About respect

[Starboard Tack]

Are there really people here who do not understand the difference between respecting people and respecting beliefs?

Nobody should expect anyone to "respect" their personal beliefs.
Everyone should respect the rights of everyone else to belief whatever the fuck they want.

Respect does not mean agreement with any particular belief. It means you have the right to believe whatever strikes your fancy. And we should all respect that right.

What is with the fundamentalists who cannot abide the fact that others believe differently to them?
Why do they hate those who are tolerant and accepting of all, no matter their personal beliefs?

What fosters this bigotry? Is it fear of the other or fear of themselves?

[BainsBane]

1. Yes, fundamentalists of all stripes

including the non-theist ones.

[LostOne4Ever]

3. First post on a thread about respect is a pot shot at nonbelievers.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]About right.[/font]

[BainsBane]

4. No, just the ones who refuse to accept

that others have a right to believe differently. I don't care in the slightest what anyone believes about the existence of a god or not. When they are obnoxious about either belief or non-belief, that bothers me. Your assumption that my post related to all non-believers assumes they all are intolerant. Most people are happy to go through life minding their own business on such matters, but then a few aren't.

[LostOne4Ever]

5. My assumption was that you tried to come up with a word

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]that would be as offensive to non-believers as you possibly could and applied it to a subgroup of nonbelievers you do not like.

There is nothing to get fundamental about non-belief. But, a great many nontheists have been hurt by religion and dogmatic fundamentalist in particular.

Calling us things like fundamentalist, dogmatic, militant is meant to associate us to a system that has abused us and that you know very well we outright rejected. That is the whole point isn't?

If a subgroup of African Americans said something you dislike or disrespected you, does that give you a right to call them a racial epitaph? If a man had bad experiences with women in the past does that allow him the right to use misogynist language against them?

Lets replace non-believers from your post with African American and see how it sounds:[/font]

"Your assumption that my post related to all African Americans assumes they are all intolerant."

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Its the same as the "there are black people and then there are *******" argument I hear all the time in my part of Texas. That is not a get out of jail free card for them and its not one for you to call non-theists fundamentalists.[/font]

No, just the ones who refuse to accept that others have a right to believe differently.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Who here doesn't think someone doesn't have a right to believe differently? It is in the constitution. It is a fact of living in the USA.

Or do you mean right to believe differently without getting criticized for it? Sorry, but bad ideas deserve to get criticized. Religions which call homosexual abominations, tell women to submit to men, condone slavery, sentence nonbelievers and the effeminate to hell don't get a free pass.[/font]

I don't care in the slightest what anyone believes about the existence of a god or not. When they are obnoxious about either belief or non-belief, that bothers me.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]And who was being obnoxious to you in this thread enough to make you post your comments? You are the one who started this tangent. You are the one who had to go and post something that you knew many nonbelievers would find offensive and post it...in a thread about respect no less.[/font]

Most people are happy to go through life minding their own business on such matters, but then a few aren't.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Your post calling non-theist fundamentalist is proof of that.

-.-[/font]

[BainsBane]

7. I think the word is apt

I was raised to treat religion as a private matter. I do not believe it should play a role in politics, and I don't believe you have a right to criticize my private beliefs on faith, or lack thereof, any more than my sex life. So yes, what you describe would be an example of intolerance akin to fundamentalism, and that is on display in this group with some frequency. For some reason I can't begin to understand, some people cannot stand the fact that others might hold a thought that they don't approve of. I can't imagine what propels someone to think that way, but people do. Some of them are religious and some non-theists; both are intolerant and annoying. But then again. I don't know why anyone would willingly subject themselves to discussion with such people anyway.

You decided my use of the term fundamentalist applied to you, so I can only assume you know yourself best. That you then launched into a lengthy discussion in defense of intolerance suggests it is indeed apt. It is one thing to criticize a religious institution's public positions vis a vis the issues you mention, but to then assume a random person you might encounter holds those views because they don't immediately demonstrate contempt for people of faith says far more about your own prejudices than the targets of your scorn. You response implies it is not religious institutions that you seek to question but the inner workings of someone's mind that you are incensed you cannot control, while showing no desire to understand but merely pass judgment on to make yourself feel superior. That is the very essence of intolerance. Makes no difference to me what form or excuse the behavior takes, whether it's targeted at skin color, gender, sexuality, believers, or non-believers. it's all the same thing.

I'll leave now. I only happened on this discussion because it was on the new threads page, and I've been called in this group on juries enough to know I don't want to stay. You'll have to find someone else to take your frustrations on. There are people, for some reason I can't begin to fathom, willingly expose themselves to such things. I am not among them. You'll need to look elsewhere for your next target.

[LostOne4Ever]

8. Misogynists calling women H******cal or the B word think it is apt.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]As does the racist using the N word. Doesn't make it so and it doesn't make it acceptable.

Not to mention what about non-belief is there to get fundamental about? [/font]

I was raised to treat religion as a private matter. I do not believe it should play a role in politics, and I don't believe you have a right to criticize my private beliefs on faith, or lack thereof, any more than my sex life.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]So that is why you brought up "fundamentalist non-theists" unprovoked? Strange view of private if you ask me.

Does your sex life keep others from getting married? Does your sex life force people to endure painful suffering from terminal illnesses? Does your sex life cause laws against abortion? Does your sex life forbid contraceptives and sex ed? Does your sex life try and deny pregnant women access to pain relievers because that pain is eve's punishment from god? Does your sex life cause people to disown their children because they are transgender?

When it does I will criticize it just as much as religious beliefs that do all of the above. Till then your argument is nothing more than false equivalency.[/font]

So yes, what you describe would be an example of intolerance akin to fundamentalism, and that is on display in this group with some frequency. For some reason I can't begin to understand, some people cannot stand the fact that others might hold a thought that they don't approve of. I can't imagine what propels someone to think that way, but people do. Some of them are religious and some non-theists; both are intolerant and annoying. But then again. I don't know why anyone would willingly subject themselves to discussion with such people anyway.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Funny, in the same sentence you say that it is intolerant to criticize beliefs, while at the same time criticizing fundamentalists. Its fine for you to criticize the beliefs of fundamentalist but not okay for me to criticize the very thing that gives them their views in the first place. How intolerant of me to criticize religions that promote homophobia, sexism, and violence.

Toleration of intolerance is not Tolerance....it is APATHY!

What propels people to think this way? Anti-racism, feminism, liberalism, humanism, and just being tired of religions promoting bigotry against people who just want to be left alone.[/font]

"You decided my use of the term fundamentalist applied to you, so I can only assume you know yourself best. That you then launched into a lengthy discussion in defense of intolerance suggests it is indeed apt. It is one thing to criticize a religious institution's public positions vis a vis the issues you mention, but to then assume a random person you might encounter holds those views because they don't immediately demonstrate contempt for people of faith says far more about your own prejudices than the targets of your scorn. "

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]And where did I ever assume anyone holds those views because they don't immediately demonstrate contempt for people of faith? Oh wait, I didn't. But its perfectly okay to make that unsupported accusation against me.

Nor did I ever decide your use of the term fundamentalist applied to me. I pointed out that your comment was a pot shot at non-believers in a thread about respect. It is like using a racial epitaph against a certain subgroup of African Americans you don't like. Something you ignored.

Oh, and my first reply to you was sooooo lengthy. The second section you are talking about is an unbelievable 2 sentences long. WoW.[/font]

"You response implies it is not religious institutions that you seek to question but the inner workings of someone's mind that you are incensed you cannot control, while showing no desire to understand but merely pass judgment on to make yourself feel superior. That is the very essence of intolerance. Makes no difference to me what form or excuse the behavior takes, whether it's targeted at skin color, gender, sexuality, believers, or non-believers. it's all the same thing. "

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Oh, so every time a liberal criticizes a conservative for being homophobic or racist said liberal has no desire to understand but to pass judgement on the inner workings of someone's mind that said liberal is incensed that they cannot control, etc., etc., etc.



Or could it be that we oppose homophobia, racism, and the harm it causes innocent people? That we are tired of innocent people getting hurt over and over again by these views?

Nah, that is not condescending enough.

Besides FUNDAMENTALIST Atheists. Yeah...[/font]

I'll leave now. I only happened on this discussion because it was on the new threads page, and I've been called in this group on juries enough to know I don't want to stay. You'll have to find someone else to take your frustrations on. There are people, for some reason I can't begin to fathom, willingly expose themselves to such things. I am not among them. You'll need to look elsewhere for your next target.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Oh, now your the victim. Cause I made you use a word meant to trigger people. An insult against nonbelievers directly comparing them to the people who hurt have hurt us and are trying to hurt our friends and just about every minority in the country?

Yeah right.

Whatever, so long.[/font]

[BainsBane]

58. Again, you resort to projection

you know nothing of my beliefs. My mere absence of contempt for people of faith prompts you to assume homophobia, racism, etc... That is entirely your issue. You seek justification for your own prejudices, based not on evidence. This so-called fact-based approach is nothing of the sort.

Of course you are the victim. It oppresses you that people may harbor thoughts of a non-material nature, and that oppresses you. They might be thinking of seeing loved ones in a potential afterlife, or even art or literature. How dare they dwell on the non-material. I made a clear distinction between religion in the public square and private practice and thoughts, yet you still scramble to justify your own prejudices. You associate a random person who has said nothing homophobic with an institution that might be, based on no evidence. Yet you claim to be rational. There is nothing rational in that. It is nothing more than hollow justification.

BTW, your blue font is annoying an unreadable.

[LostOne4Ever]

60. Again you misrepresent what I say

Last edited Sun May 10, 2015, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)

I NEVER accused you of those things.

I challenge you to quote me where I said you believed any of that.

...

Nothing huh? Yeah thought so. Had I done that I would have been alerted on and shut out of this thread.

What I ACTUALLY did was give cases where religious beliefs deserve criticism and condemnation. You are the one projecting that and reading things into my words that I never said.

I also never claimed victimhood. That was you when wrongly accused me of targeting you.

What I did do is point out that you brought up a nasty insult to nonbeleivers to which you then doubled down on. Again do you think it is okay to call an African American a racial epitaph because a small group of them insult you? If not why do you think it is okay to call any nontheist a fundamentalist? Especially in a thread on respecting people.

I quite like my font, it's different and gives my posts their own personality. I have already made several changes to it to improve readability, but if you have issues with it you could just ASK that I use the normal script when replying to you.

Oh and I thought you were leaving?

[Starboard Tack]

115. Great posts BB

You kick some serious butt. .

[LostOne4Ever]

119. If by kick butt you mean repeatedly misrepresent

[font color=teal size=4 face=georgia]And are proven wrong on every count, then yeah...

The very essence of respect.[/font]

[Starboard Tack]

164. She pummeled you. Deal with it.

And try to learn something when reasonable people stop by and take the time to set you straight. A little humble pie never hurt anyone.
And please, what is with the gigantic blue font?

[LostOne4Ever]

165. In your dreams

Last edited Mon May 11, 2015, 06:06 AM - Edit history (1)

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]She had to completely and REPEATEDLY misrepresent what I said to make nothing but straw-men arguments. That is not the strategy of someone WINNING an argument...rather it is the recourse of someone who is trying to dig themselves out of hole.

The font is a way of giving some personality to my posts and breaking away from the boring default font. If it makes you feel better, you can think of it as a form of special snowflake syndrome on my part.[/font]

[font face=papyrus size=5 color=purple] I used to use papyrus but too many people said it was too hard to read so I moved to Georgia. I like how it has a more organic handwritten look to it...but only a few peeps liked it.[/font].

If it bothers you and I can add your name to the list of people to use the default font. That is the deal I have with your wife Cbayer. [font size=4]I can also increase the size if your [font size=5]eyes are bad.[/font][/font]

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Or is it that it does not stand out enough for your tastes?[/font] [font style="font-family:'comic sans MS','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=5 color=coral]Would you like something like comic sans in coral instead?

[font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=6 color=crimson]Or maybe a red brush script? Now we are talking about an illegible font![/font][/font]

[center] [/center]

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Now, how about you? Did you really give [font color=red]$0.02[/font] about respect?

Do you really think referring to people who have issues with religion terms for religious fanatics is respectful? Do you think it is okay to call a small group of African Americans (who you disagree with or were rude to you) the N word so long as you don't do it to all African Americans?

Do you really not see the issue?[/font]

[okasha]

176. Oh, there's plenty of personality in your posts,

even without the screaming large font and garish colors.

And BB pretty well demolished your posts.

[LostOne4Ever]

177. I thought I made a good case

[font color=teal size=4 face=georgia] but if you feel so threatened by my posts that you have to try and declare victory as opposed to let the posts speak for themselves, then I must have made a home run

Not surprising since bane misrepresented my position so badly that she might as well been debating a wall!

And no, I am not going to reply to you directly okasha.[/font]

[PoutrageFatigue]

171. "I was raised to treat religion as a private matter." Too bad most religionists don't follow that...

...especially the fundamentalist ones...

[raccoon]

175. I think it's about CONTROL.

For some reason I can't begin to understand, some people cannot stand the fact that others might hold a thought that they don't approve of.

[mr blur]

54. Oh, do grow up.

Of course everybody has a right to their own beliefs. What they don't have is a right to think that their own facts are worthy of respect.

[BainsBane]

57. Every human being is worthy of respect

Whether or not you like their philosophy, religion, art, literature, or anything else you judge lacking in fact.

[Lordquinton]

59. Nice moving the goal posts there

Maybe you should be more tolerant of fundamentalists?

[PoutrageFatigue]

172. Um, no. Definitely not.

...

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Actually, the OP itself was a full broadside at nonbelievers.

[LostOne4Ever]

130. Oh I beleive you

[font color=teal size=4 face=georgia] My irony meter exploded when I saw that the OP was the same poster who indirectly called everyone in A&A vermin.

But I know not everyone knows what goes on in these forums so I Chose a different battle.[/font]

[hrmjustin]

24. Well said!

[LostOne4Ever]

62. Et tu Brute? (Nt)

[hrmjustin]

63. Sorry but it is not the the theists here who mock my faith.

[beam me up scottie]

69. No but your side is hardly innocent.

No one is above the fray in here, you included.

[hrmjustin]

71. True but you don't see me mocking atheism.

[beam me up scottie]

72. I've seen you post plenty of nasty things about atheists.

[hrmjustin]

73. But not atheism.

[beam me up scottie]

77. How is that better?

[hrmjustin]

78. I do not mock them for not believing.

I have mocked Dawkins for making remarks on believers, never his atheism.

Sorry but I don't mock people for their atheism.

I mock members here because they mock me.

[beam me up scottie]

79. "I mock members here because they mock me."

Good, that's all I wanted to hear.

Tired of the double standard, no one is a victim.

[hrmjustin]

80. Oh I am not a victim.

If I were a victim I would have trashed this room.

[beam me up scottie]

85. I know you're not.

But the op and others in this thread would have us believe that atheists are bigots who viciously attack the ever-so tolerant saints that flit around in here on gossamer wings giving away smiles and kittens.

I object to the double standard. Every regular in here gives as good as they get.

And if I dislike someone it's because they've done something to deserve it, not because they believe in gods.

[hrmjustin]

87. Well he can speak to his own op and believers here have their moments, but...

...the mocking is not equal when it comes to people actual beliefs.


In terms of us getting on each others nerves yes it is likely equal.

[beam me up scottie]

90. Everyone on DU mocks beliefs.

Conservative christians, scientologists, mormons, creationists, rapture ready non-preppers, the list goes on and on.

And I'd wager half the people mocking those beliefs ARE believers.

[hrmjustin]

91. I think most of the posters who post here regularly are non-believers.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10025881467


This was cut off so we did not get a full result.

[beam me up scottie]

93. Do you disagree that everyone mocks beliefs?

And not just religious beliefs, all kinds of ideology is mocked relentlessly on DU.

How do you think vegans feel about PETA threads?

[hrmjustin]

95. Yes we all do.

But there is a mean spiritedness to some here who mock religious beliefs.

It has turned into a sport for some.

[beam me up scottie]

99. I don't click on threads bashing animal rights activists for a reason.

I try to avoid the anti-pit bull threads because I rescued a bait dog and love him very much.

I stay away from threads that will upset me because a lot of people do delight in provoking others, that's human nature.

If you have a problem with individual atheists, take it up with them, but don't expect me to agree that atheists are worse than believers.

When it comes to criticizing religion, I'm very vocal here because I can't risk coming out of the closet irl.

I am an atheist/anti-theist but I don't hate believers.

[hrmjustin]

102. Ok.

[rug]

128. Lol!

[LostOne4Ever]

124. As I asked BB

[font size=4 color=teal face=Georgia]if a group of African Americans are giving you a hard time, does that make it okay to call them a racial epitaph?

If not, why is it okay to call nonbeleivers fundamentalists (or militants or dogmatic or etc.), unprovoked, in a thread on respect no less?

If people are giving you a hard time feel free to call them assholes or jackasses or something along those line. No need to use a trigger word to nonbeleivers in general to describe them.

If you want respect from people, you must reciprocate.

Eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.[/font]

[hrmjustin]

136. Why is it ok to call atheists fundantalists and the other names?

Why is it ok to call believers those names?

[LostOne4Ever]

137. Have I called theists names? (nt)

[hrmjustin]

139. I am not talking about you but in general.

[LostOne4Ever]

142. I don't think so. That is why I don't use terms you don't like to refer to you or others

[font color=teal size=4 face=georgia]At least till I get my buttons pushed enough [font]

[hrmjustin]

144. Your a great poster and civil.

[LostOne4Ever]

148. At times, but at other times I do I bear my teeth

[center]

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]They is sharp![/font]

[/center]

[hrmjustin]

149. Lmfao!

[phil89]

203. Non-belief has nothing fundamental to adhere to.

Learn the basic definitions please. Fundamentalist does not apply to atheism, because there is no tenets, dogma or beliefs to adhere to.

[beam me up scottie]

2. "Why do they hate those who are tolerant and accepting of all"

Who hates wut?

It's funny what upsets some people.

Personally I despise homophobic hypocrites who lecture others about bigotry and "respect" after they've insulted lgbt people by repeatedly equating same sex marriage to marrying animals, family members and inanimate objects.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=123723

Starboard Tack (10,698 posts)
112. And this has what to do with the RCC?

Why would any couple want to marry in a church that doesn't accept them? Makes no sense.
You really look for extreme situations to provide fodder for your hatred of religion. How about if I wanted to marry my bicycle, or my hamster and some church opposed performing the ceremony, would you be there, fighting for my rights?

I'm sorry, but religious rights and gay rights are not the same thing. I support both. Seems like you only support one. I know many gay couples, some who married in church and some at town hall and some couldn't care less about the institution of marriage.

I think your views are self centered. You want the world to adapt to your values, like the vegan who wants everyone to quit eating meat. What a boring world that would be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124676

Starboard Tack This message was hidden by Jury decision. Hide

176. Really? And how exactly did I do that?

You seem to confuse marriage and sexuality. The first is about a ceremonial binding of two entities. The second is about sex.
Who are you to tell me I cannot marry my dog, or my brother, or my mother, or my fucking bicycle, if I so wish. You don't get to decide these things. Sorry to disappoint you.

A Jury voted 5-2 to hide this post on Fri Apr 18, 2014, 05:12 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124679

Starboard Tack (10,698 posts)
177. No, I am not equating it with anything.

We should all have the right to marry whomever or whatever, provided it is consensual and conducted of sound mind.
Do you have a problem with sisters marrying each other? I don't. How about other family members? Do you draw lines and, if so, why?

My point, as I'm sure you are already aware, was about seeking approval from the RCC or any other church, to get married. That approval comes from within one's own conscience. Official approval comes from the state. Fuck the church and fuck those who want to paint me as an enemy of equal rights. Fuck the bigots and bullies and nasty hate mongering anti-theists. Fuck all fascists.


Happy Easter!

What fosters this bigotry?

[bvf]

6. "...you have the right to believe whatever strikes your fancy."

If I believe that homosexuals should be stoned to death because that "strikes my fancy," is that OK?

[Starboard Tack]

13. Your right to believe anything is OK

Has nothing to do with the belief itself. Do you really not understand the difference? Nobody here supports stoning people.

[bvf]

18. Oh, I understand the difference.

I'll ask you again: If I believe homosexuals should be stoned to death, is that OK?

Yes or no?

[rug]

19. What do you propose to do about someone who believes that?

Whoever believes that is, at least, a bigot. Do you think that person has a right, er, that it's "ok", to believe that?

[bvf]

22. The question wasn't directed to you.

But since you decided to chime in, yes or no?

Surely you can muster an answer from somewhere in that giant brain of yours.

Yes or no?

[hrmjustin]

23. No one here is anti-lgbt and we fight against it in our places of worship and communities.

[bvf]

25. Yes or no?

Nobody here seems capable of an answer. Why is that?

[hrmjustin]

26. As a gay man I do not support or respect anti gay beliefs.

Is that clear enough for you?

[bvf]

28. No.

Still waiting.

[hrmjustin]

29. i gave you my answer and it was rather clear.

[bvf]

31. Amazing.

Yes or no?

[hrmjustin]

37. Yes or no what?

[bvf]

40. Cripes.

See #6. I don't have the time to draw you a map.

[hrmjustin]

42. No it is not ok with me.

[bvf]

48. "With me."

What would you propose be done about people who think otherwise? Re-education camps?

[hrmjustin]

49. No. They have the right to their opinions but their opinions are not ok with me.

[bvf]

51. Do they have the right to act based on those opinions?

[hrmjustin]

52. No. Our laws say murder is wrong.

[bvf]

56. No they don't.

[hrmjustin]

64. Forgive me they say it is illegal.

[bvf]

74. Explain capital punishment.

Your statement is simply wrong, regardless of your opinion.

[hrmjustin]

75. ok I am done with your game.

Take care.

[bvf]

81. Because you can't win.

It's not a game. We're talking about how actual people live their lives. You don't seem to get that.

[hrmjustin]

82. are you saying I don't get that there is real homophobia in the real world?

[bvf]

86. I thought you said you were done.

Your statement was incorrect. Admit it.

[hrmjustin]

88. Answer my question please.

And yes my statement did not include exceptions like capital punishment.

N8w answer my question please.

[bvf]

92. So your statement was incorrect.

Just say so, and we can be done here. Otherwise, be prepared to keep saying you're done while continually re-entering a losing argument.

[hrmjustin]

94. Answer my question please.

[bvf]

97. No. There's your answer.

You have yet to answer mine.

[hrmjustin]

98. I think I have.

People may have their own opinions. But if they use violence to express their beliefs then they go to jail.

[bvf]

103. Yes or no.

It couldn't be any simpler.

[hrmjustin]

104. How about no or yes?

[bvf]

111. Very clever. Time for a nap.

[hrmjustin]

112. Enjoy your nap.

[rug]

30. Public board. Now you can answer my question.

I already answered yours.

[bvf]

33. No you didn't

Yes or no?

[rug]

34. I did. That hate is protected speech. So it's "ok". Are you "ok" with the First Amendment?

Now, answer mine: What do you propose to do about someone who believes that?

[bvf]

36. Yes or no?

I'm sorry you're having such a problem with this.

[rug]

96. I'm sorry you simultaneously can not read what's in your face

while evading a directs question, twice asked.

Not that there is any mystery why you do this.

[bvf]

100. I cannot parse this.

Could you please try again?

[rug]

101. Unsurprising.

Here:

1) I did answer your question.

2) You did not answer mine. Twice.

[bvf]

105. Still looking for a simple yes or no.

Something you appear incapable of.

[rug]

106. Three times.

[bvf]

107. Still waiting.

[rug]

108. No, you're still evading.

The question must unsettle you.

[bvf]

109. Still waiting.

[rug]

116. Stil evading.

Maalox may help.

[bvf]

117. Still waiting.

[rug]

118. I suppose that's much more productive than reading the answer posted hours ago.

And you're still evading answering my question.

I am always stunned by the logic and reason of the posts I see here.

[bvf]

120. Still waiting.

[rug]

121. And there's another!

How do you keep coming up with this brilliance?

[bvf]

122. Still waiting.

[rug]

123. Well, Estragon, shall we go?

[bvf]

125. Still waiting.

[rug]

126. Yes, let's go.

[bvf]

127. Still waiting.

[rug]

129. They do not move.

[bvf]

133. Still waiting.

[hrmjustin]

135. just let it go.

[bvf]

138. No. Still waiting.

[hrmjustin]

140. He answered your questions.

This looks ridiculous.

[bvf]

145. No, he didn't. I have yet to get a simple yes or no.

[hrmjustin]

147. Your not a prosecutor and he is not the accused.

We are allowed more than a simple yes or no thank you.

[bvf]

150. I'm asking a question

which can be answered with a simple yes or no. Is that not allowed here?

[hrmjustin]

151. No what you are doing is acting like a prosecutor and we are not your accused.

He answered your question with more than a yes or no like I did. If that is not to your liking you will just have to get over it.

Life is more than a yes or no.

[bvf]

152. Does God exist? Yes or no.

Sheesh.

[hrmjustin]

153. Yes I believe God exists.

[bvf]

154. "Life is more than a yes or no."

There you go.

[hrmjustin]

155. Are you going to keep going on about rug?

Yes or no?

[bvf]

159. Well,

until I get a response that doesn't involve oh-too-cute literary references. That's a rather lame schtick.

A yes or no would suffice.

[hrmjustin]

160. Well if you wish to constantly repeat the same thing...

...over and over again then enjoy.

I think it looks ridiculous.

[okasha]

156. He's badgering the witness.

Which is a really stupid thing to do when the witness is an attorney.

[hrmjustin]

157. lmfao! I wonder if he knew that.

Rug will not give one inch!

[bvf]

166. Tim Misny is an attorney.

So what?

[rug]

141. Curtain.

[bvf]

143. Still waiting.

[okasha]

158. "Dammit, y'don't go!"

The Major-General, Pirates of Penzance.

[bvf]

161. Thanks for joining in.

Yes or no?

[okasha]

162. I already answered your question, hours ago.

Scroll back till you find it.

[hrmjustin]

163. .

[bvf]

167. What's your point?

[okasha]

174. My point is that you don't have one.

[bvf]

178. You don't wear it well, IMO.

Just keep it under you hat and you'll be fine.

[okasha]

179. You still haven't answered rug's question.

[bvf]

180. So what?

[okasha]

181. ...

[bvf]

183. Something about a prosecutor

I read here recently was really funny.

You've got to be kidding me.

[Starboard Tack]

39. Is the belief OK.? No

Is your right to believe it OK? Absolutely. Have you got it yet?
Is it alright to twist a person's words to insult an conduct smear campaigns? No. But they have a right to believe it is OK.

[bvf]

43. Excuse me, but I don't see any insults here.

I'm asking for a simple yes or no. Thus far I haven't gotten one.

[hrmjustin]

45. I gave you an answer.

[okasha]

76. You have a right to believe any assholish thing you want to.

But the minute you throw a rock at someone, you're going to jail.

[bvf]

184. Are you fucking serious?

That is one of the most demented comments I've read here in a long time.

[hrmjustin]

185. How so?

[bvf]

187. I'm not asking you.

[hrmjustin]

188. No I am asking you,

[bvf]

189. You can read, right?

[hrmjustin]

190. I was going to ask the same of you.

[okasha]

191. Very.

I do not believe in the concept of thought crime. Apparently you do.

How do you feel about hacking people to death for having impermissable thoughts?

[bvf]

193. WTF?

You win for the most idiotic question of the year.

[okasha]

195. You're the one declaring that certain thoughts

should not be allowed. Just trying here to discover what you think should happen to people who think thoughts you disapprove of.

[bvf]

196. I never said any such thing, and you know it.

<insert alertable comment here>

[okasha]

197. Look at your post replying to mine

that started this sequence.

I do understand that, having made an indefensible comment, you are now trying to wriggle out of responsibility for it. Proceed.

[hrmjustin]

198. I gave up.

[okasha]

199. It's a well-established MO by now.

[hrmjustin]

201. It is pointless to bother because when you answer a question you are told you didn't and

it goes a thousand rounds.

[bvf]

212. That's typically your approach.

I wouldn't call it "giving up" so much as running away from an argument you know you can't win.

[hrmjustin]

213. No i gave up because you were telling me that I didn't answer a question when I did.

[bvf]

214. Heh.

[hrmjustin]

215. .heH

[bvf]

209. Point me to any post of mine

Last edited Wed May 13, 2015, 04:02 PM - Edit history (2)

in support of your statement. You can't.

ETA: Still waiting.

ETA: Still waiting, and not expecting a reply anytime soon, because you haven't got one that won"t make you look like a complete idiot.

[skepticscott]

9. Yes, there are...and some of them you know quite well, Tack

There are posters here whose regular shtick for years has been to characterize criticism of someone's beliefs, ideas and opinions as a "personal attack", or an "ad hom", or as "bullying", "harassment" or "stalking". This despite having it pointed out to them over and over that attacking and disrespecting beliefs is not the same as disrespecting the people that hold them and not the same as saying they don't have the right to hold them.

Take the log out of your eye and look close to home...you might find the answer you're seeking, dude. And here's a hint...none of the atheists here that you routinely direct your ire at are part of the problem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Respect for people includes not calling them 'vermin'

"What fosters this bigotry? Is it fear of the other or fear of themselves?"

Damn good question. Why do you call people 'vermin'?

[Starboard Tack]

14. Then talk to those who call people vermin Mr Vole Strangler

There are quite a few who self identify as vermin, but I have never called anybody vermin.

[skepticscott]

27. Here's your expression of "respect"

They are irrelevant and it is their irrelevance that both pisses them off and motivates them. They have no substance and seek to feed off those who do. Responding to their mockery and theophobia only encourages them.
If you leave crumbs on the lunch room counter, the vermin will come to feed. Keep it clean and they will crawl back to the dark corners to fester and eventually consume each other.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1225&pid=595

Yes, we know...you pride yourself on doing it in a backhanded way that gives you plausible deniability and that you hope will get past a jury, but everyone who knows you and who followed that exchange knows perfectly well who you were labeling as "vermin". Even you don't believe otherwise.

[Starboard Tack]

41. Thanks for continuing to re-post that.

You and BMUS are my favorite fans

[skepticscott]

46. Disingenuous nonsense and insulting people's intelligence are also not signs of respect

though we realize that's all you have to try to deflect from having your own rather embarrassing words quoted back to you.

But go right on pretending, Tack...and go right on telling yourself that anyone believes you.

[Starboard Tack]

113. On the contrary. I stand by my posts

Don't you stand by yours?
Please keep reposting mine. You guys are my biggest supporters. I'm truly impressed with the progress you've made.

[skepticscott]

114. You're so cute

I hope you didn't spend too much of your life coming up with this, because no one outside your little clique takes it seriously.

And yes, I stand by every post I've made here. Do you stand by the ones where you've made what you knew to be blatantly false accusations against other posters, like accusing them of "blaming religion for everything"? No need to answer, dude...I'm sure you do.

[beam me up scottie]

70. Hidden expressions of "respect" from Tack:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=48496
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=123943
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=59016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124676
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=49182
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=119157
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=195640

But he wants people to believe we're bigoted towards him because he's "too" tolerant.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how he acts.

[Starboard Tack]

110. Thanks again!

You are the best BMUS
You should come sailing with us sometime.

[Kali]

131. theophobia?

[beam me up scottie]

132. Ikr?

It's a lot like heterophobia.

And every bit as offensive.

[Kali]

134. I'm thinking it would be great for a tee-shirt or bumpersticker.

OMG I have theophobia!

[beam me up scottie]

146. I'd buy them!

Atheistic vermin have a highly developed sense of humour.

[bvf]

168. I thought fear of god was supposed to be a plus,

but what do I know?

I'm just a stupid, evil, baby-eating atheist.

Plus I'm really afraid of leprechauns.

[mr blur]

11. You need to look closer to home,

to find answers to those whiny questions. Much closer.

[edhopper]

12. Respect

for beliefs or people should be earned.

People and beliefs should be tolerated, up to a point.

There are beliefs and people I will never tolerate or respect.

[Starboard Tack]

15. Me too

But we should, imo, respect an individual's right to believe whatever. Nothing to do with respeting that individual or their beliefs.

[edhopper]

17. I see the difference you are getting at.

True in a pluralistic society like ours.

But how would you characterize respecting the right. What would be an example of not respecting the right to believe.
Obviously passing laws is an extreme. Do you you see people here not respecting the right.

I don't think calling out inane beliefs or challenging any belief isn't respecting their right, it's not respecting the belief.

Totalitarian and Theocratic regimes don't respect the right to believe.

[Starboard Tack]

35. And should be true in any society

Criticizing a belief is fine. Criticizing a person for expressing a belief is fine. Condemning individuals for their religious faith alone is not OK.
People believe alot of fucked up stuff. So what, as long as they don't impose those beliefs on others.

[edhopper]

50. Depends on what those beliefs lead to.

I'm not one to sa so what and wait and see. I believe they should be challenged when they arise.

What do you mean by "condemn"

[hrmjustin]

16. When I post in this room I expect my views to be challenged.

That is the nature of the room.

The reality is though in this room it has gotten very personal between the regular posters.

And some here go further than some good natured mocking.

[rug]

20. In this thread alone, you can see how "files" are kept on particlar posters.

You can see, just in the words used, the personal animus that drives these posts.

[hrmjustin]

21. I am still trying to figure out if the "Dollar Store Aquinas" is you or I.

[rug]

32. I'm holding out for Duns Scotus.

[hrmjustin]

38. lol. I wonder what code names they have for me.

[bvf]

169. Don't flatter yourself.

[hrmjustin]

173. .

[okasha]

89. It's a truly weird combination

of paranoia and hoarding behavior.

[mr blur]

55. Oh noes!

"some here go further than some good natured mocking."

Indeed they do. Most of them your good buddies and allies, I fear.

[hrmjustin]

61. .

[AuntPatsy]

44. But how can one respect a belief that ensures another feels terror brought on by someone

Else's belief, I just have a hard time seeing this issue presented as cut and dry...





We are each burdened with prejudice; against the poor or the rich, the smart or the slow, the gaunt or the obese. It is natural to develop prejudices. It is noble to rise above them. ~Author Unknown

[edgineered]

47. An observation in passing through:

choices:

remember better
buy index cards
create spreadsheet
use advanced search functions
all of the above

So basically the choices are to create file systems, use available cerebral resources, use existing computer resources, or any combination of the above.

Decisions, decisions. There isn't a need to disclose that decision, as disavowal of such seems to be a pre-req in the religion group. hmmmmmm

[guillaumeb]

53. I have seen far more disrespect (at DU) directed from non-theists

to theists than the opposite. Rigid thinking is not confined to theists, but obviously exists on both sides. And saying that, I also feel that Du is not representative of the population as a whole. I agree that a certain small but vocal subset of theists directs a lot of hate toward atheists, LGBT people, and other groups.

Agreed that mutual respect should be the norm, but there are many posts here, some ongoing, that talk about how important it is to mock believers, or how important it is to mock religion. What do you feel about such posts? Do they foster dialogue, or promote division?

[Yorktown]

182. Again, ideologies must be challenged

Look at this slight alteration of what you wrote (two words were replaced)

Agreed that mutual respect should be the norm, but there are many posts here, some ongoing, that talk about how important it is to mock Germans voting for the Führer, or how important it is to mock Nazism. What do you feel about such posts? Do they foster dialogue, or promote division?

See? Just changing the name of the ideology shows why the two are not the same, and why one of these two elements can be criticized and mocked.

The religious 'holy' books contain some passages more violent than any in 'Mein Kampf'.

[guillaumeb]

192. My point, heretofore unaddressed,

is that dialogue is more likely to foster understanding than is criticism and vitriol. When people are mocked the natural reaction is to become defensive and/or respond to the attacker. How exactly does that foster understanding?

We have all seen demonstrations where there are two groups of people loudly shouting slogans and waving signs. At what point do we put down the signs, stop shouting, and actually have a conversation?

[cbayer]

194. Some people have zero interest in fostering understanding and furthering conversation,

if you catch my drift.

[Yorktown]

205. You want to foster 'conversations' which are not grounded in fact.

You do not read about doctrines and you reason as if radicals were a negligible force
(my answer #204)

[Act_of_Reparation]

200. Trouble is, your point has already been addressed. More times than I care to count.

Say you're walking down the sidewalk in a crowded city, like New York or Chicago. You come to a stop at an intersection when a man next to you howls and blurts out, "YOU'RE STANDING ON MY FOOT, FUCKHEAD!"

Do you:

A) Move your foot?

or

B) Chastise the man for his boorish manners, keeping your foot firmly in place until he apologizes for offending your delicate sensibilities?

[guillaumeb]

207. If this were targeting shooting,

you would need a larger target. I am uncertain if you missed the point or choose to avoid the point.

[Act_of_Reparation]

208. As it turns out, I'm a pretty good shot.

Your position is that friendliness wins one more allies than boorishness, and generally speaking I'm inclined to agree that honey attracts more flies than vinegar.

But there's a problem here you're overlooking: you're calling for calm and civility from a position of greater power along the relevant axes. You, a member of a privileged in-group, are chastening an out-group for the manner in which they choose to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo.

You're standing on my foot, and you're dictating to me the terms in which I must register my discomfort.

There are people here who cannot live openly as nonbelievers without endangering their relationships, their social standings, or their careers, who every day are made to feel unwelcome and unwanted in their own country, who have literally one place where they can vent their frustrations, and you're wagging your fucking finger at them for using strong language.

Frankly, I find this paternalistic codswallop in-fucking-furiating. While we're worrying about the concrete ramifications of daring not believe what the overwhelming majority of neighbors believe, you're crying about your goddamned feelings. About what some anonymous atheist said about your favorite deity on a fucking internet forum.

If I seem unsympathetic to your emotional plight, it's in part because I value justice above decorum. And it's in part because tone trolling is a time honored dominance game deployed by the privileged majority whenever someone dares question the status quo. Because these pointless discussions of language and attitude and tone distract from the real issues. Because it's the majority's way of saying, "I'm not listening to your complaints unless you frame them in a way I find personally tasteful."

And, honestly, if you think tone is the reason atheists stand alone in this country, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

[guillaumeb]

210. An interesting attempt to frame and characterize my argument.

You start out by "generally" agreeing about polite conversation, then disavow your position by framing me as being a "member of a privileged in-group" who has no right to have an opinion.

Unless you know me personally, how do you know my status? The only thing you can know at this point is that I identify as a believer, a person of faith. All else is supposition on your part.

My views on tone, on civility, on manners, are how I was raised, and how I behaved at my job, and how I treat my family, friends, and acquaintances. I worked as a union representative for over 30 years. I trained representatives as well. When having a meeting with a management representative, I was never rude, or loud, or anything but professional and polite. It gets better results, and results are what counts. Politeness is not synonymous with pushover, nor is it capitulation or deal making. It is simply treating people as you wish to be treated.

As to atheists being treated as outsiders by many of their fellow citizens, of course I agree with you. It does happen. Too many US citizens believe that this country should be a Christian theocracy. They believe this in spite of what the Constitution says, and because they have been taught a fictionalized version of US history where Jesus helped George Washington defeat the British.

But my objection is also about the habit of saying "all people of faith" or "people of faith" followed by whatever behavior is being condemned. ALL people do not agree about everything. ALL atheists do not agree on things, why then are all people of faith considered to be the oppressive enemy?

That said, I appreciated the passion in your post.

[Act_of_Reparation]

211. Do I need to show you the straw man gif again?

You start out by "generally" agreeing about polite conversation, then disavow your position by framing me as being a "member of a privileged in-group" who has no right to have an opinion.

I didn't say you didn't have a right to your opinion. I said your opinion is ridiculous. If wish to continue to hold ridiculous opinions, there is little I can, or would, do to stop you.

Unless you know me personally, how do you know my status? The only thing you can know at this point is that I identify as a believer, a person of faith. All else is supposition on your part.

I know that people of faith -- whatever that faith may be -- are held in higher standing than those with no faith. Which puts you higher on the privilege ladder, whatever the specifics of your faith may be.

My views on tone, on civility, on manners, are how I was raised, and how I behaved at my job, and how I treat my family, friends, and acquaintances. I worked as a union representative for over 30 years. I trained representatives as well. When having a meeting with a management representative, I was never rude, or loud, or anything but professional and polite. It gets better results, and results are what counts. Politeness is not synonymous with pushover, nor is it capitulation or deal making. It is simply treating people as you wish to be treated.

When I said "paternalistic codswallop", this is exactly what I meant.

Are you living openly as an atheist? No? Then how do you know being polite "gets better results"?

As to atheists being treated as outsiders by many of their fellow citizens, of course I agree with you. It does happen. Too many US citizens believe that this country should be a Christian theocracy. They believe this in spite of what the Constitution says, and because they have been taught a fictionalized version of US history where Jesus helped George Washington defeat the British.

When I said "you don't know what you're talking about", this is exactly what I meant.

Liberals here have this bizarre impression that it is the most extreme fringes of conservative Christianity that are making life difficult for atheists in this country.

It isn't just them.

But my objection is also about the habit of saying "all people of faith" or "people of faith" followed by whatever behavior is being condemned. ALL people do not agree about everything. ALL atheists do not agree on things, why then are all people of faith considered to be the oppressive enemy?

And this is the mantra of the privileged majority, no matter what the issue happens to be.

When white privilege comes up, white people say, "Well, not all white people are racist." When sexism comes up, men say, "Well, not all men are misogynists." When American foreign policy comes up, Americans say, "Not all Americans think like that."

Frankly, this is counter-productive. What a powerless out-group has to say about a privileged in-group is almost never equal in effect or kind to the type of grief the in-group is typically dispensing upon the out-group. But that's what we're talking about here. What a handful of atheists without power or social influence might have said on some sad, lonely corner of the internet.

If you want to know why out-groups find this kind of crap objectionable, I suggest you read Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's Letter from Birmingham Jail, particularly this bit:

[div class="excerpt" style="border:1px solid black; border-radius:10px;background-color:aliceblue;"]I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Bear in mind, I'm not comparing the experience of American atheists to that of African Americans. This, however, is in my mind the ultimate refutation of concern/tone trolling, from a man intimately acquainted with such tactics.

[Yorktown]

204. To answer your point, it takes two to tango.

Radicals are NOT interested in your dialogue. Kem Ham does NOT want to discuss creationism with you. It's his creation way or the highway. Muslim fanatics are NOT interested to discuss religious tolerance with you. They want to spread Islam all over the world. They say so. They said they want to see the banner of Islam fly over the White House and Buckingham Palace.

The radicals power base is the religious silent majority. The only way to unsettle the radicals is to sow doubt about the doctrine amongthe radicals. Explaining why the 'theory' of Evolution is as good as fact, you sap the silent majority which clings on to superstitious creationism.
Reminding everyone muhamad had sex with a 9 year old and participated himself in the beheading of the Banu Qurayza calls into doubt his perfection. Pointing the multiple errors and contradictions of the Quran is the only sound, non violent way to sap the groundings of the radicals.

[AtheistCrusader]

186. BULLSHIT.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159089/religion-major-factor-americans-opposed-sex-marriage.aspx



Half of the 46% that oppose explicitly cite religion, another 30% indirectly cite it.

I agree that a certain small but vocal subset of theists

That's a fucking lie.

And worse, the numbers are likely under-reported:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/30/opposition-to-same-sex-marriage-may-be-understated-in-public-opinion-polls/

[Yorktown]

206. About the underreporting

That was to be expected in a transition of social change.

Social desirability is a driver of opinion change, but people change FROM their past position to which part of their sensibility still clings on to.

They say yes with the mind, a fraction of the 'heart' still resisting. No big deal.

[Starboard Tack]

216. What do I think? I think such posts are juvenile and obnoxious.

The more vociferous anti-theists here demonstrate the ugliest side of the so-called "New Atheists". Several, I am convinced, are only here to disrupt and give the wrong impression about both DU and atheism.
The mockers are truly disgusting. They defend their behavior by comparing it to ISIS and RW fundies, thinking that by not being as disgusting as those extremes means that they, themselves, are OK. Some logic.
Some are obviously very young and insecure, looking for approval, while others are just hateful individuals.

[guillaumeb]

217. No one is won over to any argument

when the one arguing persists in insulting whoever disagrees with him/her. And that obviously applies to both sides of any argument. I have previously posted a question to the effect: "Is there a contest here among non-believers to see who can be more rude and belligerent?" I am not sure that I have seen a clear winner yet, but there are definitely contenders.

And yes, some will claim that because they have been mischaracterized and mistreated that gives them the right to be insulting and dismissive.

[beam me up scottie]

219. Well if you're running a contest for rude statements, I provided the winner's posts above.

When it comes to being insulting and dismissive your friend has no competition.

But you only see what you want to see.

[guillaumeb]

221. Would I have to award prizes?

What I actually said was:
" I have previously posted a question to the effect: "Is there a contest here among non-believers to see who can be more rude and belligerent?" I am not sure that I have seen a clear winner yet, but there are definitely contenders.

So please do NOT send in an entry just yet.

[beam me up scottie]

223. There really isn't a need for one, is there?

When someone racks up a history like that who can compete?

[Starboard Tack]

229. As is clearly demonstrated in this thread

The only argument I have with anyone regarding religion is about respect and tolerance. Unfortunately, that argument is predominantly with fellow atheists who adopt extreme positions of intolerance toward anyone who disagrees with, or disapproves of their mockery.

[guillaumeb]

230. I have no argument with that.

The only exception to the "mockery rule" is if Monte Python is doing the mocking. We were a Christian home school family but we all loved "The Life of Brian". (And Jesus would like it too.)

[Starboard Tack]

231. I couldn't agree more

My whole point in the OP, of course, is my dismay at those who are unable to differentiate between tolerance of a belief and tolerance of an individual's right to believe.
We have some very disjointed logic out there. And the irony is that it tends to come from some atheists, be they a small minority of atheists as a whole, but for some reason, this group has attracted some pretty hardcore anti-theists who are obsessed with discrediting anyone and everyone who disagrees with their totally negative view of religion.

[beam me up scottie]

232. What about ridiculing mormons?

[Rob H.]

233. That doesn't count.

Because reasons.

[beam me up scottie]

234. D'oh!

I forgot.

Theist approved mockery only.

[beam me up scottie]

218. Homophobes who compare ssm to bestiality and call people "vermin" shouldn't criticize anyone

The more vociferous anti-theists here demonstrate the ugliest side of the so-called "New Atheists". Several, I am convinced, are only here to disrupt and give the wrong impression about both DU and atheism.

Disgusting bigoted speech from a person who truly represents the ugliest side of "atheists" :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=123723

Starboard Tack (10,698 posts)
112. And this has what to do with the RCC?

Why would any couple want to marry in a church that doesn't accept them? Makes no sense.
You really look for extreme situations to provide fodder for your hatred of religion. How about if I wanted to marry my bicycle, or my hamster and some church opposed performing the ceremony, would you be there, fighting for my rights?

I'm sorry, but religious rights and gay rights are not the same thing. I support both. Seems like you only support one. I know many gay couples, some who married in church and some at town hall and some couldn't care less about the institution of marriage.

I think your views are self centered. You want the world to adapt to your values, like the vegan who wants everyone to quit eating meat. What a boring world that would be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124676

Starboard Tack This message was hidden by Jury decision. Hide

176. Really? And how exactly did I do that?

You seem to confuse marriage and sexuality. The first is about a ceremonial binding of two entities. The second is about sex.
Who are you to tell me I cannot marry my dog, or my brother, or my mother, or my fucking bicycle, if I so wish. You don't get to decide these things. Sorry to disappoint you.

A Jury voted 5-2 to hide this post on Fri Apr 18, 2014, 05:12 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124679

Starboard Tack (10,698 posts)
177. No, I am not equating it with anything.

We should all have the right to marry whomever or whatever, provided it is consensual and conducted of sound mind.
Do you have a problem with sisters marrying each other? I don't. How about other family members? Do you draw lines and, if so, why?

My point, as I'm sure you are already aware, was about seeking approval from the RCC or any other church, to get married. That approval comes from within one's own conscience. Official approval comes from the state. Fuck the church and fuck those who want to paint me as an enemy of equal rights. Fuck the bigots and bullies and nasty hate mongering anti-theists. Fuck all fascists.


Happy Easter!

Calling other DUer's "vermin":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1225&pid=595

Starboard Tack (10,719 posts)

7. Ignore them. They neither help nor hinder

They are irrelevant and it is their irrelevance that both pisses them off and motivates them. They have no substance and seek to feed off those who do. Responding to their mockery and theophobia only encourages them.
If you leave crumbs on the lunch room counter, the vermin will come to feed. Keep it clean and they will crawl back to the dark corners to fester and eventually consume each other.

Take comfort in the knowledge that most of us, including atheists, are praying in our own ways for those who are suffering. And we don't care if some choose to pray to a deity. It's the thought that counts.

Then claiming you didn't:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=195505

Starboard Tack (10,726 posts)

101. Except I did not "specifically call atheists vermin"

Or anyone, for that matter.

"I honestly don't mind it when people use ugly names and slurs"
That, my friend, was pretty bloody obvious.

What exactly would you like me to own? I don't slur individuals, especially other DUers, YMMV

Happy May Day to you too!

And then finally admitting that you did in fact call other human beings "vermin":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=195503

Starboard Tack (10,726 posts)

110. Whoever Justin was being bullied by. Who do you think?

I don't differentiate between individual varmints. Who do you think he was referring to? I was just providing solace to a fellow DUer whom I like and respect, who takes a lot of abuse, and I saw his OP. I used an analogy, which I thought appropriate in this context. Obviously, I hit a nerve with a handful Of members. I guess it would be interesting to do a search and see if those who are so upset are also those who constantly bait Justin. For praying, of all things. But I'll leave that to those who enjoy digging up shit.
Meanwhile, how's your May Day going? Always one of my favorite days.

Some are obviously very young and insecure, looking for approval, while others are just hateful individuals.

Like the person who wrote these hidden posts?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=48496
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=123943
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=59016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124676
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=49182
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=119157
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=195640

[skepticscott]

220. And then there are those who simply make shit up about other posters

being concerned only with smearing others, and not at all with the truth of their claims.

I agree with you that they are ugly, disgusting, hateful, insecure people.

[beam me up scottie]

222. I'm sure they pray about it.

I wonder who the patron saint of homophobes and hypocrites is?

[skepticscott]

226. All of them, I imagine

Since one can hardly be a saint without conforming to Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuals.

[beam me up scottie]

227. It's more convenient to be a religious homophobe.

You can keep saying it's not your fault, it's just part of the church's teachings.

Works for the pope apologists.

[Rob H.]

224. "They defend their behavior...

...by comparing it to ISIS and RW fundies, thinking that by not being as disgusting as those extremes means that they, themselves, are OK. Some logic."

Links or GTFO, 'cause that sounds like 100% bullshit to me.

[beam me up scottie]

225. Well we post Jesus and Mo cartoons.

Does that count?

[mr blur]

228. You pompous, ridiculous little man.

You say so much yet know so little.

[Starboard Tack]

235. Thank you, once again for proving my point.

Few do it better than you.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Some believers here on DU, including a host of the interfaith forum, have attempted to conflate

belief with the person holding the belief. That any disrespect of the belief, is de facto disrespect of the person holding it.


Sometimes I DO mean to disrespect the person holding the belief as well, but I usually telegraph that disrespect quite unambiguously.

[hrmjustin]

66. Interesting.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. I sincerely hope you don't need clarification, since you were the first poster to respond to his

thread.

[hrmjustin]

68. No sir I don't. I just find it interesting.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Just since I don't see anyone else mentioning it, doesn't mean nobody realized your question isn't a question at all, it's an attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.[2]

I bet you felt clever when you wrote that OP.

[PoutrageFatigue]

170. Only the ones that you don't consider vermin, right?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

202. PEW

I will start a thread on this, appears people are what I would call "wising up" or to be less obnoxious, changing.


http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

The Christian share of the U.S. population is declining, while the number of U.S. adults who do not identify with any organized religion is growing,