evil, even the greatest force. People may disagree, but the opinion is based on their ideology, not religious identity.
But, saying all Muslims are a force of evil solely because your religion tells you so, that is bigotry. And lots of mainstream religions say as much explicitly in their texts. In fact, nonbelievers of many mainstream religions are such a great force of evil that their punishment is eternal torture, laid out explicitly in the Bible and Koran. Infinite punishment for finite crimes, if you consider nonbelief a crime. All based on bigotry. Islam is inherently bigoted, as are all the Abrahamic religions, in this way. And any true believer is as well as a result. Just like any follower of White Supremacist ideology is a racist. And don't even get started on the misogyny.
Now, would someone who wasn't evil get punished eternally? Yet this is what Islam and Christianity explicitly state in their texts. Someone could be morally good in every subjective way another person deems to be, but that nonbelief is all that really matters.
Thus, not only is criticizing an idea and its followers for believing said idea not bigotry, in this case the ideas being criticized are inherently bigoted.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Singling out Islam, IMO, is bigoted. If he said "religion is the greatest force of evil..." then I would agree with you. But no, he is picking off religions, one at a time, hoping to get a tacit nod of agreement from Christians and Jews. I find this tactic, both disingenuous and hypocritical. Not to mention inflammatory.
He is singling out and attacking every Muslim on the planet when he makes such statements. By inference, he is also saying that other religions are not as bad. Is this because he still identifies with his Christian upbringing, or does he just enjoy the mantle of respectability and sense of entitlement that came with it?
Calling an entire religion "evil" is bigotry. Especially, when he speaks from a position of ignorance. He admits to never having read the Koran. I find that both hypocritical and bigoted. Criticizing elements of a religion is valid. Criticizing fundamentalist extremists for their actions is valid.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And they would have some good evidence to back them up. They're not wrong just because they know there are differences between religions to some degree.
Calling an entire religion evil isn't bigotry. Otherwise calling fascism, an entire ideology, evil, is bigotry. I don't like the word evil myself, but it's not bigotry.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)People of faith are not. However, I do agree that organized religion is a mechanism which helps promote fascism. And monotheism may even be the root of fascism. That does not mean that the tenets of a particular faith are inherently evil.
Also, thinking something and announcing it from a podium, or via Twitter, are quite different things. The first is a private thought, harmless in itself, while the second is inflammatory, especially when delivered by a loud voice.
My argument is more about how messages are delivered, than the actual messages themselves. As we can see here on DU, those who are uncivil and ugly in their delivery, only succeed in marginalizing themselves, regardless the validity of their message.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You don't think people should be entitled to express their thoughts unless they are in line with yours?
I haven't seen one thread supporting homophobia. Maybe you'd like to provide a link.
Are you suggesting that all who like this Pope are benefiting from some kind of religious entitlement, because of the RCC stand on gay marriage?
Maybe you could link to some posts supporting the Vatican's stand on that.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)In the past, it was closer to 97%.
That adds up to a great deal of power. And privilege.
And by the way? "Safe havens" could amount in some ways, to privilege; ways of restricting freedom of speech. It depends on how they are used.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)But here, we are talking about DU. What do you think?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Here is an example of a "safe haven" used to launch a smear campaign.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/123026043
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And here we have confirmation that not only is there no religious entitlement on DU, but there definitely appears to be atheist entitlement.
Who'd of thunk it?
This got a 7-0 hide.
True or false?: Atheists are mentally ill purely by virtue of being atheists.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218147328
This one flew.
True or false: religious people are mentally ill purely by virtue of being religious?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=146997
Thank you all for participating.
Kudos to stone space for his sacrifice and for standing up for honesty and decency among atheists.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Including quotes from Freud himself. Then citations from relevant psychiatric literature.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)was just a copy-cat flamebait and hid it as such.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And maybe denial is just a river in Egypt. Staple that one on your blackboard.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)1. Nobody uses a blackboard anymore. It is either white boards or projection screens (unless you are in a grossly underfunded district).
2. Even if I had a blackboard, that is not something you could or should staple into. That would ruin it.
3. I think you meant "staple that one on your bulletin board."
Other than that, really intelligent post.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I would truly never have known. What sacrilege! No blackboards. How do you write on a projection screen? Use those pointy laser thingies, I bet.
I know what a bulletin board is. I've actually seen some of those.
Shit, I must be getting old.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I don't think any of our rooms even have blackboards anymore. And we are by no means a wealthy district.
Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #349)
stone space This message was self-deleted by its author.
stone space
(6,498 posts)burnsei sensei
(1,820 posts)nt
stone space
(6,498 posts)...of mental illness.
Us atheists are not allowed such entitlements here at DU.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I suggest you read the thread and question those who think that way. The only entitlement I see around here comes from a handful of antitheists who think they are entitled to insult other members because of their religious bigots. This "entitlement" that they exercise is usually defined as "bigotry".
TM99
(8,352 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)enki23
(7,788 posts)Christians are privileged over nonchristians in the United States of America, where the vast majority of people here live. Given that this privilege exists in the place where most of us live, there is every reason to think that privilege would carry over to here, barring evidence that it doesn't.
If you deny that Christian privilege exists in the nation in which most of us live (which wouldn't surprise me) then I promise not to continue to entertain the fiction that you are worth responding to.
rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Not me.
Nice try though.
enki23
(7,788 posts)Which, believe it or not, is an extremely uncharitable thing for me to say to you. If you actually think the burden of proof has something to do with who talked first, then.... yeah. Ok. I can't say much more for me, but I have to say that I'm pretty sure that reality doesn't have a very high opinion of your critical thinking skills.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)enki23
(7,788 posts).
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)when talking to others.
The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion. The meme that the burden of proof always lies with the religious believer only applies when that person is making an assertion about the existence of god,
If you say there is privilege here, it is your burden to provide evidence. It is not the person who take the negative position, as is frequently pointed out here. It is important to be consistent and not just use this argument when it is convenient.
Now, how about you lay off the personal insults.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Weren't you the one that was talking about privilege assholes?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Worth a few electrons anyway. Here is my litmus test;
Find an org that is secular or unrelated to religion in any way, that actively lobbies, and campaigns on social positions like, abstinence only education, no contraceptives, no sex outside marriage, no same sex marriage, no physician assisted suicide, gender proscription for certain positions, all of that together, plus more, and see if you could post something positive about the leader of such an org in General Discussion, without sorely testing your flame-resistant underwear.
If you can't think of such an org, then at least one religion enjoys a level of privilege here at DU that a non-religious org of the same nature would not enjoy. I think the negative comments that the RCC/Pope gets in GD, when appropriate threads arise in that venue, pale in comparison to say, something positive about Hobby Lobby or similar entity, that holds similar positions.
Does that qualify as 'religious privilege' as it does for certain gender or racial privilege issues? I don't know. But it's an interesting conversation to observe or maybe poke here or there. I might even learn something.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Did you mean to say "positive"? Have there been such comments?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Obviously none about HL, just an example of a business, or something not a church. I leave it up to others to offer an actual example in response to the question.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I can not think of any other person or organization that held those positions that this site would find acceptable.
Where I disagree is that this represents "privilege". For many who defend and support this pope, it is more a political position than a religious one. I don't see posts defending the RCC's position on abortion, birth control, GLBT marriage, etc. What I see are posts defending the positive things that come out of the RCC and particularly from this pope.
Both catholics and non-catholics would like to see the RCC change direction, and many are hopeful that this pope can make that happen to some extent.
Were it a case of privilege, then one would expect that his gave some special rights to this man and to those that support him. I don't see that as the case. In fact, those that most vocally support him are subjected to some serious abuse, imo.
I am currently in the area where Pope Francis's namesake lived. He was very similar. He saw the church as a corrupt institution that had completely lost it's way. He was persecuted for this and had to move to another region for sanctuary. But he did not leave the church. He persisted and, as a result, he was able to make some significant changes.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)This is the proposed SOP change for Interfaith:
Not a single person in there raised the double standard in that SOP. Take a look at the wording. No scorn can be shown to believers. Any believers. No scorn can be shown to A/A "who debate with believers civilly." So either the assumption is that all believers debate civilly or that you don't give a rat's ass about how the believers debate. I'm going to go with the latter because there was a believer that told an atheist to "fuck off you fucking fucker" and they weren't blocked even temporarily from Interfaith. As a matter of fact, the response the VAST majority of believers there was to dismiss it since the very presence of atheists in Interfaith made him do that.
That, my friend, is some privilege.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Atheists post there. In fact, I've posted there several times.
I think that you are blaming atheism for something that is more personal.
I don't think it is about anybody's religious views.
It seems to be more about the demonstrated and repeated tendency of some to make bigoted attacks on religion.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Neither did Warren. Yet we were met with general assholery from that poster. There was no action by a host or even a repreimand for him.
Any chance you want to address the language of the proposed SOP and why nobody saw the privilege written into that?
stone space
(6,498 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)The case in point is what we posted in Interfaith. What was done there at that point was nothing. Yet that poster came after us.
So you aren't going to address the SOP wording? Because that's kind of the point being made here. Wouldn't want Starboard to accuse you of threadjacking.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I know how atheists are treated in both forums.
Believe me, atheists are treated much better and with more respect in the interfaith forum than in the A&A forum.
The A&A forum is toxic for atheists.
Are you offering to hold our coats?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Got it.
ETA: You and Starboard are in the house holding the coats. I'm sure you can take care of it.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Oh well, I'm a pacifist, anyway.
If you want to talk about privilege, perhaps we can talk about why we atheists are denied the right to learn what others think about how delusional our beliefs are, while theists are entitled and privileged to receive full (and I do mean FULL) disclosure?
Isn't that an example of religious privilege and entitlement?
I was feeling pretty good about that poll until it got hidden. Atheists were judged non-delusional 8-0. Pretty cool, huh?
Of course, we don't know what the eventual results would have been, since the poll got hidden almost immediately.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I never even saw these posts you're talking about.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 20, 2014, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)
I was not a participant in the creation of interfaith but since I posted in there I always assumed it was the counter balance to AA.
You make a good point that the proposal I made was one sided and the only reasonable instance of privilege shown here.
It shoukd have also included those who still howscorn to Atheists or Agnostics have no place here either.
You are the only one who showed a reasonable example but I think it still does not exist and is was thoughtlessness on my part.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Interfaith was created when a good deal of atheists signed on to support it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It was more thoughtlessness on my part.
I amtaking a break from this room for a day or two. Some here went too far so i need a break from it.
Be well!
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)You are confident and content in your beliefs. You treat others with respect and kindness. Don't worry so much about people ridiculing your beliefs in an online forum. They have a right to their point of view and you have a right to yours.
I feel safe in saying that much of the world considers my Dieties to be myths and myself delusional for my beliefs and practices and many think my beliefs are evil. They are entitled to their opinions and as long as they are not infringing on my rights or threatening to cause harm, I just let it roll off my back, because I am confident in my beliefs and need no outside validation. Also it's just not worth stressing over.
Find comfort in knowing that out in the real world, in the US, you will rarely face bigotry in regards to your religion. Out there is what truly matters.
If someone were to call me crazy or delusional, my response to that is to say "I don't mind that you feel that way, I understand we have different views on the topic of religion and I am content with mine."
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)are making these arguments are just looking for a resaction and some are looking for hidden posts here.
I took a short break from this room and it worked.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Or is it, as you seem to suggest, merely a cheesy way to be able to ban people from the group if they ever get annoyed enough to respond 'uncivilly' to a believer?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Are you saying there are 2 groups for discussing religion-related issues? One actually called religion and the other interfaith?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)others beliefs. Criticism of others belief is not permitted.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)group/forum a given post is in. I generally simply work off 'latest threads' and the op titles, I don't always notice which group something is actually in.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)At least for the fundies.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Like what, T-shirts?
rug
(82,333 posts)•a Life Member Pin;
•a personalized Life Member Card;
•a lifetime subscription to American Atheist magazine; and
•a discount for our national convention.
https://www.atheists.org/life-membership