A proposition to reduce offense given here.

[Random_Australian]

Simply put, there are two things that have caused a lot of trouble over time here.
The first is the "Santa Claus" analagy, and similar 'fairly tale' based analagies;

and

The second is defining atheism against the atheists, to whit, statements like the recent "then you are not an atheist" or "atheism is taken on faith"

These two are extremely problematic, and the proposition is to put special mention of them in the mission statement (or an announcement if the mission statement does not exist for R/T) , more specifically put

"The following to items are both considered offensive, and should be treated with sensitivity out of respect. These are: (xx) and (yy)"

The exact wording of the two still needs to be worked out, but I for one expect it to become

- Do not compare someone elses beliefs to a fairy tale, though you may find such Gods as Zeus to be helpful

- Atheism is in two parts, strong and weak. The weak atheists simply lack a belief in God. The possibility of the existence of God is not denied.

So, vote Yes if you would like to see these two listed with a quick list of reasons why they are inapropriate, and no if you wouldn't. :)

If you are unsure, merely abstain and write about it below; this is so that you can vote yes or no as you decide later, rather than having the vote expended already on other.

I would stress that these are NOT to be ironclad rules, merely references.

[beam me up scottie]

1. Sorry, RA.

I applaud your effort to ease tensions, but changing a mission statement to include particulars such as those is a little too much like changing the Constitution to ban flag burning.

The regular players are well aware of what's offensive and the newbies usually learn soon enough.

Beliefs don't have to be respected, people do.

[Random_Australian]

2. I see, but instead of banning flag burning, this was more adding

"there are a number of people that find flag-burning offensive, be sure to have a good reason if you do it in public when attempting to discuss matters with people"

But if you feel that way, no blame, offense or hard feelings, for you or any other.

[beam me up scottie]

3. I think that's already covered under

DU rules about civility, isn't it?

I'm afraid if we start nitpicking we'll have to censor everything we say.

The word "myth" might be banned next, because it's offensive, soon to be followed, possibly, by banned sources and other than dictionary definitions.

[Random_Australian]

4. I was just getting tired of the repititveness of telling people that

atheists don't reject the idea of God. By what other mechanism can one engage in effective discussi........................... wait a minute, the R_A brain is ticking, ticking, ticking away.

I had hoped to make this double sided. I will create some backup plans. :) They appear to be onesided so far, however.

[beam me up scottie]

5. Welcome to the club.

We've been doing it for years.

You too will learn to love the brick wall. :banghead:

[Random_Australian]

6. You will lean to appreciate that the Random_Australian always

makes backup plans.

:)

[Mythsaje]

8. If we banned the word "myth" I'd have a real problem, wouldn't I? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

22. We could always claim it's "miss" but with a lisp.

Thuffering thuccotash!:P

[Mythsaje]

35. Now thatth jutht ridiculouth...

;)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

23. Welcome back!

[beam me up scottie]

27. Thank you, T-Grannie!

I see you steered clear of the poop storms lately.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. I'd like to see R/T be a forum for education

Where people can come and talk of their beliefs or ideas of reality with mutual respect and understanding. I realize in a group this large, there will always be "newbies" who may inadvertantly say things that are offensive to one group or another; if they are respectfully told this, and the discussion of the main point continues, I have no problem. What I do have a problem with are ones who like to hijack threads with what amounts to flamebait. If people enjoy getting others upset, there are plenty of other websites they can visit. I come to DU because it is here I can obtain information and inform others.

[Strong Atheist]

9. Those are both fine, but I would want

BOTH to be included...

it would be... inconvenient if only one was included; they need to be linked together...

[Random_Australian]

10. Yes, the proposition was BOTH. These are the equal two. That is why

there is no 'only one' thing in the poll.

[Strong Atheist]

12. I understood your point, but if it is implemented by others it

could get changed to where only one of those two was made into policy... these things happen...

Edit: See trotsky's post, below.

[trotsky]

11. You've been beaten to the punch.

Religionists have already succeeded in getting the DU Rules changed to ban phrases directly comparing religious beliefs to Santa Claus or fairy tales. Unfortunately, no such equivalent exists for banning religious speech found offensive by atheists, like calling it a "belief system" or "faith."

I agree with bmus, newbies learn the existing rules soon enough. The mods do a good job cleaning up.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Did they? I don't remember that

and I can't see it in the rules - they say you can disagree with religious beliefs "in a relatively sensitive and respectful manner", but there's nothing specific about Santa Claus or fairy tales.

[Meshuga]

16. "Disagree respectfuly"

Disagree with religious beliefs "in a relatively sensitive and respectful manner", covers what Troski is talking about but may not cover generalizing atheists. I think "Disagree respectfuly" should also cover the fact that atheists are also disrespected by being generalized.

The bottom line is that people should use common sense and comparing beliefs in God to belief in Santa Claus is not necessary. The same goes to generalizing atheists which is also not necessary. By "breaking these rules" the debate focus on personal attacks and not on religion and theology which are the themes of this forum.

[trotsky]

18. You know, it DID used to be in there.

Maybe the language was just broadened last time they revamped the rules? :shrug:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

24. When did that happen, Trotsky? Is this new?

[trotsky]

25. Actually it was old.

As I noted above, the rules have been worded a little differently now. Luckily I found an old cached version of the rules:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050328011805/http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Scroll down under "Bigotry and Broad-Brush Smears" and you'll see:

Members should avoid highly provocative postings, such as comparing religion to fairy tales or mental illness, or arguing that religion (or the lack thereof) is the source of most of the world's problems.

[The Magistrate]

26. The Rule Was Changed, Ma'am

Some months ago, in order to allow all sides a bit more latitude, and make it a more difficult for disputants to seek official action that would be tantamount to censoring the expression of their opponents.

The problem with debate on this subject is that many participants are so dedicated to their views that they perceive them as an element of their own identity, and so have difficulty distiguishing criticism, or even attack, directed at the view they hold, from criticism or attack on themselves personally. People seldom integrate their views on tax policy, or the best candidate for President, in such a thoroughgoing manner.

[salvorhardin]

30. "People seldom integrate their views on tax policy ... in such a thorough"

I could introduce you to some Libertarians. :-)

[The Magistrate]

31. They Would Rather You Did Not, Sir....

[Evoman]

33. HA!

"People seldom integrate their views on tax policy, or the best candidate for President, in such a thoroughgoing manner."

Lol..have you ever been to GD! They make people on this forum look almost reasonable.

[The Magistrate]

34. Spent Two Terms Moderating There, Sir

And am now in the Political forum....

People take their religion more seriously than their politics.

[Evoman]

40. The immigrant flamewars I've seen on GD

get pretty damn heated. Although I agree..religion, for whatever reason, is a touchy subject.

[The Magistrate]

43. Regarding Those, Sir

Probably best for me to refrain from comment....

[beam me up scottie]

44. oh, I've got many scars from those.

The minute men ones from last year were the worst.

I've never lost respect for so many people at one time before.

I can't get past bigotry.

No excuse for it, IMO.

Hat's off to the mods for keeping DU from disintegrating.

[Evoman]

45. Lol...I made a pretty good post on it..I got about a dozen pms about it

I'm going to go find it and add it to my journal. The funny thing is that there were the "Love thy neighbour" type people telling us that, yeah its not fair they have it so bad in the rest of the world, but tough, life isn't fair. And we were born here, so go to hell (okay, maybe not in those exact words, but close enough). But thats a discussion for another time, and another forum.

[bloom]

74. As an atheist - I also have a belief system.

As an atheist - I should be perfectly within my rights to talk about my belief system.

And I'm offended by other atheists who insist that atheists do NOT have a belief system - when obviously at least some of us do.

If you choose to call the collection of ideas in your mind that give you an understanding of the universe something else - then that is your business. But I think it's out of line to insist that non-atheists adhere to whatever verbiage various people care to use to explain what they think.

And there shouldn't be RULES that some subgroup of atheists are going around imposing on everybody. The mods shouldn't have to clean up. It's just nonsense.

[Silent3]

13. Believing you can make things more civil here...

...is like believing in Santa Claus!

(But noooooo, I'd never, ever suggest either of those things was similar to religion! That would be wrong!) :evilgrin:

[Meshuga]

14. I voted no

But I would vote yes if the mission statement is used only as guidelines and not a ban on expression.

Guidelines are okay because we all can get out of line in the heat of the moment.

[bloom]

17. The two extremes

that you give are not analogous.


The Fairy Tale/Santa Claus thing - is clearly intended to insult. It is intended to compare people's belief with that of young children.

The idea that atheists have a belief system is not. You might think it is - but that does not mean that it is. The only way you could say that it is an insult is to say that they are comparing the ideas of yourself to that of other adults (that you don't agree with). Hardly a comparable insult.

While I think you have every right to say that you do not have a belief system - I don't think you should expect everyone to adopt your ideas (or those of atheist.org or whomever) - and only speak about atheism in the manner that you think it should be spoken in.

And - not all atheists agree with you anyway.

(Of course telling someone they are not an atheist - if that person says they are is just ridiculous).

----

I was thinking about your arguments you were making on another thread - and I got to wondering - if atheists such as yourself are so concerned that others do not include a belief or non-belief in God/dess - as you demand (that people frame things as you want them framed) - WHY do you call yourselves aTHEISTS at all. Why don't you just call yourself people. Non-religious people if that is the case. And if somebody brings up God/dess - just say "What's that? - I don't know what you are talking about". Because usually you don't anyway - as there are about as many God/dess definitions as there are people. Many people around here assume that people's ideas are the same as people from 500 years ago - when they are not. For atheism to mean anything - you have to know what God/dess means.

I can see where atheists would want to challenge being demonized - by virtue of their beliefs and/or non-beliefs. But I think that's the same for everyone. Some atheists might think that they have a right to be more insulted than other people because they think that they are right - but doesn't everybody?

I think it's a worthwhile proposition to want people to feel free to be atheists. Like I suspect that there are many people who are - who don't want to admit it - even to themselves - because of the demonization that has occurred against atheists. It seems that that should be the focus - not all of these silly debates and whether someone believes there is no God/dess or whether someone rejects God/desses or not - as opposed to never considering them or whatever.

[Evoman]

21. They are analagues

In that both are NOT clearly meant to insult, you just have to be able to shift your frame of reference to understand where the other is coming from.

If your a christian, it is easy to see why its an insult to say jesus is like Santa...you basically take it as somebody calling your faith childish. If your an atheist, there is no difference between the two apart from the inane specifics...to me, they are both imaginary and I do not use comparisons as insults. The thing is...I've really tried to stop saying it because I do realize people take it as an insult. Again, it is NOT meant as an insult, but I UNDERSTAND it is taken as one. Imagine if someone said to you..Zeus is like Santa Claus. Would that be an insult? No, somoene who does not believe in Zeus would completely understand that...they are both myths. To us, Jesus and god are no different from Zeus or Santa, so insensitivity to one or the other should be understandable.

The Atheist is a Faith idea is the same thing. Atheist take it as an insult, because they do not think it is true, nor to they believe it describes them. If your a theist, Faith is a integral part of the human condition, and its hard to imagine someones position to be independant of it...so they do not mean it as an insult. Since to some degree theists KNOW that god exists, or believe it strongly, it makes sense to them that Atheists are people who actively deny the existence of god. If you knew trees existed, then the position of a A-treeist would be denying the existence of trees. So they define atheism in a way that makes sense to them. People who have been here KNOW it is an insult to atheist, yet many keep repeating the same old thing. But their believing that Atheism is a faith, and the insensitivity of saying that to people who take it as an insult, is understandable.


Both positions are completely understandable from one perspective, and an insult from another. As an atheist, Bloom, do you feel you are actively denying the existence of god, or that your atheism is faith-based thinking? When people tell you what you are thinking, even though it is not true, do you not get insulted? I can understand (to some degree anyways) why theists take comments comparing their faith to Santa claus insulting. Why can't you understand that some of us REALLY find their comments insulting, and that we aren't just pretending to be insulted?

[bloom]

28. I think that the atheists

who get insulted because other people do not frame things the way they would like - are being control freaks. They have got it in their minds that they should be able to control how others talk about atheism and they are determined to be insulted and start flame wars over it.

I deny they existence of God/dess AND I reject the concept of God/dess as a being. I understand people wanting there to be a God/dess.

I also understand that a lot of people have the perspective that the concept of God/dess is something that one believes or they don't. That for some people they don't think that people could know - so for them everyone's idea is faith-based. It is part of their understanding of the universe - and no matter how many flame wars people start about it - that will not change.

I think it is one thing to state how one thinks about it - I think it another thing to go on and on and insist that other people think and write about what others consider to be a religious matter the same way that they do.

While my ideas are based on the fact that I just don't find the concept of God/dess believable - I am not insulted if someone thinks that is because I have more "faith" in science than I do theology. Either way - it's a matter of having faith in people - and deciding which people are more credible. There is also one's own experience. How one wants to explain things like "luck", intuition, emotions and etc.

There may be some atheists who think that everything in the world is black and white and that they see everything in those terms. LIke the effects of yoga are scientifically calculable or they are not real. I don't think that. Some people may put more "faith" in people's abilities than I do. Faith is just a word - and just like "belief" - there may be some people that assume that people are using it religiously - with a different connotation than they are.

If someone is arguing that nobody can KNOW that God/dess does not exist - well, that sounds like the start of a philosophical discussion - not an insult and an invitation to a flame war.

(And I disagree that the 2 examples are comparable for the reasons that I already stated).

[Evoman]

32. Disagreement noted..but your not getting it.

"who get insulted because other people do not frame things the way they would like - are being control freaks. They have got it in their minds that they should be able to control how others talk about atheism and they are determined to be insulted and start flame wars over it. "

Its not a question of framing. Its a question of it being an outright mistake. I have no faith...thats it. And I have no belief in god. Thats a fact for me. Its insulting when people say, "NO! Your a liar or you don't know your own mind. This is what you believe!" I am not a control freak...I'm not someone who gets angry at the comment, I just try to show people what I really think, because its a common enough, and understandable, mistake. But when people tell me I don't know my own mind, it kinda pisses me off.

And I am not DETERMINED to be insulted. I attempt to educate people about what I think. I get insulted when people are DETERMINED to insult ME and keep telling me I'm wrong about my own mind.

"I think it is one thing to state how one thinks about it - I think it another thing to go on and on and insist that other people think and write about what others consider to be a religious matter the same way that they do. "

Thats exactly my point, Bloom! Thats what happens here. We state how we think about it: "I don't have faith that god doesn't exist, I merely do not have belief in god" and the insulters respond. "Yes you do...atheism is faith, science is faith." It happens all the time here...we are not feigning being insulted. Again, its not the initial comment thats insulting..thats very understandable if your new to the forum. Its the continous insistence that we "have faith" despite our protests that is FUCKING insulting.



"While my ideas are based on the fact that I just don't find the concept of God/dess believable - I am not insulted if someone thinks that is because I have more "faith" in science than I do theology. Either way - it's a matter of having faith in people - and deciding which people are more credible. There is also one's own experience. How one wants to explain things like "luck", intuition, emotions and etc. "

And there are people that understand the God is a fairy tale comment as a way of expressing our views on the myths and are not insulted. But the most probably are...just because your not insulted, it doesn't mean we aren't. Like you said...all atheists are different. We are not all like you. We get insulted when people continually try to define us in ways that aren't true.


"There may be some atheists who think that everything in the world is black and white and that they see everything in those terms. LIke the effects of yoga are scientifically calculable or they are not real. I don't think that. Some people may put more "faith" in people's abilities than I do. Faith is just a word - and just like "belief" - there may be some people that assume that people are using it religiously - with a different connotation than they are. "

Words have context, thats true. But you can't be obtuse about this...we all know what people mean when they say that atheists have beliefs or Faith. We are obviously, in most discussion, talking about Faith as a "proposition that something is true, even if there is little to no evidence to support it or evens" or "something that is believed especially with strong conviction". That definition, i.e. "I have faith in god" IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DEFINITION than the more mundane definition: "I believe or have faith than the light will turn on when I flick the switch" It is INTELLECTUALLY dishonest to use both definitions in one conversation.

Theist: I have faith in god and you have faith that he doesn't exist (DEFINITION 1).

Athiest: No I don't. I have no faith (Definition 1)

Thiest: Yes you do..you have faith in things. You have faith the sun will rise (DEFINITION 2)

Athiest: Yeah, if you use that definition...I guess so.

thiest: See, you do have faith (Definition 2). Like I have faith in god (Definition 1)

Its almost the same as:

Dude #1: Your high.

Dude #2: No I'm not, I haven't smoked anything.

Dude #1: Yes you are...we are on the fifth floor. This is pretty high. Your high.

Dude #2: Sure..I guess so.

Dude #1: See you are high...you should get to rehab.

IF your using two definitions of a word in the same freaking discussion, then your making a fallacy.

[bloom]

55. Let's look at this

This is a good example (to consider the faith idea):

...You have to have faith that there is no deity to be an atheist. Faith, by it's very definition, brings w/it the ideology of a belief system. One believes things either by proven fact or by faith. Facts stand alone, faith is simply belief that one is right. To have faith there is no god is a belief system, hence by very definition, a form of "religion".

No one can prove there is a god, no one can prove there isn't....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x77896#78745

-----

faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

-----

See - I can read that and think - that even though he didn't qualify it by saying "In My Opinion" - that that IS his Opinion. People have a right to their opinion. I can disagree with it or not or ignore it.

I don't read it as, "You are telling people what they believe." as some do. I just don't.

I read it as the person does not believe that ANYONE can know whether or not God/dess exists or not. That is his belief system.

-----

I found this @ http://www.skepdic.com/faith.html

...However, if Christian apologists insist on claiming that their version of Christianity and the rejections of their views are equally acts of faith, I will insist that the apologists have a non-rational faith, while their opponents have a rational faith. Though I think it would be less dishonest and less misleading to admit that atheists and naturalists do not base their beliefs on faith in any sense close to that of religious faith.

It sounds to me - that the problem is that some atheists are very concerned that they not sound or be seen as non-rational. That is what I think drives this. That is what I think drove the ideas that started this thread. The desire to separate ideas based on what one considers to be very rational from ideas that one considers to be very non-rational.

While I understand that - I think at the bottom of that is the insult to Theists that they are irrational. I don't think that there is any getting around it. So when someone insists that someone who thinks that everyone bases their ideas on faith is not allowed to say that they think that everyone is basing their ideas on faith - it is basically saying that THAT person is NOT ALLOWED to say what he thinks.

And I think - that in the example I cited at the beginning - that the person is NOT assuming that atheists have "Faith" as in - Faith that has to come from God/dess as if God/dess gives people the Faith to not believe in IT. Though I do think that the poster thinks (I think) that everyone is irrational. And I think that that is LESS insulting than saying that some people are rational (us) and other people are irrational (them) - whether that is true or not.

And I think it is more insulting still to insist that people who believe that everyone is irrational (or at least who thinks that nobody bases their ideas on logic) MUST say that "atheists are rational" - and "I am not" or "all Believers are irrational". (Even if you think it is true).

[beam me up scottie]

56. The "problem"?

Ignorance, willful or not, is the problem.

Lack of respect is the problem.

Hypocrisy is the problem.

You have to have faith that there is no deity to be an atheist.

That person is describing a strong atheist.

Most of us are agnostic or "weak" atheists.

Apparently some people (not the person who was just quoted) are unable or unwilling to understand the difference between the two.


Since when is allowing someone to dictate your belief system a prerequisite for discussion in this forum?


I refuse to discuss matters of faith with religious bigots who insist they have the right to redefine my beliefs and/or lack of them.

[bloom]

57. Do you understand

all of the different beliefs that various denominations of Christians believe? Or the difference in beliefs between Sunnis and Shias?

Do you assume that people in certain groups think that God is an old man in the sky?

I wonder how many atheists assume that all religious people are irrational. Some religious people think that they are quite rational and would be mightily offended at someone saying that they are not.


There may be some willful ignorance involved. You - and most of us - may not want to keep track of everyone's various belief systems.

I think that there is also some arrogance involved by people who want to think that they are more rational, more respectful, and more tolerant of others than others are - when maybe they are not. Or at least they are not all of those things.

[beam me up scottie]

58. I understand a lot of things, bloom.

I understand that THE VAST MAJORITY of DU atheists do NOT "assume that all religious people are irrational".

I understand that THE VAST MAJORITY of DU atheists DO NOT claim that "they are more rational, more respectful, and more tolerant of others than others".

I understand that THE VAST MAJORITY of DU atheists are curious about believers and enjoy the diversity in this forum.

I understand passive/aggressive tactics and how they are used by people with an ax to grind.

And I understand that you appear to have declared jihad on DU atheists because of one dubious pm.

What I don't understand is why you continue to accuse DU atheists of being intolerant when you have absolutely no evidence to support your claims.

What I also don't understand, is why I have not EVER witnessed you directly defending a believer who was being harassed by an atheist, nor have I seen you call out the atheist IN THAT THREAD AT THAT TIME.


What's up with that?

I mean, if it's such a common experience, how come I don't see you riding in on your white charger?


I have repeatedly,(along with other members of my atheist "posse"), called out atheists who were being intolerant on DU.

And I have been attacked by those atheists because I did the right thing.



I can't tell how much I resent being maligned by you for simply being an atheist.

It actually feels worse than when a fundy does it.

[salvorhardin]

60. Ah, but can you honestly tell me

That THE VAST MAJORITY of DU atheists are not secret squid fetishists?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/friday_cephalopod_emerging_fro.php

I received a nasty PM from a cephalopod once and you can't tell me otherwise.

[beam me up scottie]

61. I'm rather partial to his

Slug Love porno shoot from this morning:



People at work think I'm weird.

:evilgrin:

They have NO idea...heh heh heh

[salvorhardin]

62. Heh, heh -- with slugs it's not just 'wham, bam, thank you maam'

Now the slugs must disengage -- a challenge for two animals so amply endowed and thoroughly covered in sticky mucus. After long bouts of writhing and pulling, the pair may resort to ... apophallation. Translated, this means that one slug gnaws off the penis of the other.
http://ifaq.wap.org/sex/sexandgardenslug.html

Did you see the comments on PZ's slug love post?

I just scrolled down to the customer reviews for Life in the Undergrowth, and I see that there is one single one-star review among the glowing five-star reviews. This one person was "very disappointed" with the DVDs because "They were FULL of evolution".

Argh.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/slug_love.php#comment-121365

[beam me up scottie]

63. No, I missed most of them!

PZ-
Now, I love a big transluscent blue penis as much as the next guy (probably more so), but as I understand it, the organ coming out these critters heads exchanges both eggs and sperm.

So the term penis isn't quite right , is it?

True, Jeb, yet somehow I don't see the expression "hung like a slug" catching on much.

"Hermaphrodites."

Oh, good. I was afraid maybe they were gay slugs.

That would have been really gross.

I love that site.:D

[salvorhardin]

64. Someday

There really has to be a study done of sci/techie/atheist humor.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Perverted genius!

Or genius perverts!

How can anyone NOT see the humour in slug sex?

[bloom]

69. You don't understand

Re:

"And I understand that you appear to have declared jihad on DU atheists because of one dubious pm."


That would be very silly if it were true. Of course - it's assumptions like that that to misunderstandings.



As far as:

"I can't tell how much I resent being maligned by you for simply being an atheist."


That is not true either - you are not maligned for "simply being an atheist". That is just laughable.

You sure know know how to play the victim, however - after maligning others.

[beam me up scottie]

71. Did you forget that you already admitted it?

You finally admitted that the "posse" you claimed was ganging up on you via pm was ONE person.

Your persecution fantasy is just that. See Evoman's posts on your coming-out thread if you need a reminder.

DU atheists don't deserve to be unjustly accused and maligned by religious bigots.

Especially those of us who have actually defended and supported believers in this forum and others.

I will, however, continue to point out hypocrisy whenever I see it.

How many times did you say you confronted atheists who were actually abusing believers?

[bloom]

73. I was clear

that there was one person who said that he spoke for 7.

And the behavior of the "posse" (those who chose to participate) speaks for itself.


But I'm not the one bringing all this up - you are. I'm just discussing ongoing issues where certain people seem to think that they have a right to control what others say. Plus the ongoing issue where some atheists seem to think that they have a right to be more insulting than other people. Which is m/l what the subject of this thread is about.

[salvorhardin]

75. Did you bring the attention of the admins to the PM?

Because if what you say is true, it is deplorable behavior and absolutely unacceptable.

Of course, your behavior is equally deplorable in that you are stereotyping all DU atheists based on the words of 1 user.

[beam me up scottie]

79. Good call, sal.

Hypocrisy squared.

Using that logic, we should hate and malign all believers because one of them upset us.

I'm learning so much about tolerance from bloom.

[bloom]

81. I base my comments

on the comments of the people themselves.

Plus there are the cute little references where people post that they will PM each other to plot out a strategy or whatever. It reminds me of middle-schoolers - and really - how do we know - we don't.

Most of the stuff posted is nonsense and ridicule - nothing of substance - and generally not worth responding to - and it's there for any to see - if it's not deleted.


And yes - I have brought the PMs to the attention of the admin.


Some people really do no want to acknowledge that there are atheists who do not follow their orthodoxy. So - according to them - I can't be an atheist. It's like some kind of absurdist play.

[salvorhardin]

82. But that's not what you've said in the past

You've said that you base your attitude and habit of stereotyping DU atheists on a solitary PM.

How do we know we don't, what? That sentence makes no sense.

As far as orthodoxy, I wasn't aware there was one. But in so far as you are an atheist or not, it's really simple. Do you believe in a god or not? Yes or no. It's that easy. But you don't want to answer the question, instead preferring to dance and side-step the issue of what you believe (or don't believe). Frankly I could care less if you were atheist, Christian, Buddhist, pantheist, Shinto, Vodoun or a follower of Jormundgand.

I do care about honest and open discussion and frankly it just isn't forthcoming from you. Which makes your posts so much nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Just don't be surprised when DU atheists ridicule your stereotyping of DU atheists.

[bloom]

85. I have said that I don't believe in god.

and if the fundamental orthodox atheists around here would just use that definition that you used, "Do you believe in a god or not? Yes or no." - There would be a lot more peace around here.

Unfortunately that is not the case. Maybe you could lobby them.



As far as, "You've said that you base your attitude and habit of stereotyping DU atheists on a solitary PM."

It sounds to me that you are taking things out of context - or listening to those who are. That's quite a game that some have going. It doesn't mean anything.

It's true that one of the PMs said that there was a group of people (who were named) who were determined to be "vigilant" against me. But my opinion of that is based on the fact that there was a group of people who like to be ridiculous and ridicule and bait and switch - who were "vigilant" IOW.

I consider all of those things in my attitudes and opinions of others. Nobody is "stereotyped" - I don't know where you got that (I don't bother reading all of some people's posts - when I know that they are often obnoxious). I don't hold anything against anyone who was named in the PM - just because the sender named them. If people don't act like jerks - I don't consider them to be jerks.

If they do - then I do. And I suspect that the jerks know who they are.

[beam me up scottie]

91. ROFLMAO !!!

"fundamental orthodox atheists"

"Maybe you could lobby them"

"That's quite a game that some have going"

"there was a group of people (who were named) who were determined to be "vigilant" against me"

"I suspect that the jerks know who they are"

Busted.

Yeah, you got us, bloom.

We've been conspiring against you for years because... because...* well, dammit! I don't know why we're doing it, the head atheist just told us to and if we question him, he won't let us have baby's brains for dessert at the meetings.

Call the cops!

Alert the media!

Get a lawyer!

:rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

83. You can call yourself Dame Edna for all we care.

We don't give a crap what you call yourself.

Pretty conceited, if you ask me,(not to mention paranoid) to think that a group of people are focusing all of their attention on you.

I think you crave our attention.

You are obviously aware that the only time we respond to your posts(yawn) is when you call us out and accuse us of fictional crimes.

So who has issues, bloom?

DU atheists, who wouldn't notice you at all if you weren't insulting them, or you, for constantly provoking them?

[bloom]

87. .....

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

89. You know, dogs are great company,

and they give you all the attention you could ever want.

You don't have to insult them or anything.

Of course, if you really enjoy the ME ME ME, EVERYBODY LOOK AT ME! hobby, who am I to feel sorry for you?

;)

[Random_Australian]

76. Right, I call you on this particular bit:

"some atheists seem to think that they have a right to be more insulting than other people. Which is m/l what the subject of this thread is about." (emphasis mine)

Right, the thread took two most widely used (accidental if you would prefer, though only in the sense that it is not supposed to be offensive in both cases) insults, and said that we should create a list of quick reasons why they are innappropriate, with the intent of increasing empathy and reducing offensive given here. One was about theistic belief, the other atheist.

Reconcile THAT with the notion that this thread was about me thinking I have the right to be more insulting than other people. Go on, I dare you.

Personally, I see no similarity between "list of quick reasons why they are innappropriate, with the intent of increasing empathy and reducing offensive " and "have the right to be more insulting than other people" , so I will take some convincing. I know what I started this thread about, and it was NOT, in any shape, an insult. I am trying to reduce flamewarring here by many methods, and I would like to hear why you think this is about me insulting people.

The other interpretation of your post is that this subject was about me trying to stop some atheists from bieng too offensive, in which case the choice 'atheist' is incorrect, as it was meant for no single group.

[beam me up scottie]

80. That was going too far.

Fortunately, it looks like bloom is the only one who looks at your olive branch and sees poison ivy.

Not everyone distrusts atheists just because they're atheists.

[bloom]

84. Re:

"some atheists seem to think that they have a right to be more insulting than other people"

I was pretty thorough in my posts that started this subthread. I think that you would find the answers there if you were to read it.

I think the examples you used were not anywhere near comparable.

Besides what I already said - the Santa Claus thing is a clear slap in the face.

This business about insisting that others share some certain definitions that some certain atheists on DU have found or the others are called bigots (in the extreme) - or insulted in other ways - just sounds to me like more excuses to insult non-atheists.


Maybe it's not what YOU thought it was about - but I saw the thread that this led from - and that is what I think led to this. And I don't put all the "blame" on this on you. I think you are caught up in this group that insists on defining atheism for the rest of us - whether that definition works for everyone - whether there are other valid definitions and ideas or not.


It also goes against the idea that atheists are NOT a group and so I don't get this insisting on some kind of fundamental orthodoxy.

So it becomes an excuse to insult anyone (atheists or non-atheists) who do not use the proper definition and talk about atheism in a particular way. It's one thing to be against bigotry. It's another thing when the people who think that they are fighting bigots become authoritarian assholes.

AFAIC - it should all be open to discussion. All of this insistence of people that THEIR DEFINITION IS THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN BE USED - just makes the discussion ALL ABOUT THAT - and that is no discussion at all. It's one thing to say - "this is MY definition of an atheist" -"This is what I think". But that is not what is happening.

I don't expect everyone to think what I think. I do expect that people should be able to discuss it - without someone getting mad that someone is not following a definition that not all atheists agree with anyway. Or saying that those of us who don't follow the atheist orthodoxy cannot be atheists - and are just passive aggressive or some other insult.

For crying out loud - any other religion around here would expect that people would think differently - that individuals might have individually different ideas. But NOT atheists - NO. Atheists have to all fall in line or be ridiculed. It's insane.

[beam me up scottie]

90. What's insane is your support of posters who dictate what others believe,

while vilifying the people who object to their arrogance.

Oh, wait, that's not insanity.

My bad.

That's intolerance.


If atheists were to repeatedly tell christians in this forum what they believe, ignore their protests, dismiss their arguments and insist they just don't know any better, you'd assemble a pitchfork and torch brigade to hunt us down.

And here you are AGAIN telling us WE'RE intolerant because we don't like being told we're too stupid to know what we believe.

[beam me up scottie]

78. Again, how many times have you put your money where your mouth is?

I don't recall ever seeing you on any of the threads where DU atheists admonished one of their own for being intolerant.

You insist that we constantly abuse the believers, yet you haven't provided proof that such attacks actually exist.

If the imaginary abusive threads actually do exist, please point them out so that the rest of us can learn from your example how to defend the believers.




Btw, isn't it arrogant and presumptuous to speak for the op?

[bloom]

86. I've pointed out such threads before.

Such posts are deleted. I'm not playing your little games.

Just because I don't go around getting in all the fights that you get into - doesn't mean anything.

I suggest that you do a search of the word "bigot" in R/T.

You will mostly see yourself associated with that - most likely you are calling someone a bigot - maybe in an offhanded way - but just the same- there it is. Mostly because the person did not use the proper, fundamental, orthodox, approved by the DU atheist group (IOW - your) definition of atheist.

[beam me up scottie]

88. I've never seen you defend a believer. In any thread. Why is that, bloom?

Could it be because your preferred activity is fighting with us, and not protecting believers from the evil atheist posse as you claim?

[beam me up scottie]

37. What a crock.

Perhaps we could start telling you what you believe so that you can finally grasp the concept:

You're not a pantheist, bloom, you're a confused scientologist/O'Reilly-ist who secretly fantasizes about a ménage à trois with The Doughboy and Vinny Barbarino. (Think of Equus, except instead of the horse, you grew up looking at a poster of Vinny and Doughy as you drifted off to sleep every night).


And, for an encore, we'll tell all of the christians that their belief in Jesus is the same exact thing as our childhood beliefs in Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

No matter what you or they say, no matter HOW much you whine or they protest, we'll disregard every fact and dismiss every post because you/they couldn't possibly know what you/they really believe.




I suggest we start Plan B first thing tomorrow.

WHo's with me?

[varkam]

19. So where do I fit?

B/t strong and weak atheism? I positively assert that there is/are no God/s. I take it that we are essentially very advanced critters that came about as a result of a cosmic accident. I don't think there is any such thing as a soul...yet I still admit there is a possibility that I am completely mistaken and that I will spend eternity cozying up to Joseph Ratzinger.

[beam me up scottie]

20. Well there you go.

bloom thinks it's silly to expect people to respect atheists by not telling them that they are too stupid to know how to define their own atheism.

Not only that, we're also too stupid to know that we're not really being insulted by the people who insist we are incapable of defining our own atheism.

So we're back to the old R&T standard that believers get to cry foul when we say something offensive while atheists are told, yet again, to suck it up when we're being insulted repeatedly.


No amount of rules can make people who are intolerant of atheists become tolerant.

I suggest we just ignore the people who come here to piss on us.

They're the ones with the problem, after all. ;)

[Finder]

29. Your definition of a weak atheist is an agnostic...

One is either atheistic or not...there are no degrees of atheism. Granted there are activist atheists who speak out more than others but that is more a personality trait. Atheism is simply the lack of belief or faith in gods. Atheists deal in facts not faith--period.

Logically, there is no difference between the myths or faith in Santa, Isis, Zeus, Jehovah, etc...or any other gods/goddesses to atheists.

This forum is for the discussion of religion and theology not a fellowship forum for any particular religion or set of doctrines.

[Random_Australian]

36. No, it isn't. See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=77896&mesg_id=78733

[Finder]

54. My bad...I see what you were saying now. n/t

[NMMNG]

47. Gah!

One is either atheistic or not...there are no degrees of atheism.


Wrong.

Read. Learn.


http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

http://www.americanatheist.org/smr00/T2/zindler.html

[Finder]

52. I enjoyed the article...

but I do not see where what I stated is wrong. I would like to discuss further in the atheist forum.

[NMMNG]

59. You claim you read , but you obviously did not comprehend

if you do not see where what you stated is wrong. You stated: One is either atheistic or not...there are no degrees of atheism.




Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods.

Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.

Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm



Within atheism there is Strong atheism and Weak atheism. Therefore there are two degrees of atheism, and your statement was wrong.

[Finder]

67. I am not into sublabels...

so I was simply talking about the general conception. I do see(after reading the thread RA led me to)that many still misunderstand atheism.

Atheism is not a religion. We do not have doctrine, sects, mysteries, rituals, leaders, etc--PERIOD.

I think using terms like strong or weak, or other adjectives just confuses the issue.

[NMMNG]

92. You may not be into sublabels

But that doesn't negate their existence.


Atheism is not a religion. We do not have doctrine, sects, mysteries, rituals, leaders, etc--PERIOD.

I am very well aware of that.


I think using terms like strong or weak, or other adjectives just confuses the issue.


I disagree. I think they help clarify the issue. However as you noted above atheism has no doctrine so we don't need to agree.

[beam me up scottie]

50. sigh...

I think I'm just going to have to put these in my sig line:

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

http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm

http://www.atheistsunited.org/wordsofwisdom/Stein/whatisath.html

[Finder]

51. Good links...

and I think we are on the same page.

[SPKrazy]

38. No, I Don't Think We Need This

rules just beget more rules

and who wants rules on the internets???

besides, we have civility rules on DU

[Random_Australian]

39. The problem was getting people to realise that these two things are

incivil. The analagy does not seem insulting to me, but you find it offensive so I don't use it. The same goes for the atheist thing, so I thought it would be good if people could find out before they use the words in question, so as to avoid 'tension' here. Just as a FYI, not a rule.

[beam me up scottie]

42. But they DO get it, RA.

The ones who keep pushing theist's and atheist's buttons do it BECAUSE of it.

They live to disrupt.

Look at the ones in this thread.

If you tell someone three times that their definition of your beliefs, or lack of them, is wrong and they CONTINUE to tell you that you're too stupid to know how to define yourself and that you just WANT to be offended, they're either bigots, morans and/or are incapable of understanding the English language.

Letting people like THEM dictate the rules will only benefit them, not us.

They wear out the alert button as it is (when they finally piss one of us off and get the response they were hoping for.)

Why give them even more reason to use it?

[Evoman]

41. Forget this rules stuff

when things get heated, we should all just arrange one big match of bare knuckle boxing. Like Red Foreman says, "if you are not mad enough to bare knuckle box, then you are not mad."

Bare Knuckle Boxing will be our Plan B.

[TreasonousBastard]

46. We got enough rules already...

and expanding the "mission statement" isn't going to do a thing.

Some people can mention myths and it doesn't bother me a bit-- I am quite conversant in the mythology in my own beliefs, and am well aware of the importance of myth in all religions. Others are just using the myth thing to taunt, and it's usually pretty obvious who's doing what.

As far as defining atheism goes, this forum wastes far too much time trying to define all sorts of things. Definitions are important, but everyone has gone overboard and half the time forgets what's behind the definitions. When you define me as a "Christian" does that mean I believe in apostolic succession, that man is inherently evil or good, that evil (whatever that is, btw) is extrinsic or intrinsic, or do works proceed from faith? Do I come from the Catholic tradition of fallability and redemption or the Calvinist tradition of the elect? Without the specific theology, these are questions that also have relevance to the way atheists and agnostics view the world.

So, how about spending more time on explaining alternative ethical and cosmological systems coming from various atheist and religious perspectives? I'm interested not so much in hearing defensiveness about how atheists don't need a god to tell them how to act, but how an atheist develops a system of ethics without divine authority. I know it's done, but no one seems to want to explain it. Or do I just read more Kirkegaard?

Rather than the the brickbats back and forth, how about actually explaining some of the more important practical applications of belief or nonbelief? My particular brand of Chritianity demands social action. What brings an atheist to progressive social or political beliefs? Why would an atheist be for or against war or the death penalty or public school or free job training or abortion? lots of questions...

Inquiring minds want to know, without being snarky about it.

On edit---

Leave the fundies out of this. They are big, loud, and scary, but they have little to do with any discussion here.

[Random_Australian]

48. Sure! I might just start a thread on that.

[beam me up scottie]

49. Atheism isn't a religion.

We have no religious philosophy, no dogma, no faith.

All atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods.

It's a bit difficult to get past definitions when one has to explain the basics on a daily basis because we're constantly being told what we believe by non-atheists.

[TreasonousBastard]

66. OK, but so what? There's also a certain crew of...

crickets who lump all religions in with Jerry Falwell. Always will be some on all sides who would rather snipe than understand.

A few basic ground rules, though...

If you simply say you don't buy into religion, that's fine and needs no defense, although it's always nice to explain why. If, however, you make the statement that there is absolutely, positively, no god, that is the sort of statement that does require a defense if challenged. And, it could easily be challenged the same way (i.e.- unsupported belief) that a statement that there absolutely, positively is a god would be challenged.

Simply dismissing religion as fairy tales doesn't cut it. If that's what you think, OK, but expect it to be challenged as snarky and possibly ignorant if it's made as a statement of fact.

None of this addresses my real questions, though. Religion is simply philosphy with a divine element added. Agreed that none of you have a divine element, but what are the philosophical trains of thought that you follow? Theists have understandings of the will of God and many years of tradition and study of scriptural texts to guide them. What guides the atheist in understanding? In developing an ethical or social system? I would be surprised, of course, to find that all atheists agree any more than anyone else, but I am interested in finding out how the "atheist in the street" works these things out and not rereading Camus or more hanging out with the Ethical Culturists.

Simply put, we already know what you don't believe, but haven't a clue what you DO believe.

[beam me up scottie]

68. Thanks for the lecture on atheism.

And the inference that I am intolerant of christians.

Oh, and thanks for proving my point instead of reading my post:

Atheism isn't a religion.

We have no religious philosophy, no dogma, no faith.

All atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods.

It's a bit difficult to get past definitions when one has to explain the basics on a daily basis because we're constantly being told what we believe by non-atheists.

[TreasonousBastard]

70. You're welcome, but I fail to understand where...

my questions and insistance on certain general ground rules of discussion are a "lecture" on atheism.

I am serious about this, and consider secular social and ethical thought extremely important now, perhaps more so than any time time in history. It was secular thought from the Enlightenement that drove our Constitution, but it was still an insular document in a largely Christian nation. With the world much smaller and infinitely more diverse now, religion-based ethics have to find a common ground to be accepted in other groups.

Earlier, Quakers, Baptists, Unitarians, and other non-doctinal sects would be the bridge among differing Christians and Jews, but now there are so many others to accomodate that it's pretty much up to the humanists to be the bridge.

[beam me up scottie]

72. Again,

atheism is not a religion, a belief system or personal philosophy.

Have you heard the term "herding cats"?

Atheists are like cats.

Most of us do not follow other atheists or conform to non-existent atheist dogma, we choose our own path.

Most free thinkers do, as I'm sure you know from your own experiences.

You would have to ask each individual for an explanation, since the only thing you can count on us having in common is the fact that none of us believe in gods.

Thank you for asking us, by the way.

I appreciate your sincerity and will try to respond in kind.

It is all about respect, isn't it?

[Finder]

53. Secular humanism would be the system of ethics...

and one need not be an atheist to follow.

[TreasonousBastard]

77. I prefer "humanism" since...

"secular humanism" seems to be used more as an incendiary talking point by the religious right to identify those of us who don't follow their line. Even just plain "humanism" could set them off and sidetrack the discussion, but I don't know of a better term. Maybe just go back in time and talk of a "New Enlightenment" and that will confuse the hell out of them.

Anyway, there are all sorts of humanist organizations out there, some even religioulsy oriented, but it's not entirely a coherent philosophy in itself the way some try to pull it off. But, a large part of the intent is to bridge across many individual religious and secular doctrines, so emphasizing their thought is important.

[greyl]

93. What do you think of this maxim?:

"You add just as must suffering to the world when you take offense as when you give it."