Criticizing religion vs. criticizing anything else

[Silent3]

Suppose I were criticizing Republican politicians or Republican policies. Try to be impartial and forget for the moment your likely (since you're on this web site) Democratic biases.

• Would you expect me to always be gentle?
  
• Would you consider scorn, satire, or sarcasm totally inappropriate?
  
• Would you expect me to carefully make sure I always mention good things done by Republicans to balance out my criticisms?
  
• If I didn't always go through the motions of mentioning that Republicans can do good things, mentioning the smart and reasonable things occasionally said by some Republicans, would you consider that "oversight" fair reason to assume I think nothing but bad things about all Republicans, in every aspect of their lives?
  
• Would you take criticism of Republican policy to be the equivalent of saying that all Republicans are stupid and/or ignorant and/or evil in every way?
  
• Would you take criticism of Republican policy to be a scathing dismissal of the very core being of each and every Republican politician, voter, and sympathizer?
  
• Would the fact that "Republican" means different things to different people cause you to raise a fuss that I'm somehow not allowed to criticize Republicanism until I've perfectly defined it, otherwise I clearly don't know what I'm talking about and should shut up?
  
• Would you be so incensed by my criticism that you would disregard or dismiss any of my attempts to be measured, balanced, fair, to try to see things from a Republican perspective?
  
• Would you call me intolerant, an anti-Republican "fundamentalist"?

Now, replace "Republican" in its various forms in the questions above with a grammatically appropriate form of the word "religion", and ask yourself the same questions.

Are the answers different? If so, why?

It's not my job as an atheist (it is, in fact, counterproductive and self-defeating) to treat religion with special kid gloves that I don't use when discussing any other human practice, concept, or philosophy. It is not a reasonable expectation of me to help others put religion up on a special pedestal where it is granted an automatic aura of respectability and expectation of deference -- especially considering that my own atheism is hardly even granted anything close to the same.

I would submit to you that, by the standards of the questions listed above, most of the atheists who post in R/T are sweet, cuddly teddy bears in their treatment of religion compared to the way Republicans and their political philosophy are handled throughout the rest of DU. Even the occasional outburst of something like, "Fuck religion!" hardly compares. I can tell from the reactions of some people that such a remark is often received as the moral equivalent of "Fuck all religious people!", but isn't that interpretation, that insistence on taking criticism personally, more a problem on the receiving end, not the transmission end, of those words?

I'm not, by the way, attempting to equate Republicanism and religion at all. Obviously there are very liberal, left-wing forms of religion. The only connection here is that, for me, Republican politics and religion are both things I disagree with and am likely to speak out against, philosophies and ways of thinking I think the world would be better off leaving behind.

You may think differently. You may think that the world is a better place because of religion, or at least because of certain forms of religion that you favor. That's OK. We have a disagreement there. Maybe you can even convince me that I'm wrong. In the meantime, however, don't expect me to argue my views with one or both hands tied behind my back, as if that's the only "fair" and "tolerant" way for my own views to be expressed.

(Note: Speaking of how "religion" is defined, I am using the word in a very broad sense here which includes much of what many might call "spirituality", any general belief in souls, an afterlife, reincarnation, in deities or any sort of "Higher Being".)

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Very well said.

And I notice that you still went to great lengths to appease the religious.

[bananas]

2. Criticizing atheism vs. criticizing anything else

Suppose I were criticizing Republican politicians or Republican policies. Try to be impartial and forget for the moment your likely (since you're on this web site) Democratic biases.

* Would you expect me to always be gentle?
* Would you consider scorn, satire, or sarcasm totally inappropriate?
* Would you expect me to carefully make sure I always mention good things done by Republicans to balance out my criticisms?
* If I didn't always go through the motions of mentioning that Republicans can do good things, mentioning the smart and reasonable things occasionally said by some Republicans, would you consider that "oversight" fair reason to assume I think nothing but bad things about all Republicans, in every aspect of their lives?
* Would you take criticism of Republican policy to be the equivalent of saying that all Republicans are stupid and/or ignorant and/or evil in every way?
* Would you take criticism of Republican policy to be a scathing dismissal of the very core being of each and every Republican politician, voter, and sympathizer?
* Would the fact that "Republican" means different things to different people cause you to raise a fuss that I'm somehow not allowed to criticize Republicanism until I've perfectly defined it, otherwise I clearly don't know what I'm talking about and should shut up?
* Would you be so incensed by my criticism that you would disregard or dismiss any of my attempts to be measured, balanced, fair, to try to see things from a Republican perspective?
* Would you call me intolerant, an anti-Republican "fundamentalist"?

Now, replace "Republican" in its various forms in the questions above with a grammatically appropriate form of the word "atheism", and ask yourself the same questions.

Are the answers different? If so, why?

It's not my job as a non-atheist (it is, in fact, counterproductive and self-defeating) to treat atheism with special kid gloves that I don't use when discussing any other human practice, concept, or philosophy. It is not a reasonable expectation of me to help others put atheism up on a special pedestal where it is granted an automatic aura of respectability and expectation of deference -- especially considering that my own non-atheism is hardly even granted anything close to the same.

I would submit to you that, by the standards of the questions listed above, most of the non-atheists who post in R/T are sweet, cuddly teddy bears in their treatment of atheism compared to the way Republicans and their political philosophy are handled throughout the rest of DU. Even the occasional outburst of something like, "Fuck atheism!" hardly compares. I can tell from the reactions of some people that such a remark is often received as the moral equivalent of "Fuck all atheist people!", but isn't that interpretation, that insistence on taking criticism personally, more a problem on the receiving end, not the transmission end, of those words?

I'm not, by the way, attempting to equate Republicanism and atheism at all. Obviously there are very liberal, left-wing forms of atheism. The only connection here is that, for me, Republican politics and atheism are both things I disagree with and am likely to speak out against, philosophies and ways of thinking I think the world would be better off leaving behind.

You may think differently. You may think that the world is a better place because of atheism, or at least because of certain forms of atheism that you favor. That's OK. We have a disagreement there. Maybe you can even convince me that I'm wrong. In the meantime, however, don't expect me to argue my views with one or both hands tied behind my back, as if that's the only "fair" and "tolerant" way for my own views to be expressed.

(Note: Speaking of how "atheism" is defined, I am using the word in a very broad sense here which includes much of what many might call "materialism", any general non-belief in souls, an afterlife, reincarnation, in deities or any sort of "Higher Being".)

[Strong Atheist]

4. Turn about is fair play. nt.

[ironbark]

45. Any chance of discussing what ‘fair play’ might look like?

My take would be that opinions/beliefs are wide open to “criticism, scorn, satire, or sarcasm” or anything else mentioned in the OP.

There are several common behaviours that I would consider un fair.

Consistent misrepresentation of the others pov. To fabricate, forge or misquote what the other has actually said.

To ignore the misrepresentation/fabrication when it is pointed out and corrected.

To repeat and insist upon misrepresentation even after it has been exposed as false.

Projection. Using guess, assumption, intuition, assumed psychic ability to divine and project a pov onto another…especially when it contradicts clear prior statement.
This would include blatant straw man projections and those commonplace disingenuous extrapolations that usually begin with “I suppose you think….” and go on to reflect >nothing< that has been thought or said.

Basic intellectual courtesy (not being “nice/gentle”) but actually responding to the others central points and questions.

If the other person takes the trouble to attempt to answer each/most of your points/questions and you refuse, point blank, to answer or respond to any of theirs it is intellectually weak and piss weak rude.
This applies especially to questions that seek understanding/clarification of the others pov…if you are repeatedly asked a question regarding your own pov and can’t/wont clarify…then play fair and get off the road.

My principal ‘play fair’ objection around hear is the incessant amount of time devoted to- “No, I didn’t say that, no I didn’t say suggest or infer that…” to deal with pov fabrication and spin.
(If this arises from unclear expression on my part no one has ever responded to the invitation to identify what is unclear).

I’d love to see these issues of fair play communication discussed and others put forward their pov.

Who knows, one day there could even be consensus on the basics of play fair and the Communication Treaty of DU R&T established ;-)

[Strong Atheist]

57. Sounds like you should make this a thread of it's own, maybe add it to

your journal...

[Silent3]

5. True enough

The funny thing is I don't see very much criticism of atheism, per se, in these forums.

What I do see a lot of criticism of is the atheists themselves, criticism of their criticism, criticism of them voicing their own views and the way they voice them, holding atheists to standards of conduct that wouldn't apply in any other context. Your attempt to "turn the tables" and try to show that the same thing applies in both directions doesn't really fit the circumstances in R/T very well.

If the only thing routinely going on in R/T was criticism of atheist philosophy itself, done with the same directness and bluntness I happily use in discussing religion, I would have felt no need for starting this thread.

[ZombieHorde]

7. I am an atheist and I don't expect kid gloves.

I have been grounded by my mother for being atheist when I was a kid.

Being an atheist in the the U.S. helps one to grow a thick skin about one's beliefs or lack there of.

[PassingFair]

28. Is that YOU, Michael?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Aq00yJSxo

[LAGC]

42. Hehehe.

That was pretty funny.

Glad my mom wasn't like that when I stopped believing...

[Goblinmonger]

9. Have at it.

You and I can go a few more rounds. I have no problems with that.

[rhett o rick]

10. I don't see the point in your comment. I read the OP as saying that it seems that

religion is a subject that many feel is "hands off". I don't think anyone thinks that atheism is "hands off".

I happen to agree with the OP. Liberals can challenge most anything but when daring to challenge religion a hush comes over the room. Do you agree or not? You imply the same is true with atheism and I don't agree. Most atheists, IMO, welcome all challenges. Maybe to a fault.

Personally I am not an atheist because IMO, to not believe one must acknowledge the existence. Before I can refute the existence of a god, i need a clear definition. and not some bullshit old white man with a white beard.

I am not necessarily anti-religion, but for sure anti-dogmatism. I consider many if not most religions as dogmatic.

[Betty Karlson]

12. I agree with you on so many points!

Yes, we need clear definitions

And yes, when I criticise a specific dogmatism, that is not anti-< whatever religion or philosophy I'm talking about >.

However, if I may incite the debate: can we agree that dogmatism differs from religion to religion, and plays different roles depending on the denomination?

Incidentally, I'm not sure if I like to agree with you, but that is neither here nor there. ;)

B.K.

[rhett o rick]

13. Ah yes, "I'm ot sure if I like to agree with you, but that is neither here nor there."

Spoken like a liberal. There is a quote that i have lost, but it is something like, "a true liberal, isn't sure he/she would agree with themselves.". so true. Occasionally i read one of my post and immediately i want to argue.

All too often religions are self promoting and do not encourage free thinking.

[Betty Karlson]

14. Who are you calling a liberal?

Would you please accept that I am a moderate, not a liberal - and that one can criticise dogmatism without giving up all orthodox doctrinal tenants?

Yours in mock-annoyance,

B.K.

[rhett o rick]

16. Awww yes, a moderate are you. Aren't we all. Don't worry, I won't tell

Bill O'Reilly. Ok, fair enough. You should certainly be able to define yourself. But I am guessing you meet my definition of liberal. It isn't a bad thing really. I have come to accept the label. Liberal: an open-minded moderate.

Of course liberal has been deemed bad, extreme. But really, liberal is the opposite. Liberal by my definition is open-minded, which can not, by definition be extreme.

But I yield to your wishes. From now on, I will never call you a liberal, but an "open-minded moderate".

Peace out (hope that isn't tooo liberal)

[Betty Karlson]

19. I guess I should be open-minded

To your definition of liberal. - And by the way you made me laugh so thank you for your sense of humor.

It may be (being serious again here) that my definition of liberal is influenced by my native tongue equivalent - which carries a hint of extremist-fringe, as it is OPPOSED to orthodoxy, rather than a different approach to it, as your definition implies.

In good faith,

B.K.

[rhett o rick]

36. Thank you for your nice response. I try to be light about discussions.

My goal is to learn more than to persuade. I think that the term liberal has been almost destroyed by the non-liberal. But if I were to ask you if you thought of yourself as a liberal or non-liberal, which would you choose?

I am personally a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. But I strongly believe in having an open mind and embracing new ideas and trying to listen to all side. That is what I call being a liberal. Being open minded. Trying to listen to all sides and then deciding.

I feel religions in many cases, try to limit their people from being open minded. They, religions, have as one of their many goals, their self preservation. To accomplish this, they may have to discourage their people from learning new ideas as the new ideas may contradict the teachings of the religion.

Thats my opinion and I offer it for free, and guarantee it worth every cent.

[Betty Karlson]

48. Non-liberal, if I had to choose.

Definitely. And certainly so when you take my definition of liberal into account: someone with unbiblical or overly free interpretations of God's word. Because one can be critical of current interpretations without becoming unbiblical.
To me, liberalism often leads to (or even equals) reductionism. - Which, when God's word is involved, is blasphemous to my eyes.

That religions try to limit their people from being open-minded, is putatively true in the case of some. - Although it would be more correct to say that clergymen and other officials of religious institutions do so.

In quite a few cases however, it is no more than an undercurrent in the pastoral activity. And that can be explained by exploring Fowler's theories on religious styles. I will not get into too much details now, but a few conslusions from these theories are:

There are seven subsequent religious styles. Most people never make it to style # 5 (And style # 7 was so badly theorised it is presently disregarded for the pruposes of religious psychology). When going from one style to the next, peope go through a stage of religious crisis = time of existential uncertainty and potentially a time to loose your religion. How long one dwells in one religious style or in one stage of crisis varies. It depends on what stage we are talking about, how creative/ intelligent the person concerned is, how quickly new impressions follow up in his life. < I might add: it depends on God's will, but Mr Fowler was too scientific to take that into account >

As most people arrive at style # 4 around age 15 and stay there, and as the religious crisis between # 4&5 comes anytime after it, if at all, it is only to be expected most religious institutions finetune their pastoral activities to the needs of style # 4.

(Style # 4 is critical thinking, but at the same time being sensitive to "leading figures", who could be anyone from your friends to your minister to the televangelist you like to watch.)

By consequence, anyone moving beyond style # 4 feels alienated if the pastoral finetuning takes on an exclusive quality. In its abusive form, this boils down to "we'll cut you out if you don't follow the leader". But I hope most believers are not consciously abused that way.

[rhett o rick]

62. Sorry to hear. Good luck. nm

[Silent3]

71. I'll repost some links I used in another reply in this thread...

...and ask you if you don't think I haven't personally gone out of the way to be very careful about definitions and which definitions I'm addressing at a given time.

So many gods to not believe in
Does your god have much hair?

[Betty Karlson]

74. I would love to discuss those issues with you,

But I find myself short on time tonight as I am expecting a special someone to keep me company. Please allow me to get back to you on Sunday.

[Betty Karlson]

99. Right, I had a better look at the two other threads you suggested.

As for the definitions, it seems I owe to you a recommendation for your definitions and presuppositions: they are always (partly) explicified. I do now know if you have, as you put it, gone out of your way to provide definitions (I don't know your ways that well yet), but you certainly never omit them - and that is laudable in all debaters.

As for the "many Gods"-thread, it is the most weak of the two in terms of definitions, because its main aim seems to explicify that beleivers' notions of God may differ. It's describing a situation, rather than argumenting a position.

The "hair"-topic certainly has that. Your introduction shows how, from mathematical reasoning on probability, you ask about the difference between probability and belief.

The subject they both touch, from different angles of course, is that of the difference between perception and reality. Which is where a third line of thought MUST be introduced, or so I feel. That line of thought is linguistics - or more precisely the pholosophical appraoch on the relation between words and what they describe, the narrative imperative, and so on.

My only question at this point is: where should we discuss this issue of yours, and the linguistic's point of view? This is hardly the thread, is it?

[Strong Atheist]

3. K&R. nt.

[DeSwiss]

6. Excellent post!!!

- Absolutely excellent!

K&R

[rhett o rick]

8. rec 8. great post. nm

[Betty Karlson]

11. OK, I'll take the bait.

** Suppose I were criticizing Republican politicians or Republican policies. Try to be impartial and forget for the moment your likely (since you're on this web site) Democratic biases. **

To answer your questions, one might simply turn things around and ask the same of criticising democratic persons and policies.


** Would you expect me to always be gentle? **

No. But that would not give you a permit to say anything and everything. A gentle man may use ungentle words, but he will also restrict his use of the same.

** Would you consider scorn, satire, or sarcasm totally inappropriate? **

What a curious way to ask this question. Nothing is ever "totally" inappropriate. Your Socratic questioning would be improved by reformulating this question as "to what extend are scorn, satire, and sarcasm appropriate".

** Would you expect me to carefully make sure I always mention good things done by Republicans to balance out my criticisms? **

No. And neither would I have to mention their bad things when praising one of them. As a sidenote, since most things are never wholly bad or wholly good, both kind of objections may be of interest to the discussion. It may be that the question is too rigid ("always") to get a debatable answer.

** If I didn't always go through the motions of mentioning that Republicans can do good things, mentioning the smart and reasonable things occasionally said by some Republicans, would you consider that "oversight" fair reason to assume I think nothing but bad things about all Republicans, in every aspect of their lives? **

"Always", "nothing but", "all", "every" - its all or nothing for you, isn't it? I think that's where we get at the root of our potential disagreement. Because if I say "of course you don't have to go through those motions every time", your question allows you to go through it one time and then forget about it for the rest of your life. Now, I think we are both smarter than that. A better question would have been: what would be a viable criterium for "oversight"?

** Would you take criticism of Republican policy to be the equivalent of saying that all Republicans are stupid and/or ignorant and/or evil in every way? **

No, but I would encourage you to distinguish between policies that all republicans have in common, policies that most republicans have in common, and policies that the republican party is shifting on. For instance, calling Meghan McCain and the LogCabin Republicans homophobic is rather nonsensical. Calling all democrats socialists is a blatant disregard of reality. And calling all Christians misogynists is miles over the horizon of sanity and accellerating.

** Would you take criticism of Republican policy to be a scathing dismissal of the very core being of each and every Republican politician, voter, and sympathizer? **

There we go again. "Each and every", and all probably too. Is criticism of policy a dismissal of the identity of politicians and sympathisers of the party that issues it? - Depends on how much the said people identify with the issue at hand, and how much the issue is connected to the basic philosophy of the group concerned. Why do you keep trying to make things a black-and-white issue, when in reality things are much, much more complicated?

** Would the fact that "Republican" means different things to different people cause you to raise a fuss that I'm somehow not allowed to criticize Republicanism until I've perfectly defined it, otherwise I clearly don't know what I'm talking about and should shut up? **

"Democrat" means a lot of things to a lot of people too. The question is to what level you agree with the people you are talking to. On this site, what is meant by "Republican" and "Democrat" is usually quite clear, if only from the context the website gives - the site provides a quite extensive list of things to expect and things expected not to be expressed: this is Democratic Underground, and its users are generally assumed to identify with progressive and Democratic Party policies, even though the site is not controlled by the Democratic party, etcetera.

When religion comes into play, the site advises to be cautious. Cautious, because religious people feel strongly about something so dear to them as their convictions. I assume from this post, you feel strongly about your convictions too. If not, you may want to explain why you try to make all matters an all-or-nothing issue. I hope I have shown the necessary caution myself in adressing your questions.

The site does not define religion. That is a context we (sometimes) have to provide ourselves. We are advised that opinions may differ, and that if we cannot take a hit on our convictions, we may prefer to stay away from the religion forum. If questions about the definition of religion anger you, you should want to think about the answer you give to that question. Returning questions demand returning answers. - And it is generally advised that, to win the debate, you want to frame the debate by defining the key words.

** Would you be so incensed by my criticism that you would disregard or dismiss any of my attempts to be measured, balanced, fair, to try to see things from a Republican perspective? **

It is always better to see things from both perspectives. This helps to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings (not being a native English speaker, I have personal experience with how quickly such misunderstandings arise).
It encourages the debate.
It helps to convince the other side (people are rarely won over by one-sided arguments - just remember Mr Bush and his ad nauseam reiterated talking points.)
And if it fails to build bridges across cultural gaps - at least it will have emulated and honed your criticism.
If your criticism is valid, it will only incense the direly needed self-criticism in religious denominations. But be carefull: valid criticism comes with sound definitions and usually addresses (while not necessarily sharing) the doctrinal foundations of the matter at hand.

** Would you call me intolerant, an anti-Republican "fundamentalist"? **

No, but I would like to encourage you to allow for a little more middle-ground in your discussions. As I have stated many times in this post, you seem to often approach things from an "all-or-nothing" perspective. You may be frustrated by yet another expression of the teabagging-birther-racist-homophobic-misogynist-Republican kind of Christianity, and then come here to vent your frustration, and then have little patience with religious DU-ers; but these very religious DU-ers come here to have a place to relax after crying unto Heaven when witnessing yet another expression of the Godless-blasphemous-partisan-intolerant-Republican kind of Christianity. So why don't we try and appreciate that religion CAN mean very different things to people who agree on the unacceptability of the policy in question?

And if you come to this forum to question religion itself, than brace yourself: definitions will matter more than ever - if only because most criticism reflects on a limited number of denominations!

Thank you for opening this topic and

Kind Regards,

Betty Karlson

*Edit: can someone please tell me how to create "quote-bars" in my posts? It seemed < Quote /Quote > did not work. Thanks in advance, B.K.

[uberllama42]

46. You can graybox excrepts if you like

Some posters use this format to quote previous posts, though most people reserve grayboxes for excerpts from articles.

You can create a graybox by typing (bracket)div class="excerpt"(bracket) before the contents of the graybox and (bracket)/div(bracket) afterward. The brackets, of course, are the characters to the right of the 'P' key. These instructions are in the http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=html_table">HTML lookup table which appears under "Message options" on the Post a Message screen.

Many people use italics or boldface to set off quotations from earlier posts. These font settings also use brackets, as shown in the HTML Lookup table.

Welcome to DU.

[Betty Karlson]

49. Thank you for your answers. NT.

[Silent3]

67. I didn't form my questions like...

"to what extend are scorn, satire, and sarcasm appropriate" because I was reacting to the way, at least among some posters, very little or none at all of that sort of disapproving tone seems to be tolerated when the subject is religion. By "tolerated", in this case, all I mean is that such people can't hear such negativity without having a visceral negative reaction. The same basic idea applies to other places in my post that caused you to react "There we go again."

No, but I would like to encourage you to allow for a little more middle-ground in your discussions. As I have stated many times in this post, you seem to often approach things from an "all-or-nothing" perspective.

It's not a lack of middle ground that I'm providing, it's a lack of middle ground that I perceive when atheists are branded "fundamentalist" and "militant", for merely using forceful rhetoric, that I am reacting too.

When religion comes into play, the site advises to be cautious. Cautious, because religious people feel strongly about something so dear to them as their convictions. I assume from this post, you feel strongly about your convictions too. If not, you may want to explain why you try to make all matters an all-or-nothing issue. I hope I have shown the necessary caution myself in adressing your questions.

First of all, it is a big part of my position that religion NOT be treated as special when compared to other areas of human thought and conduct, because if I yield to that idea then I help to strengthen the position of religion, which in my view is counterproductive to my own values.

If you've seem posts of my own on religious topics, I'd like to think I have been measured and try to be fair in my approach, although I am certainly not mincingly diplomatic. For some people, however, whether you bother much with efforts at diplomacy or not, there is no amount of careful wording or qualification that can overcome an inability or lack of desire to see the difference between criticizing an idea and attacking everyone who holds that idea . I don't not hold myself responsible for always having to take that kind of thin-skinned sensitivity into account.

I'm afraid I don't have time to refer to all of the points in your post, and will gladly respond later to any specific points you'd like me to get back to. For now I think I've addressed what I think were the most important to me to try to clear up.




As for the quoting you're trying to do, it's like this:

(div class=excerpt)The text you're quoting(/div)

...except you have to replace the parentheses above with square brackets.

[Betty Karlson]

86. Let me get back to you on Sunday too.

It's rather late here and I have to get up in sic hours or so.

[Betty Karlson]

101. It seems our discussion circles around the middle ground.

How fitting.

If I read your reaction well, you deplore the lack of middle ground mentality in "believers". And you feel that religion deserves no better treatment than anything else you disagree with. And you don't have time to look at all details, be they in matters of definition, good/bad balance, or extensive posts.

The question is: does all this justify your position in this thread? And the answer is in the context.

Whenever I discuss some thing,
Of five things I take care:
To whom I speak, of whom I speak,
And how, and when, and where.

Or so my old book on good manners decreed. The Internet's daily hazards underline the need of this old wisdom.

On the Internet, you don't see to whom you speak, and they can't see your face or don't know who you are. That's why, in public fora, it is imperative to take extra care of how and where you discuss things.

The lack of middle ground can certainly be discussed, but "extremist" language might well distract the attention from the issue at hand. If you hadn't pointed out those other threads of yours, this would have been the only thread I know you by. And this thread contains phrases like "all this, every that".

It should be remembered that religion in general is defended by few, but specific religions/ religious convistions are held dear by many. So when you question certain beliefs and/ or behavioural patterns, be clear on what exactly you target. Don't throw in the crusades when discussing religious violence with a protestant - he or she will either laugh at you or be angry that you throw him/ her into one category with the very Catholics that launched crusades on protestant people.

Remember where you are. This forum is for people who support progressive causes, certainly. But some of those do so from a religious conviction. They would look at the libertarian part of the Republican Party, at the divorce rates among corporate America, at the way Mammon is worshipped at Wall Street and decide THAT's why they support the Democratic Party. Just because they share a cause with you doesn't mean they share your convictions. There are specialised forums for that. This forum is for a civil exchange of world views. It's wonderfull to exchange thoughts with philosophically enhanced minds.

But philosophy is a long and time-consuming business. And definitions and presuppositions matter in philosophy/ theology. So when you engage in a discussion in this forum ("where"), you should always remember to (re)introduce yourself (because you don't know to whom you speak), be carefull not to throw in anything and anyone ("of whom you speak"; not that I'm accusing you of that, you usually remember to be precise). And you certainly leave out the derogatory terms ("how").

In answer to the question "when", we can advise: take care not to engage in a lengthy discussion when you don't have time, and take care not to propose controversial points of view when you don't have the time to defend them. This goes for both believers and un-believers.

And that is why you were so right in opening this discussion. Because all are beholden to good manners, no matter how different our world view. In that respect, no conviction, be it religious or not, deserves special treatment.

B.K.

[rug]

15. It's not the lack of kid gloves, it's the lack of intelligent, original criticism of religion.

[rhett o rick]

17. Tell me you're not series. nm

[rug]

20. I am. I've read this hackneyed stuff.

[rhett o rick]

32. The OP was about the fact that religion gets a pass from good hard intellegent discussion.

What's your response to that? The question isn't that this thread provides good arguments.

Do you think that the discussion of religion is off limits to some?

[rug]

35. Of course religion does not get a pass.

But 5 minutes in GDP and 2 minutes in R/T is more likely to yield mildly amusing inanity about politcs and religion than intelligent discussion.

[TZ]

108. Yes and believers make the same old tired arguments

about atheists too.."atheist fundamentalists".."Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot killed in the names of atheism" BLAH BLAH BLAH.
You are very guilty of the same thing you criticize others for.

[trotsky]

22. The problem is, believers run away from the good stuff.

I.e., the stuff they don't have canned answers from their pastor, religious professor, or spiritual guide for.

For instance, I asked what I thought was a pretty good question in the "What kind of evidence of God's existence would atheists accept?" thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x214370#214426

Notice the OP is trying to invoke the old "free will" defense to get out of having to answer why god doesn't give everyone knowledge of him. (Which would end all religious conflict and violence.) There are considerable problems with that dodge, and the OP probably realized it, dropping the subject entirely. "Free will" is a cop out. I have never met a Christian who is willing to really analyze what it means, and how there are examples right in their own bible proving them wrong.

[rug]

23. I missed that thread. Assuming that happened, do you think everyone would want to do it?

[trotsky]

25. My point proven.

Run away!

[rug]

27. Sure, right after you answer the question.

But before you answer the question, assuming you have more to offer than tedious snark, you have to come to some conclusions about the nature of God. Because if God is as advertised, it is irresistible. And if you are confronted with something irresistible, free will does not really come into the picture.

So, the question remains. If you are confronted with God, would you want to resist?

[Goblinmonger]

29. I'll answer: It depends.

Which god. The asshole or the nice guy. I would want to resist the OT god, but Jesus would probably be cool. Your turn.

[rug]

31. I don't get the OT God. But the New Testament God is one and the same.

The question of God is more experential than didactic. And the more universal fundamental understanding of God is, as you studied, an all-loving source of peace that surpasses all human understanding.

So, if confronted with such, who would want to resist it? I am not convinced that all would embrace it. Which brings us back to the nature of human beings.

[rhett o rick]

33. Yes but how does that relate to religion? nm

[rug]

34. Religions and theologies are attempts to understand these notions and provide a systemic framework.

Anything beyond that is sociology, politics and power.

[rhett o rick]

37. So Pat Robertson is just trying to "understand these notions and provide a

systemic framework"? I call bullshit. Many, if not most, religions are to control people. Believe what we say or you will go to hell. Give your money to us because god says so. They are not trying to understand shit. The Catholics and Mormons spend millions of the money they get from their poor people to fight political issues. I won't say that all religions are bad, but maybe 95%.

[rug]

38. No, he's an asshole using religion. Examples are rampant throughot history.

But it's not religion.

[rhett o rick]

39. Agree, an unfair example. nm

[trotsky]

53. "if God is as advertised, it is irresistible"

That pretty much shows you didn't even read my question. Did your god violate the free will of people like Moses, Noah, Paul, David, and all the dozens/hundreds of others as documented in your bible? He appeared and/or spoke to all of them, thus necessarily becoming IRRESISTIBLE and violating their free will.

Is this true? If not, why not? AND if not, why can't he just do the same for everyone on earth?

I'll even answer your irrelevant question so you have no excuse to dodge mine.

If you are confronted with God, would you want to resist?

Only if the confrontation led me to believe that this god was not an admirable fellow.

[rug]

61. You excel at missing the point.

The first being that it is "your god". Either God exists or it does not. If it does, it's yours as much as anyone's. Or shall we discuss your gravity?

Your reference to Old Testament figures has little to do with my post. Read it again. The notion of God as irresistible is not that it appears and imposes its will on humans. It is that, if truly known, it is the source of perfection to which humamns are ineluctably drawn.

By your last sentence, I take it your answer to the question is "No." Congratulations.

[trotsky]

70. Well, I use the term "your" god because that's who I assume we are talking about.

Other notions of god don't necessarily get into the "free will" defense like Christianity does, so the point is moot.

Your reference to Old Testament figures has little to do with my post.

1) Paul is an Old Testament figure? What bible are you using?

2) On the contrary, if those accounts are factual (OT or NT, doesn't matter), then they show that your god has definitively appeared to human beings in the past. The question YOU need to answer (but of course are desperately avoiding) is, did he violate their free will in doing so - and if not, why can't he do the same thing for all people today?

[rug]

75. God doesn't belong to anybody but misconceptions do.

Recall, this is originally about your description of what you consider evidence of God. With the exception of Moses on Sinai and the Transfiguration, I don't think there are biblical examples of what you described. The revelation of God does not violate free will. If anything it gives a person an opportunity to express it. As to why he - and I'm using your pronoun - does not reveal himself directly to all, what do you think?

[trotsky]

78. "The revelation of God does not violate free will."

EXCELLENT! Thank you for that admission!

As to why he - and I'm using your pronoun - does not reveal himself directly to all, what do you think?

That is YOUR question to answer. He (or she or it or whatever you want) is YOUR god. I don't have an answer, because it's not my responsibility to provide one. But the fact that s/he/it evidently COULD (there are no cosmic rules preventing it), but REFUSES to end needless suffering caused by misunderstandings of s/he/it's nature is pretty powerful evidence against the Christian god.

[rug]

80. Ah, the tired old why does god allow evil rant.

This didn't take long.

[trotsky]

82. Nope, it's not that general.

I understand you don't like the conclusion of what you've told me, and that you'd rather just end this.

I'm not saying that the existence of "evil" disproves god. I'm saying that the existence of a specific subset of suffering (that caused by differing opinions about god) could be eliminated by your god simply appearing to each and every person. You have admitted this won't violate our free will, so why won't your god do this?

[rug]

85. That's an interesting question, as it has always been.

Our God (do you agree that if God existed would be God to all, including you?) could eliminate evil or else he would not be God. Why hasn't he? I don't know. You could look up the various theories that explain this but I'm certain you would accept none of them. I expect I would reject most of them.

However, if you hold that the existence of evil does not disprove God, then the question of why God does not elimnate evil becomes more interesting.

[trotsky]

91. You are totally avoiding the question.

As I already pointed out quite clearly, and which I can only assume you are ignoring (and trying to change the subject) because you don't have an answer for, this isn't about the elimination of all evil. It is about the elimination of a specific subset due to conflicting opinions on your god's nature. Does s/he/it oppose abortion? Does s/he/it want women to be covered up in public? Does s/he/it want people to forcibly convert others? That's just a start!

You have admitted your god can reveal itself to people without violating precious free will. So once again, my question: why won't s/he/it reveal itself to all of us and end the senseless conflict over mere different opinions?

[rug]

93. You assume that would end the conflict.

How many would kill Isaac?

You also assume religion consists of learning and following rules. That's a shallow view of religion.

The question is not why God has not revealed himself (assuming he hasn't), the question is what would people do if he had. It's the question first posed in Eden.

What is your answer?

[trotsky]

94. You think it wouldn't?

My goodness, that's a disturbing theology.

How many would kill Isaac?

Do you believe that story actually happened?

You also assume religion consists of learning and following rules.

Nope, not at all. That's your strawman.

The question is not why God has not revealed himself (assuming he hasn't), the question is what would people do if he had. It's the question first posed in Eden.

Do you believe Eden literally existed? That a man was literally created from dirt, a woman from his rib, a talking snake tempted the woman, the man & woman ate fruit, and were expelled from paradise?

What is your answer?

I keep telling you - it's not my job to answer the difficult questions that come out of your bronze-age mythology. That's YOUR job, and you are failing miserably.

[rug]

95. Given human history, I think it's unlikely.

Now trotsky, what makes you think you're in a position to tell anyone what their job is?

Your last post demonstrates pretty clearly the paucity of discussion in R/T. Either you are incapable of moving beyond literal concrete thinking in matters of religion or you post simply to blather about bronze age mythology.

Make your choice. Either have a discussion, which includes answering questions, or admit your purpose is not to discuss but to attempt to attack religion and theology with hoary, sophomoric insults. I almost hope your choice is the latter because I've been holding my tongue.

[trotsky]

97. How can you be sure?

Your god has never provided everyone with the same knowledge of it, so how can you possibly make a declaration?

I am sorry I offended you by asking some pretty simple questions. Do you believe the story of Isaac literally happened? Do you believe in a literal Garden of Eden, Adam, and Eve? You point to these things as if they were concrete examples, but when I ask you about them, you back off and claim I'm "incapable of moving beyond literal concrete thinking in matters of religion". But you're the one who brought those examples up, not me!

I understand the frustration of defending a theology with more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese. But don't take it out on me.

Either have a discussion, which includes answering questions

Let me explain one more time: it's not MY job to answer questions about YOUR theology. I don't accept it. I don't believe in it. You, on the other hand, have been totally evasive in answering even the most basic of questions, instead getting hostile and insulting. I can only assume this means you don't HAVE any answers but simply cannot bring yourself to admit it, fearing that admitting you don't know to an atheist means that the evil horrible mean atheist (and Satan, probably) has won.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

102. I am sorry, but not surprised, that you end by resorting to insults and name-calling.

There are many difficult questions about Christian theology that no one has answers for. Instead of just admitting you don't know (the admission of which to an ATHEIST must be particularly damaging), you try to somehow make ME defend your theology, and blame me when I don't. Strange discussion.

Oh, by the way - the sin of Onan was not providing his deceased brother with an heir according to custom at the time.

Leave it to the atheist to school the believer on his own religion. Maybe I *am* more qualified to answer questions about it than you are! :rofl:

[rug]

103. What's your take on Proverbs 26:11?

I understand you're more knowledgeable about pulling out.

[trotsky]

104. Truly, the love and compassion of Jesus is evident in you.

SCHOOLED, dude. :rofl:

[rug]

105. Your comments throughout this subthread have proven the original point.

Thanks for being the lab rat.

:hi:

[trotsky]

106. I welcome anyone to read this subthread and come to their own conclusion.

I wasn't the one who had to resort to ad homs and name-calling.

:hi:

[rug]

107. Here's your cheese. Good job!

BTW, if you're looking for internet fame, go to Orly Tasitz' blog to debunk the birth certificate. It's more suited to you.

[rhett o rick]

59. Can I play? I would like a shot at your question.

"If you are confronted with God, would you want to resist?". But first let me say that it is a loaded question. You assume there is a almighty God and you assume I would recognize that God should the situation arise. You also assume that God would be doing something where I had an appearance of choice, to resist or not.

Before I can answer your question you would have to define what YOU mean by God. There are lots of different opinions out there.

I personally don't believe in a God like the one portrayed by Christians. If I had to choose, I would go with the native Americans.

I am not an atheist because I can't say I don't believe in God without a clear definition of God.

[rug]

64. Those are the three assumptions.

With that, supply your own definition. The contemplation of the question is worth more than the answer.

[rhett o rick]

76. First I don't agree with your assumptions. Off the cuff, I would define God with a capital G

as a useful invention to help people accept the unknown and explain the unusual. Also a useful invention to be used to manipulate people.

[rug]

81. Capital letters manipulate people? Who knew?

[rhett o rick]

83. Sorry, I thought you wanted to discuss this. My mistake. Goodbye. nm

[rug]

84. A dios.

[rhett o rick]

88. Non-liberal. nm

[Betty Karlson]

24. I resent that!

Instead of running away from the good stuff, I have engaged in this thread to the extend that my first post (# 11) now resembles an essay.

As for the Free Will and the Christian who analysed what it means - his name is Martin Luther and the treatise is called "De Servio Arbitrio".

[trotsky]

26. Please read my post (see the link) in the context of the thread.

If you have an answer for me, I'd love to hear it.

[Betty Karlson]

51. Posted a short one

Hoping I did credit to Mr Luther.

[rhett o rick]

60. Good post trotsky. Can I ask if you consider yourself an atheist? nm

[trotsky]

73. Oh I most definitely do. n/t

[Sal316]

77. Hardly.

I.e., the stuff they don't have canned answers from their pastor, religious professor, or spiritual guide for.

Because you don't understand the answer doesn't mean there isn't one.

You started with "perfect" then, when confronted with the fact the perfection is an unrealistic ideal, especially in knowledge, you responded with this question:

And somehow "free will" prevents any real knowledge of your god?

Which isn't at all even remotely related to anything I had said or asked.

Nice strawman, though.

Notice the OP is trying to invoke the old "free will" defense to get out of having to answer why god doesn't give everyone knowledge of him.

No, you said "perfect knowledge".

"Free will" is a cop out.

Hardly.

To assume that humanity has no say in their lives is just as bleak an outlook as predestination is.

I have never met a Christian who is willing to really analyze what it means, and how there are examples right in their own bible proving them wrong.

I bet you have. You just think you haven't because you can't hear them over sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "la la la ....I can't hear you!"

[trotsky]

79. Typical.

Because you don't understand the answer doesn't mean there isn't one.

I'm too stupid to believe in god. Nicely done!

Which isn't at all even remotely related to anything I had said or asked.

I just removed the offending word. It's irrelevant to the point at hand.

No, you said "perfect knowledge".

We can go back to using that word if you want. Just define what you mean by it and I'll be happy to continue.

To assume that humanity has no say in their lives is just as bleak an outlook as predestination is.

False dichotomy. Thanks for playing.

You just think you haven't because you can't hear them over sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "la la la ....I can't hear you!"

Recent threads on this topic prove you excruciatingly wrong. I keep asking, but no one has answers. You just regurgitate Sunday-School-level theology expecting me to swallow it just like you did. And when I fail to do so, you attack my intelligence.

How very Christian of you.

[ironbark]

47. I couldn't agree more

it rarely ever gets past the drive by egg toss.

[Silent3]

56. If the major problems were lack of intelligent and original criticism...

...then why are the most common complaints about atheists in R/T alleged intolerance, fundamentalism, and militancy rather the complaints about boring, tired rhetoric and demonstrations of how easily the supposedly unintelligent arguments can be clearly refuted?

[rug]

63. To use a common line in here, prove it.

I do not accept on faith your assertion that those are the most common complaints.

That said, it is my major complaint that there's more bullshit thrown around in here than diiscussion. That complaint may or may not be shared.

There is a marked inability here to distinguish religion and theology from right wing politics and positions. You will find few posts here espousing the latter. Nevertheless, within five posts on religion, a thread devolves into that. It's almost fetishistic behavior.

[Silent3]

68. I don't think I've personally ever done much to equate...

...all religion with right wing politics and positions in my posts here. I invite you to search this forum for past posts of mine and judge for yourself.

I'll give you an couple of examples of threads that I've started:

So many gods to not believe in
Does your god have much hair?

I can't speak for all atheist posters here, but personally I think I've spent at least as much time addressing the vagueness of feel-good ecumenicism and the vapidity of "new age" thought as I have dealing with the tyrant God of the right wing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Try criticizing islam and the sharia, or dare to do a cartoon

People die over that and governments continue to pander to islam

[Jim__]

21. The problem with your analogy is that it ignores context.

Criticizing republicans on DU. Sure, have at it. There are few republicans here and those that are here, expect vitriol.

But on a Religion/Theology Forum, talk about a "sky daddy", a term I've never heard a religious person use when referring to their deity, is not raising an argument. It amounts to childish name-calling. There is already enough childish name-calling on the internet.

On DU, I'll mock republicans, mostly because it's venting, and I don't expect there to be many of them here. But, when I am talking to republicans, I listen to what they have to say. I don't pretend to agree with them, but I do find there is some common ground. Two of my republican friends voted for Obama in the last election. I'm not claiming it's because of what I told them, but I did talk with them a lot before the election.

Criticizing religion is one thing. Mocking it to people who believe in it is something else. Of course, you can do it. But why? What does it accomplish? Do you really believe that your understandiong of the universe and the human predicament is so certain that you have actually earned the right to mock someone else's understanding? In the entire history of mankind, I don't believe anyone has gotten it right. A little humility is in order.

[ZombieHorde]

30. "talk about a "sky daddy"...amounts to childish name-calling"

I agree 'sky daddy' is name calling, but 'sky daddy' does not refer to any DUer, it doesn't even refer to a person.

Criticizing religion is one thing. Mocking it to people who believe in it is something else.

Your computer is a desk nanny for grown ups.

Does this mocking of your computer, which you believe in, upset you more or less than the mocking of religion, and why?

[Jim__]

44. Any beliefs I have about my computer are, at best, of marginal importance.

Religious beliefs, metaphysical beliefs (I assume) tend to be central to a person's whole outlook on life. Mocking someone's central beliefs about life is certainly more offensive than mocking things that are of marginal importance.

[ZombieHorde]

87. I have been thinking about your reply for about 30 minutes,

but I don't understand what you mean by "central beliefs".

Could you explain this to me and offer an example?

[Jim__]

92. I can try.

Life, and specifically human life, stripped to its bare essentials is a daily struggle for survival. A struggle that can be tedious, laborious, and repetitive. A struggle that gets harder and harder over time. And a struggle that we know we are ultimately bound to lose. The Myth of Sisyphus is a rich metaphor for this struggle. Looking at life in this way, it is natural to ask if its worth the effort.

But almost no one sees life in this way. Religion in general, and Christianity specifically (because I know more about it than other religions) promises some relief from this drudgery. Death is not final, but a new beginning in a better world. It gives meaning to the struggle.

Secular Humanism promises a type of redemption for us, a better future through reason and technology. From The Declaration of Secular Humanism:

...

• A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
  
  
• A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
  
  
• A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.
  

Redemption through reason, science, and technology.

These beliefs that give some meaning to our daily struggles seem to make life more tolerable, aid in survival and, probably, reproduction. I've read that, currently, 86% of the world is religious. These beliefs seem to serve a real function.

Yet, looking back over history, these beliefs always seem to be wrong. Most ancient religions have been abandoned. The 20th century saw the greatest advances in science, technology, and knowledge. And the 20th century also saw history's bloodiest wars, and the invention of the ultimate destructive weapon.

These beliefs, beliefs that I referred to as central beliefs, seem to serve an important function for people. History indicates that whatever our central beliefs are, they are probably wrong. I don't believe any of us is in a position to mock the central beliefs of others.

[ZombieHorde]

96. Interesting points, I'll have to think about them for a while. nt

[Silent3]

54. Sure, it's a mixed crowd here...

...when it comes to religion, and not so much so when it comes how DUers feel about Republicans, but it's still not the same rhetorical environment as an in-person conversation with one or two other people of differing opinions. When we post here, we're addressing an audience. Think of two opposing political candidates at one of those televised "Town Hall" meetings: even though they are addressing a mixed audience of supporters for each candidate and undecideds, they do not hesitate to make pointed jabs and mock positions of the opposing candidate.

As for using a term like "sky daddy" -- a quote from Thomas Jefferson (he was specifically talking here about the Christian concept of the Trinity):

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them..."

Often what I'm trying to convey when discussing religion is that, in opinion, many religious propositions are patently absurd. It's a perfectly valid rhetorical technique to try to highlight the absurdity of an idea or position that you oppose.

You may quibble about how effective that technique might be, whether or not all you do is make the other person dig in their heels deeper. A person seldom ever changes another person's mind in any argument, however, at least not right then and there before your eyes. You have to remember that part of the audience for a debate like this is people on the sidelines who may not have set opinions, or people who have already begun to have doubts. Those people are more open to barbed criticism, they may even find it more persuasive than mincing diplomacy. Passion and humor are at least as important as reason and logic in getting a point across. If you abandon passionate language and humor, including scorn and sharp-edged humor where appropriate, you severely limit yourself.

What do you think the general cultural effect of everyone being especially careful and respectful and gingerly in discussing religion is, when all of that is done to a much greater extent for religion than any other topic? Doesn't it seem likely that such deference gives religion a special survival advantage in the marketplace of ideas that other ideas, including atheism, don't enjoy?

[Jim__]

58. That the tactic is common in today's political debate emphasizes my point.

Political debate in the US today has largely degenerated into childish name-calling and careful avoidance of any engagement on the actual issues.

Yes, the tactic is common. The fact that it is common does not justify it. Engagement on issues is interesting. The occasional humorous remark enlivens the debate. But a consistent tactic of name-calling and ridicule is boring and uninformative.

My concern is not limited to religion. My concern is that discussions, even discussions where there is serious disagreement should be civil, respectful, and informative.

[Silent3]

65. Do you refer to those who use tactics you don't like...

...as fundamentalist and/or militant?

[Jim__]

66. I don't believe I've ever referred to someone that way.

Although it's possible. My complaint is not really about the occasional outburst. It's that this forum has become extremely boring because there is very little real discussion.

[trotsky]

55. Ah, but plenty of topics are discussed with intense furor on DU.

We aren't all one monolithic group. Look at the flamefests on PETA/veganism, circumcision, breastfeeding, the DLC, Obama's policies, you name it. Tons of disagreement, lots of mocking of other positions, but I've never seen the sensitivity on any of those that is regularly on display in a thread even slightly critical of religion. It is clearly expected by believers to have their beliefs treated differently, with far more respect than any other idea.

[Meshuga]

40. I rarely get my feathers ruffled

It happens, but when there are broad brushes and when I feel that the intention of the poster is not to have a good exchange but just to create flame wars. However, knowing the true intentions of a poster is very tricky since I have been wrong on several occasions when judging people's motives. So I learned to give people here the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, this is a religion and theology forum so I expect questioning and I expect to meet posters who will find my current world view to be stupid or simply not agree with it. That doesn't really bother me and I don't know why it should. What I prescribe to myself may not work for others and vice-versa.

[rrneck]

41. k&r nt

[ironbark]

43. What is most disappointing

is that the majority of the debate/argument (in another thread) that has clearly (at least in part) prompted this thread has been completely ignored…and now…once the misplaced assumptions are dealt with…the original points/arguments need be repeated yet again.

. Would you expect me to always be gentle?

No

•Would you consider scorn, satire, or sarcasm totally inappropriate?

No

•Would you expect me to carefully make sure I always mention good things done by Republicans to balance out my criticisms?

No

•If I didn't always go through the motions of mentioning that Republicans can do good things, mentioning the smart and reasonable things occasionally said by some Republicans, would you consider that "oversight" fair reason to assume I think nothing but bad things about all Republicans, in every aspect of their lives?

No

•Would you take criticism of Republican policy to be the equivalent of saying that all Republicans are stupid and/or ignorant and/or evil in every way?
No, not unless it was made explicitly clear that “all Republicans are stupid and/or ignorant and/or evil in every way”

•Would you take criticism of Republican policy to be a scathing dismissal of the very core being of each and every Republican politician, voter, and sympathizer?

No

•Would the fact that "Republican" means different things to different people cause you to raise a fuss that I'm somehow not allowed to criticize Republicanism until I've perfectly defined it, otherwise I clearly don't know what I'm talking about and should shut up?

No

•Would you be so incensed by my criticism that you would disregard or dismiss any of my attempts to be measured, balanced, fair, to try to see things from a Republican perspective?

No

•Would you call me intolerant, an anti-Republican "fundamentalist"?

No, not unless you took the step up to the next level that you have left out of your list of scenarios- blind bigotry, hate speech, vitriol and the inability to see through the rage to even hear or read what the other is saying. If the other person is a Democrat or apolitical and has not expressed any Republican sentiment and you presume and project Republicanism on them and attack them for it…>then< it is quite possible anti-Republican fundamentalism is in play.

Cut to the chase-

“Even the occasional outburst of something like, "Fuck religion!" hardly compares. I can tell from the reactions of some people that such a remark is often received as the moral equivalent of
"Fuck all religious people!", but isn't that interpretation, that insistence on taking criticism
personally, more a problem on the receiving end, not the transmission end, of those words?”

Given that I am the one who has recently raised the expression of “Fuck religion” I’m surprised
and intrigued by the scenario/s presented….because they totally ignore all that has previously
been said on the issue.


“. I can tell from the reactions of some people that such a remark is often received as the moral equivalent of "Fuck all religious people! "

Interesting because on each and every one of the numerous occasions that I have recounted “Fuck religion” I have included its accompanying playmate “No good ever came of religion”.

I’m not a religious person, I have no religion to be protective or squeamish about, I have no reason to be “taking criticism (of religion) personally”. My objection is and always has been the level of bigotry that underpins “Fuck religion…No good ever came of religion” because it leads directly to "Fuck all religious people ".

I am stating clearly and openly that all three expressions of bigotry are displayed on this board not only as “occasional outburst” but are reflected in the way people respond to the others pov.
By that I mean that the level of hostility (sometimes bigotry) is so high that folk can’t even read/hear the what is written and are constantly attacking phantoms, fabrications and forgeries of their own invention.

It is not that they are engaging in “scathing dismissal… scorn, satire, or sarcasm” towards religion …it is that they are so keen, determined and driven to do so that they assume a religious pov and attack it EVEN WHEN NONE IS PRESENT. They will invent one for you just to have a bash at it.

Silent3…in the prior posts that contributed to provoking this thread I had repeated again what I believe to be comparative bigotry-

“Fuck religion…No good ever came of religion” stands for me as an agnostic as being just as bigoted as “Fuck America….No good ever came of America” still strikes me as bigoted as a non American.

In the dozen+ times those bigoted statements have been compared and put forward only one atheist has stepped forward to make comment. Their opinion said nothing to the issue of bigotry but rather repeatedly insisted that no comparison can be made between religion and America.
Sidestepping the opportunity to make comment on >that< issue you stepped in to declare I had a “bug up my arse” about atheism.
Now you present a parallel between criticism of religion and criticism of Republicanism…I’ll happily oblige by not giving you the same bullshit argument that I got (You cant compare religion/ America/ Republicanism) and run it through the bigotry check when the “criticism” is taken to extreme-


“Fuck religion…No good ever came of religion”
“Fuck America….No good ever came of America”
“Fuck Republicanism….No good ever came of Republicanism”

Yup….all three are statements of narrow, shallow bigotry…and when that is unchecked and unchallenged it leads to an environment in which the voice of the reviled ‘other’ cannot even be heard.

A prime example of that inability to hear is when despite all prior explanation you presume the issue is something “personal” and put forward apologetics about- “more a problem on the receiving end, not the transmission end, of those words”.

No…it aint personal…I’ve got no bug up my arse about or argument with atheism…I couldn’t care less about scorn, satire, sarcasm, insult, criticism………but I don’t have any trouble recognising hate speech and bigotry and the potential dangers thereof.

When people come to this or any other board I expect their ‘opinions’ to be fair game…shot down or held up to ridicule…that’s all good. But when the ‘criticism’ turns to ‘contempt’ and what is being continually attacked is a fabrication, misrepresentation or forgery of the others pov…then there is a real problem. It is not criticism of opinion/belief/pov that is the problem…it is the starting from a locked and loaded position of contempt and assuming, guessing, projecting, making up and misrepresenting the others pov for them as something to shoot at.

[Silent3]

69. I personally have never said...

...(emphasis mine) "NO good ever came of religion". I pretty sure, with all of the Sturm und Drang around here, someone has probably said that or the equivalent, however. I can agree to that extent. But I hardly see that sort of thing as representative or characteristic of most atheist poster or posts.

I have said that I think, on balance, humanity would be better off without religion. I've had people take my saying that as if I'd said "NO good ever came of religion", but that's their problem, not mine.

As for the applicability of the word "bigotry": Bigotry is an offense against people, not an offense against ideas. If I'm not hiring people because of their religion, not renting an apartment to someone because of their religion, if I'm proposing or supporting laws designed to relegate religious people to second-class citizenship, throwing insults and scorn at religious persons and not at religious ideas -- then I'm guilty of bigotry.

If I'm merely unreasonable in my treatment of an idea, then I may be close-minded or stupid or inflexible, but that's not bigotry. I don't even think I'm personally greatly guilty of any of the latter problems either (although we all fail from time to time), nor are most other atheists in these forums. I will (without naming names) acknowledge I've seen a few atheists get involved in stupid pissing contests where neither party is being exemplary of rhetorical virtue.

The very fact you bring up the word "bigotry" here I think points to an expectation of special deference for religion. If the debate were health care or global warming or gun control, then no matter how stupid, stubborn, mean, or dishonest a poster was in defending their own position, no one would be likely to call them a "bigot" for those failings.

[ironbark]

89. There was never any suggestion

that you “personally” had said such a thing and it has been put forward (to you) a number of times as a quote from another…… so I don’t know why you felt the personal disclaimer was necessary.

“But I hardly see that sort of thing as representative or characteristic of most atheist poster or posts.”

I have already responded to the “representative” point-
“I am stating clearly and openly that all three expressions of bigotry are displayed on this board not only as “occasional outburst” but are reflected in the way people respond to the others pov.
By that I mean that the level of hostility (sometimes bigotry) is so high that folk can’t even read/hear the what is written and are constantly attacking phantoms, fabrications and forgeries of their own invention.
It is not that they are engaging in “scathing dismissal… scorn, satire, or sarcasm” towards religion …it is that they are so keen, determined and driven to do so that they assume a religious pov and attack it EVEN WHEN NONE IS PRESENT. They will invent one for you just to have a bash at it.”

Short of conducting some form of statistical survey we are left with you (and other atheists) saying it is not representative and me, an agnostic, and theists saying it is.

“As for the applicability of the word "bigotry": Bigotry is an offense against people, not an offense against ideas.”

Oh pleeeeeeease Silent3….” ideas” are held by people. “Fuck America…No good ever came from America” is an expression of bigotry towards the idea and ideals of America and the people who hold those ideas/ideals. I chose that as a parallel to “Fuck religion ect…” because I believed the weight of the implication would be clear and obvious- That the unchallenged expression of such bigotry is >dangerous<.

As it is it has taken two years and a dozen+ plus repetitions of the proposition to get >ONE< atheist to eventually respond…..and >that<, in and of itself, speaks volumes about the “representative” board culture.

“The very fact you bring up the word "bigotry" here I think points to an expectation of special deference for religion.”

No Silent3…I’ve tried to explain it before and this will be my last try. I’m an agnostic…I have no
“expectation of special deference for religion.”

I live in South East Asia Silent3…I meet a lot of people from the region, Middle East and Africa.
The things I hear expressed from people in these regions in relation to ‘The West’ in general and America specifically are >exactly the same< as the things I hear atheists express in relation to religion. A host of grievances about their treatment, denied opportunity, squandered and stolen recourses, cultural imperialism…the list goes on…many are real and valid reasons to be angry about or criticise America and the West. You know how regularly threads appear here about child molesting priests? Well in Indonesia it’s the issue of Western pedophile tourist rings.
Just below the surface and the level of the comfortable middle class in these regions is a commonplace seething hatred for the West and America in particular.
Now I have no ““expectation of special deference for America”…but I hear “Fuck America-No good ever came from America” from many of these people and I know it to be what it is- bigotry and hate speach.
Plain and simple.
And trying to talk to a S.E.A bigot about America/the West is >exactly< the same as trying to talk to DU atheists about religion….nine times out of ten they can’t hear what you are saying and/or are responding to things you never said.

I suffered the delusion that amidst Democrats some of the issues mentioned above might be open for discussion on this board…..I was wrong.

[Silent3]

98. Sure, you've explained that you're a so-called "agnostic"...

...but that's not automatically mutually exclusive from from expecting special deference for religion.

“The very fact you bring up the word "bigotry" here I think points to an expectation of special deference for religion.”

No Silent3…I’ve tried to explain it before and this will be my last try. I’m an agnostic…I have no
“expectation of special deference for religion.”

If you've been expecting that repeating the former would or should automatically lead to understanding the latter, no wonder you sound frustrated.

And trying to talk to a S.E.A bigot about America/the West is >exactly< the same as trying to talk to DU atheists about religion….nine times out of ten they can’t hear what you are saying and/or are responding to things you never said.

Even though you're talking above, I think, about personal experiences out in "the real world", what you're saying makes a pretty good generic complaint about any discussion of any topic on the internet. People ignore what other people say, triumphantly bash straw men, oversimplify or distort what others say, speak in overly broad generalities, use insult in lieu of reason, etc.

Short of a statistical analysis of the past year's worth of post in R/T, something I don't think anyone here is going to bother doing, all I can state is my impressions, and I don't see atheists in R/T as particularly bad in their behavior, especially by the low standards of all internet discussion. I think atheists are, in fact, while far from perfect, among the somewhat calmer and more level-headed voices in this unruly circus. Obviously your impression is different. What I think I am seeing is more sensitivity on your part to criticism of religion, a sensitivity that probably makes you amplify bad atheist conduct and construe things that are reasonable as bad conduct.

There's certainly bad conduct along the way here in R/T from agnostics and believers too. Regardless of your supposedly neutral position, however, I don't think I recall many if any incidents of you chiming in with criticism there. You can certainly be counted on, however, to get all hot and bothered when you see an opportunity for a little atheist bashing.

[uberllama42]

50. Excellent points. This is why I don't call Republicans names or blindly hate on them

I've come here, said nasty things about religion, and been chastised for it. I don't paint religion or religious people with broad brushes (at least not any more), and it irks me to see people use broad brushes on conservatives, because I feel that we critics of religion are held to a higher standard. You can say any scandalous or malicious thing about George Bush or any other Republican, and it's almost always unchallenged. The standard spite and spittle you read on the Internet usually gets a green light on this board, as long as it is aimed at Republicans

Attack religious people, even in much milder terms, and you usually provoke a strong response, complete with accusations of fundamentalism or bigotry.

[ironbark]

52. I’ll put my hand up

for having used both terms- ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘bigotry’ in relation to specific behaviours/statements from atheists.

While I have seen others employ the term fundamentalist I have not seen any other use of the term bigoted. If attack on religious people “usually provokes a strong response, complete with accusations of fundamentalism or bigotry” could you please link to a post/thread in which these assertions of bigotry occur so that I might better understand?

[uberllama42]

90. To me, fundamentalism and bigotry are ineluctably connected

I think that when one calls someone a fundamentalist in the pejorative sense in which it is used on this board, one is accusing that person in part of being biased against people outside whatever group they happen to be a member of. Being closed to other ways of thinking is part of a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists see other modes of thought as wicked, mendacious, or at the least wrong on every important question. In my mind, prejudice is a hallmark of fundamentalism.

I think we've learned from past discussions in this forum that the definition of "atheist fundamentalism" is pretty mushy, so maybe those who accuse atheists of being fundamentalists here are not trying to imply prejudice in their accusations. Furthermore, I implied a distinction in my earlier post, so I will provide some examples in which bigotry and prejudice specifically are alleged.


In a thread last spring, I was accused of making a post that was "blatantly anti-Christian." The post was almost completely off-topic but didn't refer to Christians as stupid or ignorant. All it did was express skepticism and fail to speak about Christian ideas in reverent terms. The only value judgment applied in excerpt I quoted is the word "fanciful."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x166820


A thread about President Obama's appointment of Dr. Francis Collins to head the NIH spurred a subthread dealing with anti-religious bigotry. A poster expressed his/her disagreement with Obama's choice (without explaining why) and was accused of "anti-Christian bigotry."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8562062&mesg_id=8562130
A post in the same thread accuses "some here on DU" of being biased against anyone who is religious. This post does not use the term "bigot," but in substance it is an accusation of overwhelming bias against the religious.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8562062&mesg_id=8562120


In another thread about Collins, a poster was accused of "simple-minded bigotry" for calling Taoism goofy and saying that religion and science are incompatible because religion is completely false.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8521668#8524137

Here is a thread by a DUer complaining of being called an anti-religious bigot. The post was in response to discussion in another thread which I am unable to locate, so I cannot evaluate whether the OP's previous statements were justified or not. I trust that the discussion in this thread is somewhat illuminating, however. The issue was then-Sen. Obama's association with anti-gay evangelist Donnie McClurkin during the primaries.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3634353#3634473

[Silent3]

72. When I talk about Republicans on DU...

...I call them "Republicans". Not repugs or rethugs or repukes. Republicans.

I show at least that much courtesy when addressing religious issues as well, but the expectations for courtesy when the subject is religion is much higher, almost as if anything short of ass-kissing isn't quite understanding and patient and deferential enough.