Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumFirst we are told to shut up.
Then we are told that is not rude because the adults are having an adult discussion.
Then the adult-in-chief proceeds to plagiarize Garry Wills.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=143436
Warpy
(111,152 posts)which lays out rigid rules for conduct without realizing there might be many exceptions to those rules depending on the situation.
We atheists are ethical rather than moral, fully recognizing different situations call for different behavior.
Let the rigid legalists continue their search for loopholes in that book in peace.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)For example see kant on lying.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Sorry children, this is for the grown up(s)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It just sums up the massive dishonesty over there, all in one grand splooge of idiocy.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)and we can link back to it any time he spews his garbage.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)... that particular thread was started by someone who admitted to lying about his DU profile. Or should I have said, exaggerated?
Gore1FL
(21,100 posts)If you read the post, he agreed in advance that "religion is one big lie yaddayaddayadda," but that wasn't the topic being discussed. "Shut up" shouldn't have been used, but implying that Atheists were actually told to be silent in general as implied in this OP is intellectually dishonest.
On Tue Jul 29, 2014, 02:36 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Question about lying.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218143436
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
For the atheists: No, I'm not talking about how religion is one big lie yaddayaddayadda. Shut up. I mean a real-life declaration about something like tricking pagans in negotiations or willfully telling children a lie and revealing it to them later when they are adult.
Really? "Shut Up"? How about you go take a flying fuck at the moon?
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 29, 2014, 02:49 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Religion. Anything seems to go in this group.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: As I read it, "Shut Up" meant "Don't misconstrue this point and start useless off-topic sub-threads." Even if it didn't, "shut up" doesn't rise to the level of hide.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Don't tell me to shut up!
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Even though I'm an atheist and the op told me to shut up, I understand the question he wants to address, I think. It seems to me to be the veracity of people, not the scriptures, that he is questioning. He could have been, maybe, a little more diplomatic, but he defined the parameters of his discussion. I'm ok with that.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)In my opinion you misread the OP and the jury overall doesn't give
cow feces about rude behavior.
As they say in the South "bless your little heart."
Gore1FL
(21,100 posts)The OP points out that religion gives rationalized reasons to sin based on self interest and would like to discuss that specific aspect rather than "all religion sucks."
Somehow that revokes my atheist card in your eyes. Whatever. My atheism has to do with my non-belief in God and is not measurable by opinions expressed on an internet chat board It's odd that you would challenge it. It's even more odd that you would say "bless your little heart" as a finishing piece of (failed) condescension.
Have a nice day.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)And don't really care. I still think the jury got it wrong.
I think the jury was rather d.....h about the whole matter. As far as my bless your little heart thing it beats what I really wanted to say but I was trying not to get your underwear in a wad and alerting on my post.
Gore1FL
(21,100 posts)Your words contradict your actions. I don't know what d....h means. Death, depth, ditch, doeth, dough, dunch, and dutch don't seem to fit and I really don't want to do an exhaustive dictionary search.
I don't alert. You don't need to worry. I'm a big boy who can take whatever it is you want to say. If you are wrong, I will happily point it out, however.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Perhaps you haven't spent enough time in there to appreciate how the little cabal of mutual arse-licking works.
Gore1FL
(21,100 posts)But I can also read what was written. The post was specifically about lies and dubious rule exceptions made by religion to manipulate people.
I find that difficult to to rationalize as a pro-religion topic.
The "Shut up atheists" comment was clearly a poor choice of phrasing. Because instead of reading onward for the point, many replied in outrage. It would have been better if he said something along the lines of, "Please spare us the obvious "religion itself is a lie" posts. That's not what I am trying to discuss." He didn't.
There are plenty of things to be outraged by in the religion thread. You don't have to misread posts to find them.
onager
(9,356 posts)Wills described the cozy relationship between Richard Nixon and Billy Graham as "an alliance of moral dwarfs." That's quoted in William Martin's biography of Saint Billy, "Prophet With Honor: The Billy Graham Story."
I couldn't find this quote, but I'm pretty sure it was Wills who once said of Graham: "By dint of hard work and perseverance, Billy Graham has managed to make himself the thinking man's Easter Bunny."
In the Other Group, considering how much Graham is fawned over as the "gold standard" in evangelists, those quotes would draw a lot of concerned frowns and tut-tutting. And probably a 5000-word screed from the Adult-In-Charge, some of which he may have even written himself. Well, the punctuation anyway.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)There are actually people on DU who fawn over the Grahams? Please say it ain't so.
onager
(9,356 posts)You can probably find some of the posts lauding Graham just by using the DU Search function.
My take: just about every time someone criticizes Billy Grab'em in the Religion group, lots of people pop up to say he's a lifelong Democrat. And make the usual statements about how he's the Gold Standard in honest, apolitical evangelists. This is usually in comparison to the Robertsons and Falwells.
But Graham has a LONG record of sucking up to the Repubs, going back to Eisenhower. Billy's close ties to Nixon are well known, and the famous White House tapes even caught the two of them swapping anti-Semitic remarks.
in 1976 Graham supported Gerald Ford, despite Jimmy Carter's well-known Evangelical religious beliefs. Carter's sister was an evangelist herself, so maybe Graham just didn't like the competition.
2000 was even worse. Graham appeared on stage and did his usual coy BS about how he couldn't openly support a specific candidate.
Then Mr. & Mrs. GW Bush joined him. Graham talked about Shrub being a "fine young man" and made it clear he intended to vote for him. That video clip used to be floating around the Internet and still may be. I didn't check.
So whenever somebody started propagandizing for Graham on DU, I would usually mention this stuff (to little effect). As a kid I was often forced to sit thru his damn "Crusades," since I grew up in the South among people who REALLY idolized him.
To borrow a comparison from those times, I always thought he was nothing more than the Eddie Haskell of evangelists.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)So being a raging misogynist and homophobe doesn't disqualify him from adulation. For a moment I forgot this was DU, the inspiration for the "religious liberty" clause.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)How could anyone call themselves a democrat or progressive and support (or ignore) this kind of hateful shit?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-g-long/like-father-like-son-billy-grahams-advice-to-a-lesbian_b_5042667.html
I just don't get it.
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)That sounds like slang you hear from my age group.
What I got from reading it was more along the lines of "I know you are going to take it this particular way, but that is not the way in which I am trying to focus this discussion. No need to bring it up."
Not so much meant to be rude but EXTREMELY casual speech as you would use around close friends. Along the lines of: "Dude shut up about your car, I am talking about my own wheels."
I don't think the OP meant it in a negative way.
I can't comment on the "adult-in-chief" as I probably have that poster on ignore
edhopper
(33,482 posts)with a preemptive statement about what i don't want to talk about.
There are less abusive ways to do it.
LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)Very poor choice of words.
It is just that a lot of people I know from my generation (millennial) speak this way, and I suspect that it was just thoughtlessness on his/her part.
Also, I did a quick check and this particular poster has made a lot of posts in this very forum. This for example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/123018726
So I want to give them the benefit of doubt.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)He or she hasn't returned to the thread.