I would like to make clear that many atheists

[intaglio]

do not feel the compelling need to make posts and OPs denigrating the religious. Of course some unwise posters feel the need to question the credentials of others and seem to see their own irreligion as justification for all sorts of attacks.

There is, however, compensation in realising that whilst such sectaries feel confident dishing out the abuse they just cannot deal with fairly mild criticism.

[Komze]

1. Ok

Okey

[cleanhippie]

2. Cool story, Bro.

[rug]

5. Cool smiley, bro.

[CAG]

12. I think it means that the OPer is officially out of the cool kids clique.....

I'm sure the OPer will lose some sleep tonight.

[rug]

13. Given the reactions to his thread, he's way better off.

[okasha]

15. And after all those 1000-word essays

about not alerting on other atheists, too.

[hrmjustin]

16. Lol good point.

[Goblinmonger]

18. Glad you read A/A

Hope you enjoy yourself.

[okasha]

19. Very enlightening.

[Starboard Tack]

25. Where else would we get our light entertainment?

Not to mention inspiration from our like minded brethren.

[Starboard Tack]

107. Only "real" atheists are not to be alerted on, apparently.

The agnostics gave up a long time ago. I'm thinking there might soon be an exodus. Kinda sad, because some decent people really wanted to find a comfortable place to hang out.

[hrmjustin]

3. Thank you for posting this.

I have never felt so unwelcomed here as I have in the past 48 hours.

[CAG]

6. Ahhh, come on hrmjustin, why would anyone EVER feel like being called

delusional or mentally ill is an insult???

[hrmjustin]

7. I wonder if some realize how far they went the past few days.

Some do not realize how unwelcoming this crap was, and that is sad.

[CAG]

9. I keep wondering about people that want to start looking around DU

and be active in a DU-type community because they are starting to see the light politically, only to see a consistent group of "8-year olds" constantly demeaning their DU colleagues by calling them stupid, delusional, and mentally ill because they believe in a higher power. Talk about driving people away and re-enforcing stereotypes as those "Gawdless liberals" and false big tents!

[CAG]

10. in fact, that strategy seems to give a signal that those snarky posters

may not be quite as smart as they constantly tell us they are...

[hrmjustin]

11. Yes! This could turn people away from here and we don't want that.

We want a rigorous debate but not a war.

[Starboard Tack]

42. Classic case of intellectual entitlement common to some cliques.

Unfortunately, the atheist world is not free of the same kind of behavior we all decry in the RW Christian fundie world. The shunning has already begun. The beseeching platitudes about toeing the line come next, then the wigs will be donned as sentence is passed with great solemnity, to be followed by a great sigh from the basement.

[rug]

4. Don't worry. Nobody thinks they speak for anyone other than their own little circle.

Much as they'd have it otherwise.

BTW that was a bogus hide.

[AlbertCat]

139. Nobody thinks they speak for anyone other than their own little circle.

Really?

Do you have proof....or was this some other way of knowing?

[Htom Sirveaux]

8. Thank you for speaking up!

Your message is crystal clear.

[Jester Messiah]

14. I prefer to follow the Hitchens model.

There's no point in pretending that religion is reasonable or harmless. It is manifestly not. Now that doesn't have to mean that it has to be personal, but some people tend to take it personally when these points are raised. So it goes.

[Duppers]

17. Agreed!

Too bad I'll never see the day that the word "atheists" even needs be a label.

[cbayer]

22. OH, hogwash.

It's not that people take it personally, it's that it is meant personally.

[Jester Messiah]

29. Sometimes both.

But usually if I say "Christianity is bronze-age barbarianism and the time has long since passed that we should have evolved beyond it" I get a lot of pissed-off people taking it personally. Sorry-not-sorry, but it's the truth.

[cbayer]

36. I doubt that anyone is going to take that statement personally here.

There is a big difference between talking generally about a religion and talking about the adherents to that religion.

Your statement hits a bit of a grey area, as it implies that christians are not evolved, but it's pretty mild. Did you mean it as a personal insult?

You might get a stronger reaction in your community, I don't know.

Anyway, using "evolved" is kind of interesting. It would seem you are making some kind of statement about evolution as if we could or should control it.

[AlbertCat]

137. I doubt that anyone is going to take that statement personally here.

Really?



Huh.

[cbayer]

176. Really.

Are you just making a vacant statement or did you have something you wanted to say about that.

Huh.

[AlbertCat]

193. a vacant statement

The last time I called you out on such a similar disingenuous statement.... you freaked and reported me...y'know, "called me out"

[cbayer]

196. I freaked and reported you? Really?

Please remind me. I will be right here.

[rug]

37. I find the reasoning behind this post to be the most asinine thing I've read in a month.

Sorry-not-sorry, but it's the truth.

[Jester Messiah]

75. If that's true, you lead a "blessed" life.

Or you don't read much.

[rug]

111. I read quite a bit. I do tend to avoid the asinine though.

[Starboard Tack]

46. Gotta link? What's insulting about that?

You're just expressing an opinion. You aren't calling individuals or entire populations mentally ill. You can attack beliefs and belief systems all day long, if you wish. You might piss some people off, but that's OK, as long as you refrain from personal insults, smear campaigns and outright bigotry.

[intaglio]

27. Perhaps religion is not reasonable and (in some cases) is not harmless

But that does not necessarily apply to those who follow a faith in exactly the same way as being atheist does not imply the atheist is reasonable or harmless.

[Jester Messiah]

30. Here's how I see that:

A person can be religious without being a fundamentalist. They can say "I'm not one of those Christians who stands outside of abortion centers, screaming at women and shaming them. I'm not one of those Christians who thinks gay people ought to hide in the corners of society lest we decide to stone them like the bible says. I'm not one of those..." ad nauseam. The unspoken part is "but I legitimize their belief system." They prop up the regime of backwards barbarianism that gives rise to these behaviors. And therein lies the harm.

[cbayer]

41. Being a religious believer does not legitimize anything.

That's the same argument Dawkins is making about how moderate christians and muslims are somehow responsible for the actions of religious extremists. He says that by being nice believers, they give legitimacy to the not so nice ones.

That's a garbage argument. You are a man, right? Are you responsible for all the heinous behavior of men? You are an American, right? Are you responsible for all the bad deeds done by america? You love scotch. Are you responsible for all behavior of those that drink scotch irresponsibly?

This whole tacit endorsement argument is a huge failure.

There are large numbers of religious people and groups that are fighting back against extremism. If you are unable to differentiate sub groups within the larger group, then you are going to come up with biased and prejudiced opinions.

[trotsky]

44. Dawkins didn't say moderate believers were "responsible" for the actions of extremists.

I know that what the man actually SAYS is irrelevant when it comes to a small group of DUers who are opposed to any criticism of religious beliefs, but just so your false statement doesn't sit there uncorrected.

[Starboard Tack]

47. He said "Islam is the greatest force for evil today”

How do you interpret that?

[rug]

117. This is what he actually said:

"Once you teach people that that's a legitimate reason for believing something then you as it were give a licence to the extremists who say 'my belief is that I'm supposed to be a suicide bomber or I'm supposed to blow up buildings – it's my faith and you can't question that."

I know that what the man actually SAYS is irrelevant when it comes to a small group of DUers who are opposed to any defense of religious beliefs, but just so your false statement doesn't sit there uncorrected.

[Goblinmonger]

120. Right

Once you start saying that religious beliefs can't be questioned, you make it so that the religious beliefs of the extremists can't be questioned. What's so hard to understand about that?

[rug]

122. It's easy to understand. The fact that it's understandable doesn't make it any less bullshit.

And your paraphrase is not what he said.

I'll make it easy.

What he said:

"Once you teach people that that's a legitimate reason for believing something then you as it were give a licence to the extremists who say 'my belief is that I'm supposed to be a suicide bomber or I'm supposed to blow up buildings – it's my faith and you can't question that."

What you say he said.

"Once you start saying that religious beliefs can't be questioned, you make it so that the religious beliefs of the extremists can't be questioned."

Words matter. Don't skew them.

[Goblinmonger]

128. How is my paraphrase fundamentally different?

I think I did a pretty good job.

[rug]

130. Dawkins' emphasis is that mainstream religious belief enables extremist beliefs.

The non-questioning part is a throw-on. The enabling part is what you left out.

[Goblinmonger]

134. It enables them

because it creates an atmosphere where people are not allowed to question things because they are religious beliefs. Once religious beliefs are protected, they are all protected.

[rug]

135. That is as illogical as it is untrue.

Praying the rosary leads to beheading.

[AtheistCrusader]

140. Today, or late 1700's France?

[rug]

141. Robespierre had more to do with beheadings than the Cure of Ars.

[AtheistCrusader]

142. Hmm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution#mediaviewer/File:Troisordres.jpg

[rug]

143. I see. Robespierre was forced to employ the guillotine.

I may be wrong but I suspect there are a few intervening steps absent.

[AtheistCrusader]

144. I feel the Guillotine was a consequence, not the prime suspect.

A bit of a philosophical difference, I suppose. But I do note, the contemporaries called the Church the 'First Estate' implying something even over the nobility.

[rug]

145. There's no doubt the church had a privileged position in France, a privileged political position.

That doesn't make religious belief the proximate cause of serial beheadings.

That would be like claiming Alfred Krupp was the cause of World War One.

[AtheistCrusader]

148. It factored large in the impoverishment of the nation.

Which has consequences.

One of them, the forcible dechristianisation of France.

[rug]

150. For one thing, any set of circumstances can have multiple and contradictory consequences.

There is neither logic nor inevitability about any outcome. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is not an argument.

For a second thing, the alleged dechristianization of France failed.

For a third thing, even assuming dechristianization was a desiderata, the use of force was simply one choice among many.

But I'll play Dawkins' game of illogic. Since you accept that moderate religious believers enable, and hence are complicit in, serial beheadings and various acts of terror, does not the force of logic compel the forced removal of religious belief from society?

[AtheistCrusader]

153. My morals prevent me from initiating force in anything other than self defense.

So I guess it depends on whether you consider this self-defense.

[rug]

154. Your morals are illogical.

[AtheistCrusader]

156. Do tell.

(Including defense of others who consent.)

[AtheistCrusader]

49. None of those analogies are valid.

Humanity provably exists.
America provably exists.
Scotch provably exists.


God does not. Moderates lend SOME level of credence to extremists, by believing and insisting that god exists, by begging or skipping the question entirely. Which, instead of critically examining that question, we end up skipping on to 'what did god actually say', which is really hard to determine when honestly no one has proven that god exists to say anything at all.

You've insisted in the past that we should not question belief in god, but that comes part and parcel with what people believe god wants them to do/say/believe about (X).

I have a defense mechanism against what fundamentalists believe their god commands; I don't believe in god. Take away my mechanism to question the very existence of their god, and I have a lot of trouble proving their god didn't say what they say he said.

[trotsky]

53. Well, cbayer's answer to that seems to be that...

we can only cheer the religious expression we approve of, and jeer what we don't.

Anything beyond that gets you branded an evil demon anti-theist and instantly blocked from the clubhouse should you try to speak there.

[cbayer]

54. I totally reject your premise. I think it's a total fail as an argument

and is only meant to attack all religious when there is really only cause to attack some.

You and Dawkins can have it and sing it until you lose your voice.

If you think for one moment that this argument will ever sway a single individual away from their religion, you are living in a fantasy. It is solely a way to denigrate all believers, even if they are on your side.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. How do I discriminate between what one group of religious people say god said, and another group?

If we skip the question of whether god exists at all, who the hell am I supposed to believe? What makes one claim right and another wrong, when we are already so deep in unverifiable territory?

[cbayer]

62. Can you not ask yourself if someone's position is consistent with your own

and then endorse or reject them? You do not need to determine what is religiousy true. You don't even believe in that.

The problem is that if the source is religious, then I think you have a tendency to reject the idea in a reflexive way that requires no thought.

You don't have to believe anyone. You just need to determine whether they are on your team without regard as to whether they are religious or not.

That is being open-minded. The alternative is prejudiced.

Do you really find it that hard to decide which is right and which is wrong when it comes to Westboro and the "God Loves Gays" campaign?

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Let's go back to abortion.

There's a numerically large group of fundamentalists that are in very real danger of making abortion illegal again. They have practically strangled it entirely in two states. They have done so because of their religious convictions that it is murder.

So this is not a simple matter of 'is it consistent with my position', it is a matter of self-defense. Whether I believe them is irrelevant, what they are able to leverage legislatively amongst themselves is highly relevant.

It is not prejudice to demand that people making such claims and such leaps, and such legislative/lobbying efforts actually source their claim, and show that it is what they say it is.

I think the 'god loves gays' sign is a nice gesture, and I like to see more of it. But it's just one aspect of one issue.

[cbayer]

68. Not buying. You didn't answer a single one of my questions.

I have taken note of a pattern in your debating style. Instead of responding when you are in a tight spot, you completely change the direction.

That's pretty effective at putting others on the defensive, but it really absolves you of any responsibility for defending your indefensible position.

So, I'm not going there with you. If you can't respond to my post, then we can shake hands and go our separate ways.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Let me demonstrate why you frustrate me so often when we break down issues like this.

Line by line:

"Can you not ask yourself if someone's position is consistent with your own and then endorse or reject them?"
No, because this is, ostensibly, a political discussion board. Discussing politics. I am illustrating WHY I cannot simply 'endorse or reject them.'

"You do not need to determine what is religiousy true. You don't even believe in that."
I do. I used the Abortion example to highlight WHY I must determine what is religiously true. If for no other reason than to seek out political allies that are also religious.

"So this is not a simple matter of 'is it consistent with my position', it is a matter of self-defense. Whether I believe them is irrelevant, what they are able to leverage legislatively amongst themselves is highly relevant."

Everything I say here is in context with this site being a political discussion board.

"The problem is that if the source is religious, then I think you have a tendency to reject the idea in a reflexive way that requires no thought."

If it's an unsupported premise, yes. And I do not limit that to religion. I do the same with people who make environmental or economic claims that are also unfounded.

"You don't have to believe anyone. You just need to determine whether they are on your team without regard as to whether they are religious or not."

Going back to the matter of self-defense, if I can show their god doesn't make the claims they say it does, I can undermine their claim, and hopefully weaken support on their side.

"There's a numerically large group of fundamentalists that are in very real danger of making abortion illegal again. They have practically strangled it entirely in two states. They have done so because of their religious convictions that it is murder."

Supporting the 'right team' isn't enough. We are LOSING in straight up numerical contests nationwide and we have lost many times on SC appointment litmus tests. With all the horrible consequences that entails.

"That is being open-minded. The alternative is prejudiced."
I explicitly answered this.

"It is not prejudice to demand that people making such claims and such leaps, and such legislative/lobbying efforts actually source their claim, and show that it is what they say it is."

"Do you really find it that hard to decide which is right and which is wrong when it comes to Westboro and the "God Loves Gays" campaign?"
I explicitly answered this.

"I think the 'god loves gays' sign is a nice gesture, and I like to see more of it. But it's just one aspect of one issue."

I have EXPLICITLY addressed most of your point, and shown quite clearly why your effort to frame this as simple 'endorse or not' isn't enough. I don't know what else I can do to spell this out for your. I am on a political discussion board. All of my responses must needs be related to that political discussion context. 'Can't you just pick one' isn't a relevant question to me.

[cleanhippie]

192. "Everything I say here is in context with this site being a political discussion board."

Bingo! So many seem to forget that.

I applaud your efforts, AC, but I think you are engaging in an exercise in futility. For all the talk about "open minds" and "not picking teams", your adversary is thoroughly entrenched in her position. To quote the movie Predator: she's "dug in like an Alabama tick."

[Lordquinton]

161. Today on Poe or not...

[cbayer]

177. Agree, I sometimes wonder some members here are Poe's.

It would be the only clear way to understand their overt hatred towards people simply because they hold religious beliefs.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Also, the point of that question was not to 'sway individuals away from religion'.

I think Dawkins is nibbling around the edges of a very valid line of inquiry here, at least to illustrate why people like me tend to view a relationship between the 'fundamentalists' and the mainstream, however one chooses to define them.

They claim the same bedrock, and simultaneously claim to occupy the 'god said' space, which I cannot verify.

[Jester Messiah]

74. It's not a matter of denigration of, rather defense against.

I personally don't care if you believe the sun is sentient and wants you to get a suntan. But if you start attacking albinos as abominations or mandating that pale people have less rights than tan folk, then we have a problem. Religion has no place, NO PLACE in law or legal proceedings.

[cbayer]

175. We share the secular beliefs that you express.

I am totally with you in wanting to keep religion out of our laws and legal proceedings.

I also am completely with you when it comes to drawing the line when people's beliefs start impacting on the rights of others, and I would include in that the right to hold whatever religious believes they have.

I don't think we have a problem at all.

[Jester Messiah]

189. Hooray for common ground! [nt]

[Starboard Tack]

61. Of course God exists. He/She/It exists in people's minds, in their consciences.

There is an enormous difference between "God existing" and "believing in God".
I don't believe in God, but He still exists for the believers.

If someone attempt to define God, then we can challenge such a definition. If a fundamentalist tells me that God sits on a cloud behind a set of pearly gates, which are manned by an angel called Gabriel, then I'm going to take issue with that, but if a Taoist, or an animist, or whoever tells me he finds God in everything he can touch and see and everything beyond his touch and sight, then I have no argument. My issue is with finite definitions of God.

There is no generic God. Everyone's take is different.

Now religion is a whole other ball of wax.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Then that makes everyone's claims of 'what god commanded' equally valid.

If that's as 'real' as god is, it makes god whatever people claim, including the folks you and I would agree are crazy fundamentalists.

I'm not following your line of logic to a 'good' place here. It actually casts increased doubt upon 'mainstream' believers.

[Starboard Tack]

71. That comes from a very narrow definition of God

Even among main stream Christians, the 10 Commandments are not taken seriously. I remember when I was going to confirmation classes, back in the dark ages, my vicar said there are only 3 commandments that really count

Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness

And those are the only 3 that stuck with me. I have broken all the others, especially the coveting. I think it is normal and healthy to covet. Parents must earn respect and honor, same as everyone else, and IMO, all the rest range between drivel and offensive.

We all have our own private "gods", or voices, who command us to do certain things, like standing up for oneself and not taking shit from people, or treating others with the same kind of respect we like to receive.
If some people want to accept a predefined, manufactured version of God, then that is their prerogative. If they want to eat at KFC and shop at Walmart, that is their prerogative too. All I know for sure about the Bible is that it is a book, or collection of books. No more, no less. I also know that paper never refuses ink.

[Warren Stupidity]

98. That is just conflating a claim that a supernatural deity exists with the idea that such an

entity exists, and then claiming that merely having an idea of a thing establishes the thing's existence. That is a rather dishonest position. It is also useless. There are obvious examples of why such a construct is ridiculous. I have the idea that I won powerball for 100 million dollars. The idea exists in my head, the 100 million dollars, not so much.

[Starboard Tack]

105. Warren, here's a tip from an old sailor.

If you want to go swimming in deep water and you don't know where the rocks are, it might be a good idea to paddle back to shore.

[AtheistCrusader]

113. How does one paddle while swimming?

There's some sort of quantum superposition issue here, whether we are swimming or boating...

[Starboard Tack]

118. One doesn't. One either swims or paddles, as in walks.

If you can't swim in deep water, but want to give the impression you can, then it's a good idea to learn where all the rocks are, so that when you realize how way out of your depth you are and it gets scary, you can paddle quickly ashore, take a bow and head off to the nearest knitting group, catch your breath, discuss the latest patterns on delusionism and take a well deserved nap.

[AtheistCrusader]

119. ...walks?

Fuck, now I am confused.

[Starboard Tack]

125. Must be an English thing. Have you never gone paddling at the seaside?

paddle
verb (WALK) /ˈpæd.l̩/ UK (US wade)
› to walk with no shoes or socks on through water that is not very deep, often at the edge of the sea:

I'm reverting to my roots, the longer I'm not living in the US.

[AtheistCrusader]

126. That is an entirely new expression to me.

Fascinating.

[Starboard Tack]

127. We learn something new every day

We're living in Italy at the moment. I used to live here in the sixties and seventies and hadn't been back in over 30 years. I'm fluent in Italian, but am having to learn a whole new vocabulary for all the things that have come on line since then, like computers and cellphones and a host of other things. It's like getting off a time machine. Language is such a fluid thing.

[Warren Stupidity]

116. So you have nothing but insults. Good on you. Always predictable.

[Starboard Tack]

124. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Good advice never hurts. You don't have to take it.
Just think, Warren, you could wake up tomorrow and decide to be nice to people, even believers. Put on a happy face and say "Good morning!", without worrying about whether he's part of the 90+% of delusional people that surround you.
Trust me, it's a wonderful feeling. Use all that energy you have and make people laugh, instead of trying to convince them they are mentally ill. If you need an obsession, that's OK, but find a positive one that lifts people up, rather than trashing them for their beliefs. It's really not that bad out here. Come play.

[Logical]

169. This was alerted......LOL.......lost 0-7......someone must not like you.......

On Wed Aug 20, 2014, 07:33 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=147987

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Poster has along string of insults and when called out on it responds with more insult, claiming they are "good advice" poster is a known trouble maker in this and other groups.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Aug 20, 2014, 07:49 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry my insult meter just doesn't light up on this one.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Is this a serious alert?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Starboard Tack]

197. Now, why would anyone not like me?

I think someone's trigger finger got itchy? Obviously they meant to alert on someone else.

[Warren Stupidity]

170. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the idea of x is the same as x, where x is not an idea.

But it seems instead you wish to avoid actually defending that nonsense. Perhaps you believe that nobody can see through your extraordinary posting powers. That is an interesting idea, it has little to do with the reality of the situation.

As usual, when an actual discussion might break out, a certain faction here heads for the hills.

[Lordquinton]

162. so you take umbrage with definitions of god that conflict with your own?

Very interesting.

[Starboard Tack]

166. Nope. I don't have a definition. To me any God that might exist is infinite (not definable)

But I accept that everyone has his own and that is his business, not mine.
If you want to define God, that's up to you. But I'm not buying, 'cos I'm not in the market.

[Warren Stupidity]

171. "infinite (not definable)"

lots of things that are infinite are quite readily defined.

But I digress, how is the idea of something identical with the existence of that thing?

[Starboard Tack]

181. "lots of things that are infinite are quite readily defined."

Priceless!
And you wonder why I don't respond to this gibberish

That is just conflating a claim that a supernatural deity exists with the idea that such an

entity exists, and then claiming that merely having an idea of a thing establishes the thing's existence. That is a rather dishonest position. It is also useless. There are obvious examples of why such a construct is ridiculous. I have the idea that I won powerball for 100 million dollars. The idea exists in my head, the 100 million dollars, not so much.

Here's a clue Warren. IDEAS EXIST. They are real. Good ideas, bad ideas, even your ideas exist. Your ideas probably seem real to you, just as mine may seem real to me. How real is up to the individual. Some people's obsessions are real too. Deal with it.

[Jester Messiah]

73. Exactly right

By giving credence to the idea that some unprovable self-justifying force is out there demanding that its followers do things, they open the door to the possibility that, just maybe, that force DID tell a person to go kill gay people. Further, that if that force did indeed give such a demand, that the demand was inherently justified.

[cbayer]

178. YOur definition of god is very narrow and can't be applied to all believers at all.

If your definition were true, you might have a reasonable argument, but you are completely off the mark. Where did you get the idea that most believers think that god is out there demanding that it's followers do specific things? Is that just a belief you have based on faith?

[Jester Messiah]

188. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

They aren't called the "10 Suggestions" or the "10 Good Ideas." Commandments, as in "do this or get smote." And half the old testament is laws, the other half is God coming down hard on those who broke the laws or otherwise thumbed their nose at him (or the old men he sent on his behalf.) And if you're going to say "but Jesus," let me remind you that big J said "not one jot or tittle of the law" would pass away. (Matt 5:18.)

So that's Christianity and Judaism covered. Islam builds on the same foundation, as does Mormonism. So if by "very narrow" you mean "all of the Abrahamic religions" then I suppose you have a point. The Abrahamic god has a whole lot of specific demands. Not sure what Buddha and Vishnu have got going, I haven't made a study of them and I live in the wrong part of the world to get it culturally.

[cbayer]

194. Pull what other one? What bells?

Which of the commandments do you object to exactly?

Are you also a biblical literalist? Wow you guys are spreading like a virus.

Again, your take on religion is very narrow and very dogmatic. I guess that is what one can expect from a person who titles themselves a messiah, even if just a jester.

BTW, Darwin would have not supported the position you are taking or your attitude towards those who do not share your beliefs. So I guess you just embrace the parts of him that make sense to you.

Sort of like most people who believe in god.

[Jester Messiah]

203. Leg. As in "You're pulling my leg, right?"

It's not my religion. If you don't believe your own holy book, how can you say you believe in the religion? If parts of the book aren't true, or aren't to be taken seriously, then why not the rest of it?

As to which commandments I object to, let's see... 1 through 4 are just God being a prima donna. Honoring your parents is fine if they're worth honoring, but parents are just people and some of them are really bad ones. So I think people should feel free to call their parents out on it if they're being bad people. Aside from that, I'll covet any damn thing I please. It might motivate me to work hard so I can get my own whatever-it-is. And while I'm not personally looking to commit adultery, I did shamelessly engage in pre-marital sex and wouldn't think of dissuading anyone else from doing so. It's their bodies, let them do as they please. Same goes for people in open relationships.

So of the big 10 C's, I think the only ones I'm really on board with are don't kill, don't steal, don't bear false witness. Three out of ten.

[cbayer]

204. My husband informs me that this is a british expression.

I don't have a holy book or a religion. Your assumption that I do is part of your distorted view of things.

Ok, you object to the 10 commandments because you think god is a prima donna and most of the others are just bullshit. That's cool. No one expects you to follow them, other than those that have been codified.

[Jester Messiah]

207. Okay, depersonalize it then. Theists (not you) have a religion with holy texts or the like.

If they can pick and choose which bits are to be followed and which are untrue or irrelevant, what's to say that the whole thing shouldn't be tossed into the latter pile?

And yet (to come back around to an earlier point) by subscribing to the religion they legitimize it. They say "I don't follow it to the letter, but the letters are valid" and that provides cover for fundamentalists. By saying that some ancient words in an ancient book devolve from some self-justifying Power, and that therefore it behooves people to follow those directives, they justify keeping that ancient barbarian mindset around.

What we should be doing is saying "you know, those ancient people might not have known that slavery, misogyny, bigotry, and genocide were wrong, but we can advance beyond their understanding and live in a better way." But so long as people think that those ancient laws condoning such were divinely inspired, they can't allow anyone else to advance beyond them because to do so is to hold oneself above their god, which is against the prima donna section of the commandments.

[cbayer]

208. My argument is that they must pick and choose.

Taking the bible literally is not only a mistake, it's impossible. While each individual may pick and choose differently, it's the using your own noggin to discern what makes sense to you and what doesn't that is important.

Why would that lead to the conclusion that the whole thing should be tossed? Why such an absolute position? Let's leave that to the fundamentalists, whaddayasay?

Christianity is a huge tent. Islam is a huge tent. and on and on and on. Each individual should be judged or evaluated on how their religious identification is expressed, on how they behave, on how their religious beliefs influence the way they treat others.

I will never, ever agree with you or others who make this "enabling" or "providing cover" argument. It's not based on reason, but on belief. It is the kind of absolutism that should be left to the religious fundamentalists and not adopted by non-believing ones.

You can say whatever you want about your own beliefs, but you can't say what "we" should be doing. YOu need to open your brain to what is really going on out in the world. It is loaded with progressive/liberal religious believers who share your position on slavery, misogyny, bigotry and genocide.

They are your allies, not your enemies.

[Jester Messiah]

209. But they can't do that if they believe that the bible is the Word of God.

Which of God's Words do they keep and which do they disregard? Of the ones that are disregarded, why are they okay to disregard? Was God wrong? Did He change his mind? If He changed his mind, why did He not let people know? And if it turns out that some of what was regarded to be God's Word is not, after all, divine... then is it not possible that none of it is, or indeed ever was to begin with? Or, if you can disregard God's Word with impunity, then what is the point of it being there?

As to your statement that you will "never, ever agree", why do you close your mind to possibilities? If there is new evidence or arguments that prove logical, is it not the duty of a thinking, reasoning mind to adapt to reality?

[cbayer]

210. Sure they can. You are talking only about literalists.

Others clearly understand that the books were written by humans and contain a lot of things that must be read with regard to cultural context. They may believe that god inspired it or guided it or something else, but only a strict literalist would say it is all infallible. And their position would be untenable.

Where do you get these strict and rigid ideas. Have you been exposed to anything other than a fundamentalist religious group?

Look, I'm going to leave you with your fundamentalism. You are not going to find anyone here who takes the position that you say they must. The believers on this site are much more reasonable and rational and able to think than the dogmatic platitudes which you attribute to believers in general.

Adapt to reality? I guess you know the one way, but your proselytizing is not going to save me.

[Jester Messiah]

211. I'm an atheist, not a fundamentalist. I'm not trying to save you from anything.

I'm glad we agree that the position that the bible is God's own holy word is untenable. Now, if the bible is the word of man, and therefore fallible, and the ideas and concepts contained therein are subject to update and trial by evidence, then why not the concept of God as a whole? Isn't it much more likely that the whole thing is a pile of ancient ravings best consigned to history?

[cbayer]

212. One can be both an atheist and a fundamentalist.

I could point some out to you if you are interested.

It's the rigidity and the dogma and the absolute belief that one is right and everyone else is wrong that makes one a fundamentalist.

How can you make the argument that because something is flawed that makes it likely that the entire thing is totally bogus?

That is your conclusion, you don't get to conclude that for anyone else. Why do you care whether people find meaning in the bible? Why do you want them to just throw the whole thing out?

Object to the parts that are not consistent with your own beliefs and positions and ignore the rest if you want, but it's not an entirely bad set of books. There is some pretty good stuff in there whether you believe it is sacred or not.

[Jester Messiah]

213. It's not just flawed, it's founded on flaws.

The entire foundation that the thing is built on is fraudulent. If it's god's word, then you're supposed to listen. If it's not, then how do you tell what is or isn't divine? If there's no way to know, then your safest bet is to treat the whole thing as a unified block which either is or is not divine. That puts you back at square one: is it or is it not God's Word, and if it is, then how do you justify discarding any of it?

I don't see how it can be called "pretty good stuff" either. It purports to mandate the laws and morality to which its followers must adhere, with no more authority than "because this guy said so and if you don't do as he says he'll kill you, then torture your ghost and curse your descendents." Oh, but he doesn't have to follow his own rules. It's okay when HE does it. Notwithstanding that there is no proof of said guy existing, but that doesn't stop his representatives from taking full advantage of the "flock."

[cbayer]

214. That is your opinion. You really seem to need to come to terms with that.

You don't know. You have no standing to declare the bible fraudulent.

You have an opinion, one that is shared by some and rejected by many. You can not know what is and what is not divine, because you don't' believe in the divine.

Why would you hold others to a standard that you yourself reject. Is it that important to you to be right and for them to be wrong?

If you do not believe in god, why on earth would you concern yourself with what is or is not god's word? Leave it alone.

Jeez. You have it bad. It's always telling when an anti-theist gives themselves a name mocking religion. But that is your problem, and no one else's.

I think you might want to consider actually getting to know some liberal/progressive religious people. You know how it goes when people actually start to interact with those of a different color, or nationality, or sexual identity? The same thing can happen with religion.

Just don't be surprised when they don't fit your stereotype. Open minds, and all that.

[Jester Messiah]

215. LOL. When presented with logic, the theist replies "that's your opinion."

I leave you to your confusion.

[cbayer]

216. The theist? Who are you directing that to.

I don't think like you, so I must be a theist.

Sorry, sir, it is you who will be left to your confusion.

[Jester Messiah]

217. :-)

[cbayer]

218. Of course you don't believe me. I don't fit your narrow frame of reference,

which apparently applies to both believers and non-believers.

It's a dangerous path to call people liars just because they don't share your perspective.

But when you add such a cute .gif, it makes it all so much better.

[stone space]

76. I'm an atheist. A skeptic.

Thousands of people have died because of an imaginary line on the map.

America provably exists.

I'm not sure that I'm prepared to accept this without evidence, any more that I will accept the notion that a God or Gods exists.

I contend that the existence of "America" and especially of that deadly imaginary line, is an illusion.

Or perhaps I should say, a delusion.

And a delusion that has caused thousands of deaths as a preexisting flow of human beings was purposely funneled deeper and deeper into the desert over the years.

People whose ancestors have moved back and forth across that imaginary line for many thousands of years, and continues to this day.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. It's a social construct.

Some of the things it claims to stand for are clearly a delusion, sure. But the social construct we call America exists, and if you deny that and say, don't pay your taxes, or try to take some of it's claimed territory, or make the mistake of having oil and a different political social construct not friendly to the US, you risk jail, death, or invasion in response by a frighteningly real 'delusion' with police and military adherents of the best-equipped nature on the planet.

[stone space]

78. Let me get this straight. It's not a delusion if people die?

you risk jail, death, or invasion in response by a frighteningly real 'delusion'

[AtheistCrusader]

80. No, I mean it actually exists.

You can find actual contemporary artifacts of it's creation and existence in many museums around the country, but most of them are actually in Washington DC.

It's a social construct with not just domestically accepted, but internationally recognized force of law, and a body of people who operate, and exist under it.

'God' is not. A theocracy might exist under a particular claim of 'god', but it would be 'real', even if the god isn't, for the same reasons.

[stone space]

82. That border doesn't exist. It's just an imaginary line.

I'll grant you that there may exist a human institution (which you call "America&quot which both you and I are a part of and which is quite willing to kill thousands of people for the sake of that imaginary line.

But that imaginary line itself is a delusion, albeit a delusion which the human institution that you and I are a part of is willing to kill for by the thousands.

But some folks might say that that imaginary line is a False God. And that worshiping at it's alter is a form of Idolatry.

Whatever else may be the case, that imaginary line is a Vengeful God, indeed.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. You can't see it from space, sure.

Well, in some cases, you can see borders for the economic effectiveness of the countries on either side, but i'm just hedging objections there.

But that border is spelled out explicitly between nations on either side, with very precise agreed dimensions, surveyed, and monument markers along its length.

Incursions on either side are unwelcome and reacted to by the social constructs we call governments.

So, no it's not actually a delusion, it's the agreed will of a large pack of humans that have at some point agreed to and fixed that line in place. There are even processes to contest its placement.

[stone space]

89. I remain a skeptic. An atheist.

But I'm not trying to convince theists who believe in the existence of that God you call the border.

You see it as real, and I see it as imaginary. That's OK.

I'm happy to join with theists in the struggle to curb the deaths that result from that (real or imaginary) God.

Because, in the end, whether or not you agree with me that that God is a delusion really doesn't matter.

What matters is whether or not we are able to work together towards a common goal.

We may speak different languages when talking about that God, whether my atheistic language denying it's existence or your theistic language affirming its existence.

But if we have a common goal, does the fact that we speak different languages when talking about it really matter? I mean, some of the folks who we'll both be working with probably speak Spanish, and I don't see that as any less of a communication barrier.

Atheists and theists may speak different languages, and may have different subcultures, but that doesn't mean that we can't work together.

We can quibble about each others' languages and cultures, or we can work together on a common problem created by an institution that we both belong to and share responsibility for.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. I can suggest some tests by which you can prove for yourself if the border is real.

A couple of them might result in you testing Canadian or Mexican jail food, however.

I'd lean Canadian, if I had to choose...

[stone space]

99. Sure, the churches have jails, but...

...that in and of itself does not imply that their Gods are real.

But again, I'm not attempting to convince you to become an atheist when it comes to the border God.

It's OK if we speak different languages about it.

What matters is what we do about it, and that doesn't require that we resolve every religious/philosophical/linguistic quibble we might have between us.

We can understand each other well enough to work together, even while using different languages to describe the problem.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. I've seen the monument markers myself.

I've seen some of the legal documents that give at least one of the nations party to the border agreement legal force among it's citizens.

This is all semantics around whether an 'idea' is real. Not being a nihilist, I believe that governments are 'real' in a sense that to date, no god has yet been demonstrated to be real.

This does not rule out the possibility of a future demonstration, of course.

[stone space]

106. No it's not. That's just a quibble...

...about how you and I use language, and is quite irrelevant to much of importance here.

This is all semantics around whether an 'idea' is real.

We're just speaking different languages and coming from different subcultures, that's all.

But we both understand each other well enough to be able to communicate effectively, despite a minor difference in how we use language to describe it.

My point is that the language differences, while perhaps interesting, is irrelevant to our ability to work together.

I've seen the monument markers myself.

I've seen some of the legal documents that give at least one of the nations party to the border agreement legal force among it's citizens.

We both have some experience with that border, it seems, whether it is imaginary or real.

In my case, we have a God-Daughter who moved to California a few years ago when her father was picked up on a traffic violation and deported to Mexico.

Our God-Daughter's Aunt, who had lived in California for many years, felt the need to travel to Mexico to visit her family there, who she had not seen in over a decade.

On her way back, her Aunt called from just south of the border, saying that she would be home soon.

That was in June of 2005, if I recall correctly.

Our God-Daughter is still waiting for her Aunt to arrive home.

To me, the fact that we use different languages to describe it is pretty minor in the big scheme of things.

The border God is a vengeful God, indeed.

And we are both a part of that church called "America".

[AtheistCrusader]

108. You just told the story of the actual effect of the physical reality of our southern border.

If the border didn't exist, she'd be home.

(I personally advocate making modifications to that border concept/reality, by the by, for reasons such as this.)

[stone space]

112. No I haven't.

I've told the story about an imaginary line drawn on a map and promoted to a Diety by the Church of America.

I've told a story of the penalty for violating the rules of a church with a vengeful God.

That church has power in the real world, whether or not the God it worships exists as a material physical entity.

[AtheistCrusader]

114. The American government has material physical presence that cannot be demonstrated of any god

to date. This analogy is so tortured, I can smell Dick Cheney from here...

[stone space]

121. We disagree. I'm an atheist. A skeptic.

I believe that the border God is an imaginary line drawn on a map.

You haven't convinced me, and I haven't convinced you.

But I'm not trying to proselytize you, and I would hope that you aren't trying to proselytize me.

We can both use our own respective languages and still communicate.

We need to stop focusing in the trivialities of our linguistic and cultural differences, however interesting they might be in an academic setting, and try to understand where we can make common ground.

The linguistic thingie doesn't need to get resolved. That's not necessary.

There's nothing to win here except in finding common ground where it exists.

That's pretty much the case in many threads here in this forum, at least the issue related ones, which at a site like DU are likely to be quite numerous.

[AtheistCrusader]

123. Border control is a function of the United States Congress, as spelled out in the United States

Constitution, the charter documentation of which, complete with signatures of a bunch of dead guys, can be located in Washington DC, inside a case, in a building.

It is a physical reality, which can be demonstrated, though it may require beer and travel money to observe the physical evidence, including the various graves of the humans that created that charter.

Whether it is right, or just, or applicable today, is a matter for debate. But the entity itself is real, and the source evidence of its creation is discoverable to you.

[stone space]

129. You are welcome to your beliefs.

Again, I'm not convinced by your arguments (and indeed have difficulty even understanding their relevance to the question), but I'm not trying to proselyte you.

I'm talking about the issue of the border God, not the minor distinctions of the differences in our use of language.

As long as we can get past the superficial surface stuff and communicate about the real issue, I'm happy, even if we speak different languages and use different imagery.

I was tempted to jump down to a comment of yours below, but I think I'll just paste it here instead, because I think this really gets to how we are getting stuck here:

"because I cannot verify any claim that is not spelled out explicitly in the source documentation they use."

It's not a matter of telling the difference between the camps, it's a matter of validating the claims made.

Here's the thing. I don't need to "verify" your claims, and you don't need to "verify" mine.

That's just the superficial linguistic stuff.

And it's not going to happen, anyway.

But since we can still understand each other and communicate about this issue or that issue, that's OK. We can still find common ground.

We need to stop trying to "verify" our differences in language, culture, and imagery, and start trying to understand each other well enough to enable communication across the linguistic gulf.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. You made an assertion.

"Thousands of people have died because of an imaginary line on the map."

The borders of the United States are more than just a line on a map, if you have ever experienced passage over it. I have, many times, and have witnessed both the physical and legal realities of it. Even deep in the back ass woods of northern Montana, without actual border crossing guards/shacks, being an undefended border, there is still a physical reality to it.

I can't make you accept that, but I can't respect your position that it is imaginary either.

It is an idea and a physical reality.

"I'm talking about the issue of the border God, not the minor distinctions of the differences in our use of language."

There is no 'border god', there is a physical AND legal reality of a border that is the policy of a real social construct known as the United States Government, and the Mexican Government or Canadian Government. That border policy doesn't give rise to itself, and does not stand on its own. It is a construct of the Congress, itself a construct of the Constitution and the body of people from which and by which it was raised to govern. You can find the physical factual realities of all of these things. They exist. They can be proven. The bodies of the people who did that creation can by and large be found and examined. Their effects have even been preserved.

I understand the objection to a non-physical entity being 'real', except that there is evidence for the mechanisms that created that entity, spelled out in excruciating detail, for us to examine and verify. A body of evidence that is not examinable for supernatural entities.

[stone space]

136. I'm not sure what ...

...you are trying to convince me of here, unless you are trying to talk me out of my atheism regarding the border God.

If that is the case, then I'm not interested, as I'm not trying to proselytize anybody.

[AtheistCrusader]

138. I think you're fucking with me.

[stone space]

151. I think you are obsessing...

...over differences in language and culture to the detriment of what is important both morally and politically.

You can't seem to get beyond such minor differences to get to more important stuff.

I think that this will make interfaith or intercultural collaboration difficult, since there will always be differences in the use of language between folks of different religions and between those religious folks and atheists.

You seem to want one "side" to "win" first (by one "side" "verifying" the other from "original sources" or vis versa), before moving on to the important issues in which collaboration is desired.

The problem is that neither "side" is going to "win", so your effort amounts in practice to a stalling tactic, whether intentional or not.

Since one "side" "winning" is a prerequisite to progress, and since this is not a situation in which one "side" is going to "win", the interfaith collaboration is destined to be put off indefinitely and will never happen.

[AtheistCrusader]

155. In posts 108 and 103 I offered you two collaborative 'outs' that you did not take.

So... then.

[stone space]

160. Oh, I saw those and responded, ...

...but I'm not looking for an "out".

It just seems difficult for both of us to use our respective languages without coming back to the issue of whose language is the "true" language.

I suppose that this is a problem for interfaith or intercultural efforts in general, but folks do get beyond it and stay there at times.

I'm reminded of the gay rights thread this morning. (I don't recall if you were there or not.)

When I se a billboard that says "God Loves Gays", I have enough experience dealing with religious folks to be able to understand the significance of it, even as an atheist.

I was somewhat surprised to find that some folks took it as some kind of challenge to atheists to quibble about he literal existence of God.

From a Christian point of view, I suspect that it never occurred to them that atheists would interpret it that way.

Especially since the God in question has a facebook account from which he organized it all.

Yet, some atheists were quibbling about the literal accuracy of the statement, missing entirely that it was an expression of support for gay rights and intended as pushback to the Phelps Clan and their fellow travelers.

I mean, seriously? We're going to second guess God? Why not just go on facebook and ask him?

Sheesh!

Isn't it enough for Progressive Christians to argue their case to their fellow Christians?

Do they really need atheists arguing disingenuously with them that God really hates F**s?

I mean, what's up with that?

As an atheist, I can't even figure out what it means.

[okasha]

147. I live on that imaginary line,

and can stand right on it and not see it. I can see the assertion that it's real as exemplified by Bush's Iron Curtain, but that's all it is--an assertion. The people, the language, the culture and the landscape are indistinguishable for as far as my senses reach, and far beyond even that.

[AtheistCrusader]

149. Really? I've seen tons of border monument markers.

I bumped one with my boat once. They even put up buoys to mark it.

An example of the physical reality of that border:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cuskey/4773250572/in/pool-1895710@N22/

[okasha]

152. Like Bush's Iron Curtain,

those markers are not the border but the assertion that the imaginary line is real. Obviously, the border is real to you because you give it credence and respect the authority of those who claim it exists other than in your/their minds.

[AtheistCrusader]

157. I happen to both appreciate its reality, and casually disregard it.

[Starboard Tack]

205. I can smell it from across the pond. LOL

This analogy and sub-thread is taking you for a walk on the wild side. Nevertheless, quite entertaining

[Starboard Tack]

201. That border is America's shame.

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free

Unless they actually fit that description. Nice one America! Land of the brave Home of the free.

Where's the politician with the cojones to say "Tear down that wall, Uncle Sam!"?

[Starboard Tack]

199. Governments are real as long as enough people believe in them

Same with nation states. Same with religions. Monument markers and pieces of paper do not legitimize any of them. Only the people can do that.

[AtheistCrusader]

200. That is why I have repeatedly referred to it as a social construct.

[Starboard Tack]

202. I get that. Hopefully, we're on the same page here.

[cbayer]

179. Why would you lean Canadian? just curious.

[AtheistCrusader]

182. Harper's government threw billions at the canadian prison/jail system in a hysterical

thrashing about to be tough on crime, even though crime is at historic lows.

Apparently they have the best detention system food program in the world. A ... interesting honor.

[cbayer]

183. Perhaps, but all things being relative, I would choose Mexican food over Canadian.

[AtheistCrusader]

184. Even in jail?

I think being a captive consumer in a system on a budget would change the dynamic of that analysis.

[cbayer]

185. I've eaten cheap mexican food and cheap canadian food, and I would choose the mexican food.

Budget or no budget, some cultures are just not known for their cuisine while others are.

Plus, I am really trying to become fluent in spanish.

[Starboard Tack]

198. I'd go Mexican. No contest.

[ZombieHorde]

88. How do we prove America exists?

Is it a property of matter or energy? Have there been peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate its existence? Does it exist simply because people say it exists?

Seems more like a belief than a fact to me. A mistaken belief, but just as valid as a religious claim.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. It exists in the same sense any contract exists.

And for the same reasons, with the same level of evidence.

I was cautious on that path, because I don't want to be lumped in with the I NEVER SIGNED THAT SOCIAL CONTRACT libertarians that pop up here and there.

[ZombieHorde]

95. Where do contracts exist? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

96. Between two parties, and before an enforcement mechanism.

If any of those three components vanishes, it might as well be toilet paper. (Or, increasingly, random electrons)

[ZombieHorde]

101. Contracts don't exist between two parties, they exist inside two parties.

Specifically, in the imagination of two parties. Contracts don't exist outside of the imagination. Anything that only exists within the imagination is strictly imaginary. Contracts are strictly imaginary. America is strictly imaginary.

[AtheistCrusader]

104. The contract terms are normall stored in some tangible or digital form in which agreement can be

proven, and the terms cannot be modified without disclosure of the modification, so I would object to that.

So too with the founding documents that do exist, and are considered to give our government grounding in legal force. Yes, they are ideas, and in fact, the parties to those agreements are long dust, so in a sense, I do agree with you.

But there is tangible evidence between me and my bank on the terms of my mortgage that is not yet forthcoming about the existence of any number of gods.

[ZombieHorde]

132. I believe computers and paper are real.

However, the agreement is in our minds. The agreement relies on us imagining it. If the original US Constitution is destroyed in a fire, the agreement is still considered to "exist." This isn't because we have many copies, but because so many people believe in it.

But there is tangible evidence between me and my bank on the terms of my mortgage that is not yet forthcoming about the existence of any number of gods.

Behavior is real. Talking, filling out forms, etc., happened, but the reasons for the behavior exist only in the imagination. The value of currency, the ownership of the home, the existence of the bank, the meaning of the contract, all require the imagination. They require belief. If we all stopped believing in rocks, rocks would still exist. If we all stopped believing in banks, banks would instantly go away, even though the buildings would still exist.

[MellowDem]

20. I would like to make it clear that some unwise posters..

Feel the need to defend religion as a "special" idea that can't be criticized because.... Well, they never get there, it always devolves into "my feeling are hurt".

[intaglio]

35. And some people have tried deliberately to offend religion

Whilst, in return, being unable to see that they are not special just because they are atheist and also demonstrating that they cannot face harshly worded criticism.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Religion isn't a person, and cannot be offended.

It's an idea.

[Phlem]

52. Exactly.

Same as "terrorism". Who caused that? Oh it's an idea, a word, that I can't bomb to oblivion. Wait.....

[intaglio]

97. No religion is also people,

individuals, and religionist is not a word. Some insensitive folk here seem to forget that minor point

[Warren Stupidity]

79. "tried deliberately to offend religion" - you do understand that "religion" is an idea and cannot be

offended, right?

We could have blasphemy laws like other theocracies to put an end to all these BAD AHTSEITS!!!1!! offending religion, but probably a constitutional amendment would be required.

[intaglio]

92. But those who follow religion can be offended

Do you think that is unimportant

[Warren Stupidity]

100. that is their problem. They have no right in this forum to not be offended.

There is another forum here where the rules say that only positive posts about belief and non belief are allowed. That rule is widely ignored with respect to non-belief, but you would be safe there from offending posts about ridiculous religions and their fairy tales.

[intaglio]

109. Firstly Religion is a group,

Secondly, if what you say is true then A&A does not inoculate atheists against offence especially if it is one atheist pointing out the flaws of others.

[Warren Stupidity]

115. I said nothing about the A&A group.

They have their own SOP. The interfaith SOP, because of technical considerations regarding some of their prominent members, claims to be neutral with respect to both belief and non-belief, although changes dropping that neutrality have been discussed, with cumbersome wording due again to the stated positions of certain members.

I use group and forum interchangeably. It makes no difference with respect to this discussion.

[intaglio]

158. No you made a general point and I applied it to A&A

Essentially you are just unable to justify the behaviour I identified within Religion group without also applying it to A&A

[Warren Stupidity]

172. ok I give up, you are having a discussion about things I haven't said.

You've made an excellent point, one I certainly would agree with, if only I understood who you were responding to. I made a specific point about the SOP of the interfaith group, and another observation about the different SOP of the religion group. Neither of which apply to a third, and again different SOP of the atheist and agnostic group.

So to get back to the religion group, there is no rule here that one is forbidden to say things about beliefs or the lack thereof that somebody might take offense to.

[intaglio]

186. And that is the heart of the problem

You do not understand

[MellowDem]

146. I think the criticism of religion on here is fair...

It's not denigration. It's just completely unusual in most of our theist centered society, so it shocks people's sensibilities. Religion has been treated with kid gloves for so long that people take offense easily. That's wrong. The idea that religion should be held to a special standard needs to go away.

Being offended means nothing. Conservatives are offended all the time. What's worse is that when valid points are made, they're never discussed because the discussion must turn to believers and whether they're offended or not.

The question that's never answered by the offended is why they are offended. Because they don't have a good answer. And if you're offended but can't come up with a good reason why, it's probably because you're wrong.

[intaglio]

159. It was not fair within the class of posts I was identifying

The posts I identified were also of an obsessive nature, repetitive and highly inflammatory.

[cbayer]

21. Yes, in fact most atheists who post here are not as you describe.

It is only a small subgroup, but they are easily ignored, which is the mightiest weapon.

[bravenak]

23. I missed it. (I think)

I like the Amish. (Is this the scientology thing?) Sorry, but they were very aggressive.

[cbayer]

24. Oopsie! Looks like you are the wrong kind of atheist

and are probably going to get kicked out of the clubhouse.

Not to worry, a significant number of people blocked from that group are nonbelievers. You have to be a particular kind of nonbeliever that doesn't challenge the status quo or upset the delicate sensibilities of the ruling tribe to be allowed there.

Anyway, kudos to you for taking a stand for the majority of atheists on this site who do not feel the need to abuse others just because they are different.

[trotsky]

31. Actually, he got kicked out of his own thread by a jury.

And I think you should research what the word "majority" means. It's not just you, your husband, and your personal friends.

[intaglio]

33. On what was a harmless post

I wonder how many alerts on my posts went out before members of the offended community found themselves in a majority.

BTW at least one member of the offended community thinks I should have broken TOS by calling out by name and another seems to think that I am flying under a false flag. All I was saying was that at least one member of the offended community was posting obsessively and in my view offensively.

The reaction of that small group of atheists toward that post was irrational.

[trotsky]

34. No one knows who alerted on you.

I personally don't give a shit, but given that you have engaged in harsh criticism of religious beliefs and religious believers in the past, it's a bit disingenuous for you to lecture others. However, I'm sure cbayer is happy to have you on her "team" regardless.

[intaglio]

43. I agree that I have been harsh

But harshness is not necessarily offensive, ask c_bayer for we are not a team and we have both been harsh to each other, just as rug has been harsh, Htom Sirveaux has been harsh. The obsessive posting on one particular theme by one particular poster on a subject that, in other contexts, would possibly earn the ban hammer was the target of my post. My post in A&A was harsh and drew the responses I wanted; i.e. outrage from the small band of obsessive atheists who feel that any criticism of their actions and attitudes is a declaration of war.

My post also drew responses from others who seem to think that atheism is monolithic, somehow undermined by any internal criticism. Well I'm sorry but it is past time for atheism to start cleaning house of the obsessives who believe that lack of belief excuses all things in all people. Dawkins cannot be excused for his ignorance regarding molestation and corporal punishment; Hitchens does not get a free pass for his womanising, drunkenness and support of war; P Z Myers cannot be excused for his occasional lack of sensitivity; Sam Harris is culpable for his "muslima" remarks. It does not matter what all of these men contributed to the subject of atheism they remain open to criticism for their other actions.

[trotsky]

45. Then I would say if you have a problem with one particular DUer, you use appropriate tools.

Use the alert button. If it's an OP, include the SoP violation check so the hosts can review. Or as suggested to you in your other thread, PM the person to discuss it with them.

A public callout just increases the animosity all around, and makes some people feel justified in further vengeance.

For the record, I don't think all believers are mentally ill, nor do I think every atheist isn't. Nor do I think atheists can't be criticized for what they say.

[Lordquinton]

167. but when we criticize the pope for things that actually have real world consequences

Like poverty and death (continuing the homophobic points of the rcc, promotng exorcism, anti aortion stance, anti contraception, etc (and even if someone objects to ine of those points the rest are still fully valid) the continuing pedophilla scandal, any single one miles worse than anything mentioned about prominent atheists) we're bigoted atheists.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. "take your meds" is pretty well frowned on by the progressive community of DU.

[intaglio]

90. As I have made clear elsewhere, I was harkening to my own experience

with meds.

[Warren Stupidity]

91. whatever. Jury got it right, and no I didn't alert.

[intaglio]

110. Why are you so defensive? n/t

[rug]

38. And I'm sure the alert came outside A&A.

Maybe you should research it. Ask your personal friends.

[Starboard Tack]

26. Good for you. I think you speak for most of us.

Respect!

[Warren Stupidity]

28. DAEWSKIN!!!!!111!

[rug]

39. HEAVEN'S GATE!!!!11!!!!!!

JONESTOWN!!!!!1111!!!!!!

SANTA CLAUS!!!!11!!!!11!!!

[Iggo]

32. Now it's funny.

[rug]

40. It's a good thing you put in a smiley.

Otherwise it would be hard to, you know, think it was funny.

[stone space]

48. Thank you. There are a lot of atheists here, ...

...myself included, who appreciate your speaking out.

Atheism is not about denigrating religious folks.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Who says atheism is about denigrating religious folks?

I smell straw.

[cbayer]

66. Who says islam is about terrorism?

The fact that some muslims are also terrorists does not mean that islam is about terrorism.

The fact that some atheists denigrate religious folks does not mean that atheism is about denigrating religious folks.

Do the muslims who are not terrorists enable the terrorists?

Do the atheists that do not denigrate religious folks enable those that do?

I think not.

That's not straw, that's irony.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Not me.

I've never said islam is about terrorism. As I mentioned earlier, I have taken such individuals as Sam Harris to task for making such claims. Because his position is that it IS, whereas I merely point out, I cannot distinguish between the vast numbers of 'moderates' and the 'fundamentalists', because I cannot verify any claim that is not spelled out explicitly in the source documentation they use.

[cbayer]

69. Exactly, and no one said atheism was about attacking religious people.

In fact, what he is saying is quite the opposite.

You can't distinguish between moderate and fundamentalists? That explains a lot. I suggest you work on that because it's a very important distinction.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with their source documentation. Talk about straw.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Don't do that again.

"because I cannot verify any claim that is not spelled out explicitly in the source documentation they use."

It's not a matter of telling the difference between the camps, it's a matter of validating the claims made. As I specified upthread as well.
If you attempt to quote mine a fraction of a single sentence again, when the second half falsifies your objection, I will end this conversation.

[cbayer]

83. Let me take care of that for you. The end.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Once again, I am bitten by giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I said I'd learned my lesson last time. Glutton for punishment I guess.

[Warren Stupidity]

87. You do get double extra credit for relentless comity.

Many of us gave up a long time ago.

[intaglio]

164. Unfortunately this does not appy to yourself

Because you seem to prefer trying to turn every conversation into being about yourself - whether it is or is not actually about you.

[Warren Stupidity]

173. Actually you appear to be obsessed with me.

I'm flattered. I hope you aren't super creepy.

[intaglio]

187. Read my previous reply n/t

[rug]

191. Actually, this is better evidence of obsession:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218148194

This is, what, your eighth post desperately trying to weave a connection?

You've simply made his point.

[intaglio]

163. I would suggest that you examine the posts within this group

In it you will find evidence of obsession and denigration by certain atheists.

You also decide that your flawed assumptions are somehow beyond criticism. Unfortunately you persist in refusing to examine your own assumptions and logic, a charge more regularly made by atheists against the religious. To some extent you demonstrate the same flawed approach to discourse as shown by certain petty little publicity hounds of the atheist community.

[AtheistCrusader]

165. I freely admit many of my assumptions are flawed.

I am willing to discuss and examine them.

What I will not tolerate, is having them misrepresented to my face. Which is what just happened here.

[Phlem]

55. Oh Yea

How many have died in the name of atheism, wait........

[trotsky]

56. Here, let me give you the canned response:

STALIN!!!! MAO!!!! POL POT!!!!ZOMGWTFBBQLOLIIRC!!!11eleventy

[Phlem]

57. Nice caps brother

did I upset you?

[Phlem]

58. Oh I get it. you mean this.

http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/03/03/a-great-myth-about-atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/

[trotsky]

86. Precisely!

[cbayer]

63. What does this have to do with the post you are responding to?

[Starboard Tack]

131. Interesting segue!

Did someone say people have died in the name of atheism? Or are you suggesting all believers are somehow responsible for those who have died in religious wars? And maybe all the atheists who have a "live and let live" attitude toward people of faith are apologists for religious atrocities, including pedophile priests, the crusades, Al Quaeda, IS(IS), 9/11, WW1, WW2, the 30 Years War, the Hundred Years War, the assassination of JFK and the Grinch who stole Xmas?

[wryter2000]

102. I realize that

But thanks for mentioning it again.

[Lordquinton]

168. I think you don't speak for the majority if atheists

[stone space]

174. Are you sure?

I think you don't speak for the majority if atheists

[cbayer]

180. Oh, I am quite certain that he does.

He just doesn't speak for a certain kind of atheist, but that is, in fact, a very small group and not at all the majority.

[stone space]

190. It's always hard to generalize...

...from anecdotal data gained locally in meatspace, but I can't recall ever meeting atheists in real life who behave like some of those in the A&A group, and I've known some pretty right wing atheists, too, so it's not like my anecdotal data is derived from a bunch of goody two shoes here.

Now, I suppose that it is possible that some atheists show believers a side of themselves that they don't show to me as a fellow atheist, and it is certainly possible that we atheists here in Iowa are not typical of atheists nationwide, but the fact is that in meatspace, the only people who I've ever seen in real life who behave like this are vocal right wing fundamentalist Christians.

[cbayer]

195. I have also not met these people in real life and the available statistics

do not support the assertion that at all.

They exist, I know that to be true. Some on the internet may be Poe's though, with the aim of causing disruption and division. When I feel someone is taking that position, I don't interact with them, because feeding them just keeps them alive.

Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, whether it has it's source in belief or non-belief. There is no arguing with them. Their positions are dogmatic and rigid.

[Starboard Tack]

206. I, he definitely does.

Maybe not for the majority of vocal atheists, but they aren't the majority, anyway. Most of us are quite happy living our lives without any need to shout about what we don't believe and how crazy others are in believing what we don't give a damn about in the first place.
You see, most of us are not obsessed with what others think or believe.