Skeptics, a question from a believer?

[Htom Sirveaux]

I hope you don't mind me visiting your group, but I've got a question for you that I don't want to degenerate into a flame war. And that question is this:

What do you want from believers in the religion group? What would help you to feel like both you and they are on the same team, if you don't feel that way currently?

[Promethean]

1. We can start with ending the assumption that Atheists are immoral monsters.

Some posters over there there you can see this dripping from everything they post about us. This is why at least half the A&A group has Rug on ignore for example.

After that recognition that if you claim something with no evidence to support it we won't accept it and will likely call it out as false or questionable. Unfortunately this tends to trigger a defensive reflex, especially if the unsupported claim has some faith value to the claimant.

Next recognize that "faith" is not an acceptable reason to make a claim about reality. Most Atheists have come to the conclusion that non-evidential claims about reality get in the way of human progress. If you want to argue this go look up the creationism movement.

Finally recognize that silence is consent. I don't like spelling everything out. So put this one in an atheist vs theist context and see what you can come up with on your own. You might just come to a new appreciation of why we seem hostile even to moderate or liberal theists.

[Mr.Bill]

2. I don't want your "help".

I'm fine just the way I am. I don't hate you or even dislike you. I have great respect for your right to believe whatever you want to, just don't push it on me or try and change me and I'll do the same for you.

[Curmudgeoness]

3. We would both be on the same team

if believers would also stand up for separation of church and state, as well as understanding that faith should be a personal matter. Beliefs should be confined to your place of worship and your home, and any liberal should understand that advocating for religion in the public realm should be condemned.

[Htom Sirveaux]

4. Can you expand on what falls under advocating for religion in the public realm?

Suppose I write a book that both defends belief in a creator as reasonable, and explains why it's inappropriate to rely on claims of revelation from that creator to justify public policy. Is that standing up for separation of church and state, or a failure to confine my beliefs to place of worship/home?

[angstlessk]

5. That would have to declare the creator created, then walked away

having no care or control of the place she/he created...why create in the first place?

[Htom Sirveaux]

6. An excellent question, but one I'd rather not discuss in this group.

I'm here to listen.

[uriel1972]

11. I can't speak for Curmudgeoness...

but I think here the public realm refers to Government and laws. I could be wrong.

In which case your book is fine to publish as long as it is done as a private citizen.

It could also be refering to attempts to convert us heathens, door to door, in the streets etc. Again I don't really know.

[Curmudgeoness]

28. You are right on all counts.

I was especially talking about the government and keeping it secular. But attempts to convert others (even if it is one denomination of Christian trying to convert someone in another Christ-based religion) are also intruding on people with religion.

I also agree that the book is fine. I can choose whether or not I read that book. I cannot choose to avoid religion when it seeps into our government. I would, however, be pissed about a book that was pushing religion on the reader without being up front about it, hiding it throughout the book instead of selling it as what it is not.

Thanks for answering our questioner so well. I have said all that I had to say.

[Brainstormy]

26. Ditto! But . . .

since that IS the case, we're never likely to be on the "same team" unless it's completely unrelated to religion. (i.e, save the whales. )

[EvolveOrConvolve]

7. A couple of things

1) admit that religious privilege in general and christian privilege specifically are very real things in the US, and they have real consequences regarding public policy.
2) have some empathy.
3) stop the nannying of A&A - if a believer isn't welcome here, they sure aren't welcome to come trolling the group in stealth, firing off alerts in some attempt to get A&Aers banned from DU.
4) stop the tone-trolling. If a DUer goes around tsk-tsking atheists for their negative tone, and don't do the same to believers, it belies a stated goal of "improving the tone of the group".

[Lordquinton]

8. I think you answered your own question in your first line.

[defacto7]

9. You have posed a very respectful honest question.

and that is all it takes. Respectful honest questions receiving respectful honest answers. That's the nutshell of it.

Now for the reality of it:

Most atheists have radar for logical or simple fallacies or they should. If an answer to a religious or philosophical question arises and it is purely illogical or a simple fallacy, atheists are likely to challenge it. Challenging beliefs with logical corrections is not something theists are comfortable with, but to an atheist or any skeptic logic and facts are what makes the universe what it is and so far it has never failed. Yes, logical conclusions at one time or another have failed, but not having faith to bind us to preserving a dogma, an atheist, a scientist, or skeptic can evolve with the change in facts and observations; the non-believer can change his mind and as a matter of fact, we are compelled to do so. We cannot hold on to an idea that has been found factually false or without evidential merit. The faith of a believer must not have fact or evidence by definition.

This alone creates a chasm that is very hard to bridge. When atheists challenge faiths, it is tantamount to heresy to the faithful. When believers challenge facts or propose acceptance of lack of evidence, it's only an argument to be challenged to an atheist. No believer in a faith wants to be corrected by facts because in doing so it nullifies their faith therefore they have to do everything in their power to destroy the facts and the fact provider even to the point of ad hominem or straw man tactics and that just won't fly with a non-theist. See my signature.

Being atheist I have no problem listening to the story of a person's faith or belief. Personally, I can just listen and not challenge it. But in an open forum there are other non-believers who will challenge it. It's not an attack, it's an open forum and people say what they need to say. There's the believer's point of view which must be unchangeable and acceptable under the banner of a deity, and there's the non-believer's point of view that cannot accept faith, I.E. beliefs without tangible evidence. If both sides can offer their positions without feeling insulted or have the need to make personal attacks on the other, I think we would get along fine. But as long as there is offense at being wrong, either side, then there will always be a problem.

Speaking for myself, I thrive on being wrong and I think most mature atheists feel the same. If I am logically incorrect I am happy to have been corrected because I can move on with new information that is better than what I had before. THAT is the atheist's path. If there is a God de facto, I will be compelled to change my position and become... not a believer, but knower and live in the knowledge and fact of a tangible God.

D7

[uriel1972]

10. I don't want anything from those who have closed their minds...

and refuse to examine their beliefs, except space to be me. If I participate in a discusion it is for those that are looking on, in the hope that they will examine the evidence and then their beliefs.

[skepticscott]

12. That exact question has been asked in another thread

You might want to go back and read that one first. Because honest answers to that question were dismissed last time.

[LostOne4Ever]

13. The last time this question came up

Last edited Tue May 27, 2014, 01:03 PM - Edit history (3)

I only wanted one thing.

I have added a few things to the list since then. Here they are in no particular order. Note that I am using a general "you" and am not referring to you specifically. Further I am not just referring to just believers but from anyone arguing against the atheist point of view....even if they claim to be non-believers themselves.

1. I want consistent support for church and state seperation. Quit trying to find exception and excusing fragrant violations.


2. I want you to try and show some empathy. Some of us have had some really horrible experiences with religion and have extremely negative views on the subject, quit taking our criticism on it as an attack on you personally.


3. I want you to quit using religious terms to describe us. Fundamentalist atheist, atheist blasphamy, etc. are not okay.


4. I want you to listen to what we say and try and understand what is meant before taking offense


5. I want you to quit trying to tell us, actual atheists, what it is that we do or do not believe in. We actually have a say in that. This is how we define it


6. I want you to quit trying to link beliefs and practices to atheism that have nothing to do with atheism.


7. I want you to quit trying to call atheism a belief, faith, or a religion. It is a lack of belief and it is not a religion.


8. I want you to quit trying to create a false equivalency between belief and disbelief


9. I want you to quit trying to make atheism look like a movement


10. I want you to quit acting as if we have a leader(s) similar to the pope in Richard Dawkins or whoever


11. I want you to quit trying to act as if atheism and agnosticism are different positions on the same subject. One can be both an agnostic and an atheist.


12. I want you to respect our safe haven. This is a place for us to vent to other non-believers, quit alert stalking this room especially on jokes.


13. I want you to respect our safe haven. Coming in here for the sole purpose of making a thread to use against us to score points is not okay.


14. I want you to respect our safe haven. Quote mining here to bash us in other parts of DU is not okay.


15. I want you to quit generalizing us generally and anti-theist specifically. I am not an anti-theist but there is a case to be made against religion and making that case is not in and of itself bigoted.


16. I want you to call a spade a spade. This applies to the pope in particular. He has said some bigoted stuff and deserves criticism for it. Instead, we get called bigots for calling the pope out on his own bigotry.


17. I want you to quit defending bigotry in your attempts to defend religion.This is a progressive website I should not be seeing people defending religious liberty to deny people service or calling contraception rubbers...


18. I want you to quit attacking atheists on what you think we said, and rather base your criticism on things we actually DID say.


19. I REALLY really really want you to STOP making the argument that you have to be religious in order to be moral, or that only moral people are REALLY religious. It is so ingrained into your minds you do it without even thinking about it or how offensive it is to us. After Sandyhook, I had friends who said that all these school shooting happened because they removed god from our schools. This is HORRENDOUSLY offensive and factually untrue, they don't even realize it.


20. Finally I don't want you to blindly agree or disagree with everything we say, in fact I expect you to disagree with many things I listed. But I want you to argue with logic and reason.

[Goblinmonger]

15. ^^THIS^^ right fucking here

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Fragrant or flagrant.

I'll take either.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

23. Wow, REALLY good post

It's exactly what I wanted to say but was too lazy to compile myself.

[RebelOne]

25. Excellent post. n/t

[Heddi]

27. I think this should be pinned on the front page of the forum

I think it answers thing pretty straight forward

[Curmudgeoness]

29. Am I too late to add my kudos for this post????

Nicely done. And you put a lot of work into it, so you deserve our congratulations.

[skepticscott]

30. Excellent post

In response to which I note that our hit-and-run OPer has nothing to offer. Leaving their true motives highly in doubt. For the second time in a thread like this.

[Act_of_Reparation]

31. In the words of the late John Belushi....

HOOOOOOOOOOOOOLY SHIT!

You win all of the internets, my friend.

[Goblinmonger]

36. I've been burned by this before

Do you actually have the authority to award the internets?

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. Hell yea... it's a coupon

Got a barcode and everything. Looks legit to me.

[onager]

46. I'm still laughing over that one.

I'm glad nobody said "you win 10 free internets." That poster-girl for Dunning-Kreuger Syndrome would probably go looking for the other 9 internets. Then complain that the Evul Atheists have somehow hijacked them and banned her from posting on them.

As for the OP, the Golden Post up there covered everything I would want to say on the subject.

[trotsky]

47. "That poster-girl for Dunning-Kreuger Syndrome"

[trotsky]

35. I want to specifically commend you for documenting every one of your points with links.

Unlike the response to this post which I found in Interfaith (I hadn't been back there since it first failed to launch, but since you commented below that a companion thread to this one could be found there), which is full of personal assertions with absolutely no documenting links whatsoever, you did a fine job.

[LostOne4Ever]

39. Thank you

That was the very reason I wanted every point to have at least 1 link. It was not meant to be a "call out" thread, but to document and show what I was talking about.

I am writing up a polite reply to that thread now, but I want to see if a third thread shows up in religion before posting.

[trotsky]

40. It wasn't a "call out" post AT ALL.

You weren't accusing anyone of anything, you were just providing examples.

cbayer has shut most of us out, and it seems she continues to bash us with unsupported and unwarranted claims. Until and unless she recognizes her own hypocrisy and takes some sort of action to correct it, her complaints and attacks are nonsense.

[JNelson6563]

37. Wow! This says it all!

Bravo!

Julie

[theHandpuppet]

43. Thanks very much for this post.

[trotsky]

14. Here, read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=129222

[AtheistCrusader]

17. That post should be bronzed, and nailed to the masthead of the religion forum.

A ray of glorious clarity.

[trotsky]

20. Agreed.

And it really gets to the heart of the matter: it's not "working together to find common ground" that is the mission of the tone trolls - we HAVE common ground. We share the same positions on nearly every political issue.

No, what is desired is silence on the part of atheists. No criticism of religious ideas or religious positions allowed.

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. I've tried envisioning exactly what the forum would look like if we were nerve-stapled...

...into complete obedience.

Believer: "Here is a video of a gospel song I dug up on teh youtubes."

Nonbeliever: "Wow, that's AWESOME."

...

End of thread.

[skepticscott]

34. No need to even envision

Just check out the plethora of OPs double posted in Religion and Interfaith, and see how they go differently..

[theHandpuppet]

45. I've dipped my toe into the Religion forum just once.

That was quite enough for me.

But say, I received my first personal insult on DU for being an atheist, which I don't even discuss outside of this forum (and I'm new here to boot.) I guess when all else fails, rather than address the issues presented in a post, just insult that person for being an atheist, as if that undercuts anything you have to say.

I'm learning.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. oh, it would look exactly like the inyourfaiths forum.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. What I would like to see, and this is not a demand, but would help, is

a little less apologia when someone points out a problem like, religious morals being implemented in law, or lobbied for, in the US, around abortion, same sex marriage, family planning, adoption, end of life decisions, suing to block the implementation of Obamacare/ACA, etc.

I understand that there is some question of how much of these issues are locally cultural, and how much are religious, but when we can demonstrate a correlation between a particular faith and the political agenda under discussion, in a country where some 60-70% identify as that superset of 'christian', hearing 'not all believers are like that' is pretty frustrating. Ok, fine, not all. But enough that it puts these social issues at grave risk. Swings elections, sways legislators.

It would also be nice to see, just an acknowledgement, that religion carries baggage. For instance, the exorcism thing. It's brought out by a belief in a niche claim by only some Christians; that demons can possess or inhabit people and influence them. There is a genuine connection between that sort of idea, and the means in which some people suffering from some psychosis, lash out. Even if it's just an inspiration, and the core problem is that the person in question needs serious mental health care that isn't primarily caused by religion, the beliefs in supernatural stuff, like demons, channels behavior, inspires action. I've seen that hand-waved away a lot when people who have done terrible things to themselves and others specifically cite it as a reason, and again, that is incredibly frustrating.

[trotsky]

19. One nitpick:

"a niche claim by only some Christians; that demons can possess or inhabit people and influence them"

I disagree - this is no niche claim; it's the official teaching and belief of the RCC, the largest Christian denomination in the world.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Oh wow, good fact check.

I thought it was ~50% of the Christians in the US, primarily RCC, but it's WAY more widespread than I thought. It's actually most of them. I thought it was mostly just the RCC itself.

[Warren Stupidity]

68. in fact the "niche claim" is that demons don't exist.

except of course in the religion forum, where hardly anyone will admit they believe in demons, except one alleged atheist.

[jeff47]

22. Here's a place to start

http://www.alternet.org/belief/9-questions-atheists-might-find-insulting-and-answers

Understanding why those are insulting, yet are constantly asked by the religious, would be a good place to start.

[Iggo]

24. Ugh.

Here we go again.

[LostOne4Ever]

33. Since you have a thread about this here and in interfaith

are you going to do a third thread in religion with a compilation of your findings in each forum?

[Htom Sirveaux]

44. Do you think that would be productive?

Looking at the two threads, I do see some things worth commenting on. But I also split up the threads to avoid common patterns of behavior in religion group.

What do you think?

[LostOne4Ever]

48. Depends on what you are wanting to get from these threads

When you first posted, it sounded like you were just trying to better understand where we were coming from. It was information solely for you to better interact with us. If that is the case then no further threads would be needed.

However, by posting in the interfaith forum, it makes it look like you are posting a series of threads to educate both believers and "skeptics" on each other. If that was the case, then it makes no sense not to post this in religion so that both sides can see what the other wants.

It allows for discussion both ways. There are areas where we have some similarities. On the other hand, we have some diametrically opposed positions as well. Its not really possible to find mutual ground when one side says "we are not a movement" and the other says "yes you are."

As for these "common patterns of behavior" they will continue no matter what you do. It is a result of clashes of personalities and these irreconcilable differences as well. The only way to avoid them is either to retreat to safe havens or not discuss the issue at all.

It is up to you.

[skepticscott]

50. The most sensible thing

would have been to post it in Religion in the first place, rather than violating safe havens.

[LostOne4Ever]

51. You have a good point there

I have a bad tendency to take these type of threads at face value, and was burned for it by Arely's thread.

[trotsky]

58. Given the lack of substantive responses by the OP, I am concerned that...

this was just another attempt to do the same thing. "Hey, I'll prove that the atheists are just mean SOBs who want to fight!"

Guess that didn't turn out so well. To admit maybe the atheists have legitimate gripes (as you so very expertly documented) seems to have killed the OP's interest in the topic.

[Htom Sirveaux]

59. I was under the impression that the safe haven aspect

referred specifically to debates about the existence of deities, which I fully respect and tried to reflect in this thread by declining to discuss a particular question above. I was unaware that I wasn't allowed in here, period.

[skepticscott]

61. No one said you weren't allowed in here at all

but the safe haven aspect does not only mean that we don't want to hear people professing religious belief in here. It also applies to anything else that the hosts may regard as inappropriately disruptive or argumentative, just as it does in Interfaith. I'm not saying you crossed that line here, but when you post something in here that questions regular posters in this room about their behavior elsewhere, when it could just have easily been posted in Religion instead, that's leaning just a tad towards the unnecessary side of the fence.

[Htom Sirveaux]

60. I've decided to go with a post in religion, which is forthcoming. n/t

[skepticscott]

49. It's rather amusing that in the Interfaith thread

Only a couple of people actually responded directly to the OP, and even they had to make shit up about what atheists have said. The rest of it basically was turned into a meta thread of the Interfaithers bashing atheists and boasting about how many of them they have on ignore. Which is about the only kind of thread any of them get really enthusiastic about over there, anyway.

[LostOne4Ever]

52. I missed that

My eyes almost instantly zeroed in on a very familiar looking list. Almost four times as many posters here actually replied to the OP.

I used to occasionally post over there. But after incidents with Stoned space and arely I decided it better I just leave that room alone and deleted all my posts over there.

I only went over there yesterday because I got the feeling the OP might created a mirror image thread in one of the other rooms.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Aw sweet, I made the 'persona non-grata' list for a couple of them!

Hot shit, I'm doing it right!

[trotsky]

54. Welcome to the club!

I see I was mentioned too - and as you said, being ignored by those particular individuals MUST mean we're doing something right.

[Rob H.]

55. At least one person in that thread

should think long and hard about following his own advice.

[Act_of_Reparation]

56. What's amusing is this whole "we're unable to respond and that's unfair" schtick

Everyone explicitly called out is only unable to respond because they've found themselves on the wrong end of a ban hammer, which is nobody's fault but their own.

[skepticscott]

57. And what was especially ironic

was that one of those whining that they couldn't respond directly was also praising someone else up and down for their advice to be civil and not a jerk.. Missing the fact that the very reason they were not able to respond directly in here was because they had acted exactly the opposite.

[Warren Stupidity]

63. we are horrible people.

I do like the theory that the religion forum should adopt the charter of the interfaith forum. No more pointing out silly dangerous and/or delusional beliefs. Except of course for the belief systems we can agree to ridicule, like scientology.

[skepticscott]

67. Didn't you know?

In a marvelous piece of revisionist history, from the clan that specializes in it, it has now been revealed that the Interfaith group was actually created to fight the evil religious right, not to try to create a utopia, away from the mean ol' atheists.

But apparently it had a "complex history" and something called "early stages" which kept the religionistsas from attaining that lofty goal.

[Rob H.]

41. A little consistency would go a long way toward making some posters look a lot less hypocritical

When posts even mildly critical of religion or religious people bring on an avalanche of Google links from a host or people telling atheists that they shouldn't say things like that, yet posts like this or this don't even get so much as a "Hey, not cool" from religious posters or hosts, with some hosts joining in on the snark in some instances, it lets people know they can say pretty much whatever they want to about atheists/atheism without getting called on it by any of their fellow believers.

Even the infamous "you atheist arseholes" post got a grand total of two religious posters saying that was over the top and the poster was allowed to return to the group after a time-out simply by deleting his own post, no apology necessary. If an atheist had done something similar, he probably would've gotten PPRed or at the very least a permablock from that group. On edit: He clearly didn't learn his lesson, either, since he unabashedly called an atheist poster there an arsehole later that same year.

In the "atheist aresholes" instance, someone who consistently wags her finger at atheists to this day was a host in that group at the time. Do you know what she said about it? Nothing. Not a damned thing--and then later said she thought "the hosts have dealt with the most egregious from both sides with an even hand." Please.

"The standard you walk past is the standard you accept."--Australian Lt. Gen. David Morrison

Further edits: fixed wonky links

[trotsky]

42. Well fucking put. n/t

[Rob H.]

70. Thanks

It's really annoying that some of the religionists (and even some who purport not to be) who are pointing out how awful atheists are to believers have a blind spot the size of Nebraska when a believer starts in on atheists with the ad homs and name-calling. It's like PZ Myers getting called an "asshole" because he went to a Catholic service and had the temerity to write that he found it tedious and boring--lots of non-believers (and even other believers of different faiths) would probably say the same thing. That doesn't make them assholes, they just find a service they've never been to before tedious and boring. They're not part of that faith, so the better question is why wouldn't they feel that way?

But mention Scientology and it's all, "LOLwhut? Aliens? Seriously? Those people are crazy!" Yeah, their religion is way more implausible than yours, mainstream believer.

And given the weird propensity for some believers to call atheists "assholes" or "arseholes" (Trying to be cutesy? Think that people don't know exactly what you mean? Hoping a jury won't hide it?) I can't help but be reminded of this quote from Raylan Givens, the main character of the TV show Justified: "If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."

[Warren Stupidity]

62. I'm curious as to why you refer to us as "skeptics" when we are atheists.

I'm not skeptical about theism, it is flat out bullshit. I might be a skeptic and an atheist, but this is not the skeptics safe haven.

[Htom Sirveaux]

64. It was the most general term I could think of to capture

the idea that claims without empirical evidence should be dismissed until such evidence is forthcoming.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. the general term is "atheist".

[Htom Sirveaux]

66. Fair enough.

My religion post reflects that.