I would like to make a humble suggestion

[Heddi]

It's not worth it anymore. Hosting is biased against us, and hosts in a forum that is supposedly welcoming to all members are openly hostile towards us. We are alert-trolled and our posts are hidden for pointing out that obnoxious spamming is obnoxious http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218121910#post30

but posts that clearly infer one poster's emotions/actions are the same emotions/actions of a Nazi, and stating that another poster quoting a well-known Bible story is using anti-semitic language is okay and allowed to stand.

I say "fuck 'em"

They already have one echo chamber (focus on the echo). Let them have another. I suppose already having one forum where, with 80 threads on the first page, only 7 have 10 or more responses, and 39 out of 80 have NO responses, isn't enough.

Vs the A/A group, where out of 80 threads on the first page, only 2 have 0 replies....

It is apparent that we are capable and willing to have open dialogue regarding a wide variety of subjects. The hostile tone and nasty, biased hosting in that group is only going to get worse, especially now that they are empowered KNOWING that they have 2 openly hostile anti-atheist hosts who have shown that they are happy to have two sets of rules: one for Religonists, one for Non-Believers.

Folks, things aren't going to get better there. They will continue to alert troll our posts, knowing that DU Jurists have a history of hiding absolutely non-hideable things posted by Atheists and they know they can make horrible comments to us and about us with impunity given that most DU Jurists will allow totally hideable things posted by Religonists to stand

And note I'm using the term Religionists. Not ReligonistA, which is the new "offensive flavor of the month" to be bandied about by The Order Of the Perpetually Offended About Something
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religionist

Definition of RELIGIONIST

: a person adhering to a religion; especially : a religious zealot

Synonyms
believer
Related Words
fundamentalist; cultist, pietist, zealot; deist, monotheist, polytheist, theist; churchgoer, communicant, congregant
----

I know maybe a year or so ago I made an impassioned plea NOT to give up, to NOT leave the forum.

So many of you said I was wrong, that I was being too giving, too generous, giving too much of a benefit of the doubt.

You were right.

The hate, the hostility..it's only gotten worse, and it will continue to get worse until we are all run off on a rail or banned because of adhering to a "sauce for the goose" mentality.

We can have lively debate here. We can discuss the fine points of religion without being sidetracked, Gish Galloped, and alert-trolled (for the most part).

There is also a safe haven, away from DU. I've mentioned it before. I think others who are there will vouch for its safety and inclusive nature of conversation, and the ability to control who gets access to the site (All who apply are not given entrance, fyi. Some people had voiced concerns that socks or zombies would be given access. THat's not the case. *I VET EVERYONE and no one gets in without a thorough posting investigation).

I am not attempting to drive traffic away from DU. I am suggesting that we stop beating our head on the proverbial brick wall and give them the oh so fucking sacred space they want. Because 10 forums related to the various aspects of religion and worship aren't enough. They just need ONE FUCKING MORE.

And then it will become like the others, and you'd think something like this should be blowing through....

[LostOne4Ever]

1. Focus on the Echo

That was a good one!

I understand your frustration. The fact that Goblinmonger's thread has devolved the way it has is sad. The host, at the very least, should have apologized. Instead he double downed on his comments.

I plan to keep on posting though. I can't stand the idea of some of the posters in that forum getting away with posting whatever unsubstantiated claim about us they want without comment.

[Curmudgeoness]

2. I am sorry that you were driven to this

but I don't blame you. I have avoided that Other Forum for a long time because it just isn't worth it to me. I never wanted to change their minds about their beliefs, only about who we are, but it can't seem to work that way. We scare them.

[Vashta Nerada]

3. I prefer the term "hypocrite".

That's what religious people are. Hypocrites.

[Brainstormy]

4. Frankly I'd be terrified

to post in that other forum. It's the nastiest place on DU. I've always been comfortable posting in this one, though, and have always received considerate and often very enlightening and interesting responses. Guess I'm less into changing minds and more into communicating with like minds. Granted, there's probably an opportunity for growth lost. But I'm 'skeered of them.

[JNelson6563]

21. Well said Brainstormy.

Except the scared part. Due to the redundancy I find what passes for discussion there inspires feelings of boredom.

Trust me, you have nothing o fear over there, except wasted time.

Julie

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. I'm strangely fine with that

Let them sit around the campfire singing kumbaya with the not-asshole atheists we've heard so much about... yet so little from.

[NeoGreen]

6. The term I have been using...

...to myself to describe what happens in the "other Forum" is "Carpet Bombed".

A certain individual likes to post every possible link that has any smidgen of any possibility to suggest the slightest link between bad behavior and Atheism.

He (I presume a "he", but could be wrong and won't bother to verify my presumption) is just a bully, plain and simple.

The more he Carpet Bombs, the more he displays his own insecurity in that which he is trying to defend.

To Heddie,

I would like to [mis]quote Captain Picard?

NO! NOOOOOOOOO!!! I will not sacrifice the Religion Forum. We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate the entire Interfaith Forum, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!

But, this is not about revenge I guess, it is about equal treatment. Something that is sadly lacking over there.

The Goblinmonger thread could almost be a Monty Python skit, if it wasn't so nasty,:

Goblinmonger [walks into office]: I'd like to discuss the difficulties some people with have when confronted with an ironic situation that involves their religion.

shall-not-be-named [sitting at desk]: No you don't, you just want to do something German, and it wasn't funny when the Nazi's did it either.

Maybe the Religion Forum should be aptly re-named "getting hit on the head lessons" or more simply "Abuse"?

[uriel1972]

7. heh, points for the Monty Python reference.... nt

[trotsky]

13. And points for the Star Trek reference!

Nice.

[AlbertCat]

62. No you don't, you just want to do something German, and it wasn't funny when the Nazi's did it eithe

Wow.

I got suspended (while they investigated me or something....I dunno what ) because some poster over there who likes sailing ships and has a name like a pain reliever said "I don't care if you read the Bible or not." and I simply posted "liar"..... which I still claim to be accurate. Yes, there are 2 posters over there that think this site is a pulpit.... and apparently one who thinks so over at the other other forum.


But so what. I just watched "Frisky Dingo" instead of coming here for a few days and have now been reinstated.

[defacto7]

8. Those joints have been on ignore for me

for a very long time and It is a great way for them to disappear off the planet. It's is a much more reasonable here... and the hate shows what drives them. The lack of it shows what we've got... a bit of humor and a lot of learn-able and teachable information based on human understanding and personal stories happy and poignant. It's a nice place.

Forget them. You'll feel free of their dark nature.

[mr blur]

9. Did you get that?

Now off you go and report in.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Rule One: put rug on ignore.

After that the religion forum is a much better place, although I've noticed others stepping up to fill rug's shoes.

[Iggo]

45. This.^^^

[deucemagnet]

11. I agree.

I've recently put nearly all of the Usual Suspects in the other forum on ignore, and I don't know why I haven't done it sooner. They have proven time and time again that they have nothing of value to add to a discussion except snark, finger-wagging, and dishonesty. I have to ask myself why I've read the twaddle written by such toxic personalities when it's so easy just to walk away? If these people are what we have on the religious left as potential allies then I say no fucking way, we'll go it alone thankyouverymuch.

And, as I've said before, the other forum should be thankful for the atheists who post there. Without them them, it would be a ghost town of Serious Theological Discussion(TM). The members of this forum who post there at least care enough to engage them in discussion, whereas it's half-past give-a-fuck in my timezone.

[trotsky]

12. Here's my take.

There has always been more tension in the Religion group than other areas on DU. This is primarily because many people want religious beliefs to be treated with special privilege, not subject to the same criticism we can give to political or philosophical opinions. Most atheists, in my experience, don't think any special privilege should be extended. Some disagree - and some of them take things to an arrogant extreme, considering believers so fragile and unable to confront the world without their beliefs, that they will turn on anyone criticizing religion or its effects in the world. But that's a whole other fun topic.

Anyway, I believe we hit a major turning point when things became decidedly more toxic and contentious: the adventure with "Thatsmyopinion" (cbayer's real-life father, for those who don't know), who announced his presence on DU long ago by saying that none of us would want to live in a society that didn't have an ethical system based on religious morality. Yep, he said that. He doubled down on his bigotry by following up with posts like one that challenged atheists to name notable non-believers in the civil rights movement. Now there happen to be many freethinkers and atheists in every movement, and several notable ones in the civil rights movement specifically, but of course none of them are as associated with civil rights as MLK. Ergo, belief is good and we need it to have a good society and you atheists need to stop criticizing it. Also, that it is wonderful and good when people use their religion to push for liberal items so you should stop being concerned about the mixture of politics and religion when liberals do it.

cbayer was not initially forthcoming with her relationship to Thatsmyopinion, but defended him and basically told the atheists demanding a retraction/apology to buzz off. Shortly thereafter (if my memory serves me correctly), Starboard Tack appeared, and the relationship between cbayer and him was not initially revealed either. (They are married.) So there was dishonesty and a lot of personal conflicts of interest going on behind the scenes. The Bayer clan thus developed a very personal and emotional stake in the disagreements between vocal atheists and obnoxious believers, one that can be seen to this day with cbayer's over-the-top rhetoric (accusing someone of proposing genocide, for instance, and then innocently asking why the atheists are so mean) and Starboard Tack's viciousness and verbal abuse.

Those are my thoughts. I am certain this post will be alerted on, since we still have a number of self-appointed police who monitor this group with a microscope looking for any infraction that might get hidden by a jury. But at this point, I don't care. I'm just about at the point that you are, Heddi.

[onager]

47. "...challenged atheists to name notable non-believers in the civil rights movement."

Tanks for the memory! (Not a typo.) Oh boy, do I remember that goat-rope!

Yeah, he "challenged" us and we promptly provided him with a long list of non-believers in the civil rights movement. At which point he promptly dropped that subject and went right back to his usual "lib'rul Xians rule" schtick, as I remember it.

Heck, at one of the Black Atheist websites, the claim is made that ALL the original founders of CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) were either atheists or agnostics. Along with many of the members.

The man who planned/organized MLK's 1963 March On Washington was Bayard Rustin, who may or may not have been an atheist. But he was openly gay at a time when that was even a lot more dangerous than it is today. (If you haven't seen it yet, check out the great documentary about Rustin, "Brother Outsider.&quot

The poet Langston Hughes certainly sounded like a militant atheist in the 1930's. He seemed to start soft-pedaling that by the early 1950's.

Some atheists say "back-pedaling," noting that many civil rights leaders were doing the same thing by that time. And for a very good reason - they had J. Edgar Hoover and Joe McCarthy parked on their doorsteps.

That was a dangerous time to be "different" in just about any way, and thanks to the Hoovers, McCarthys and Billy Grahams, atheism was tightly yoked to Communism.

So you're a black citizen already working against cherished American traditions like segregation, poll taxes and same-race-only marriages. And suddenly you stand up and say, "Oh by the way, I almost forgot. I happen to be an atheist too! Anybody have a problem with that?"

Shee-it. Plenty of people STILL have a problem with that, as we see daily in That Other Group. I don't blame those folks back then one bit for not talking about their (lack of) religious beliefs, and making their lives even more endangered.

[Goblinmonger]

14. I'm pretty much with you.

If you read my host thread, I think you might pick up that I'm frustrated. I think I might have done a good job hiding it, but it might have slipped through.

My short answer through analogy: The teacher's unions were gutted in Wisconsin thanks to Scott Walker (in case you live under a rock and haven't heard). I still pay the $700 union dues to be a member even though the unions are relatively powerless (I do get some protections and, most importantly, legal support if something happens that I would have to find insurance for elsewhere). Overall why do I still pay that money? Because fuck Scott Walker, that's why. He wants us all to not be members so that unions die once and for all and when the wind changes there's nobody left.

[Goblinmonger]

15. Breaking news: I may be done with the Religion forum after all.

In the Host Forum, Justin has just nominated okasha to be his replacement as host.

[Heddi]

16. Oh well that will make a big difference in the tone :-/

http://m.

&feature=kp

[trotsky]

19. Oh FFS.

Yeah, that'll make things better.

[Rob H.]

22. And here's why that would be a terrible idea

Note the exchange in this thread. Here's a screenshot--the "they" she's talking about are atheists. She just comes right out and claims that if there were no "religious folk to hate," atheists would "have to go back to hating people of color or LGBTs," which is a SERIOUSLY fucked-up thing to say. (Emphasis mine.) She has no business being a host there if that's any part of her view of what atheists are about. I included the response to that post because the poster responding not only laughed and agreed with her, she was a host in Religion at the time.



Edit: moved quotation mark to after "would."

[trotsky]

26. Shit, I missed that.

Yeah, great host material there.

[Rob H.]

34. Yep

...and it's once again awesome how the religious posters there stood up and defended atheists from a vicious smear.

[PassingFair]

48. That is disgusting.

And NOT true.

I dislike religion, I do NOT dislike religious people, unless they are jerks.

[Arugula Latte]

52. What utter bullshit. If anything, atheists have

been among the most progressive and pro-civil rights segment of the population.

When we "hate" religion it's because of its real life effects -- bolstering of anti-intellectualism and anti-scientific views, discrimination, repression of women and gays, anti-birth control and anti-abortion policies, cover up of child rape, and on and on and on and on.

When did you ever hear an atheist say: "Ya know, I really hate those damn people with dark skin. And I hate those non-straight weirdos too!"

Projection of theist hatred towards LGBTs and minorities is a pretty pathetic ploy.

[Rob H.]

54. A couple more things to consider

are the posting histories and posting styles of some (note that I said some, lurkers) of the people who are enthusiastically backing her nomination. It'll just get easier for them to carry on the consequence-free anti-atheist nastiness and hypocritical finger-wagging about "tone" they've engaged in in the past.

[rexcat]

37. He made a really bad choice for his replacement...

hard to believe. Considering okasha's demeanor and incoherent posts things will definitely get worse over there.

[Heddi]

42. Of course he did. Despite repeated votes for being Bestest Most Nicest Person Oh And Most Perfect

Person In The History of DU I Mean The Whole World, he certainly makes a ton of really tone-deaf decisions when it comes to Atheists/Agnostics

1) came to our protected space, made 17 finger-wagging posts about how naughty we were and how we should self delete our naughty, nasty, poor taste threads

2) was generally offensive to the A/A Space and was TRULY HONESTLY SHOCKED that we did not welcome him with puppy kisses and unicorn fart hugs when he came here acting like our boss/mother/nanny telling us what to do

3) Summarily banned mr. blur from Interfaith after he made ONE post there. Not 17. One.

4) Despite repeated proclaimations that S4P did nothing wrong when he called GM a Nazi, and AC an anti-semite, he came out frothing at the mouth when another poster suggested that S4P was a zombie of TM99

5) Despite repeated proclaimations that even IF S4P did something wrong in calling GM a Nazi and AC an anti-semite, he couldn't do anything about it because "hosts don't police forums" and have nothing to do with individual posts

6) When another poster suggested S4P and TM99 were Zombies, he put on his HOst Hat and made an Official Host Request that the offending post "self delete." He also used the "wishes of other hosts" (Unnamed and undiscussed in the host forum) as a reason for this request,

7) when this action was pointed out as being a double standard, he refused to admit it was a hypocritical move given his previous posts in the SAME THREAD and seemed to have some kind of visual disturbance that made him unable to see the repeated question "can you not see this is a double standard, or do you just not care that it is?"

For someone who happily admits the dozens of groups he hosts, and the hundreds of juries he's served on, and the nearly 20,000 posts he's made in 2 years, he is quite oblivious of 1) rules of hosting (despite repeatedly reminding others of them) 2) the purpose of a "safe haven" (even though he eagerly protects his own) and 3) what a double-standard is (despite constantly accusing Atheists/Agnostics of participating in them)

[Rob H.]

38. At least they've abandoned any pretensions of neutrality

Hell, if humblebum hadn't outed himself as a homophobe (no pun intended) they'd probably be happy to have him at this point.

[trotsky]

39. The bum and LARED.

Both of whom were just atrocious to atheists, but not once chided by anyone. You are correct, it wasn't until he revealed his homophobia that he finally crossed the line for them. Smear atheists all you want, that's OK.

[Heddi]

40. Oh and they were both repeatedly awarded with the "Good Post Great Point" award

by She That Shall Not Be Name But Seriously Who Are We Kidding We All Know Who I'm Talking About

[trotsky]

41. LMAO

[Heddi]

43. Hey I don't want to make a call out

Those are COMPLETELY AGAINST THE RULES unless you're not an Atheist then they're okay.

[LostOne4Ever]

44. That nomination surprised me as well

When Muriel stepped down we all supported longship's nomination. He has always been excellent at supporting the nonbeliever position without being too objectionable to the pro-religious in that group. Someone everyone could rally behind.

While this nomination seems to go the other direction. I think we have all had some or at least one heated debate with Justin's nominee. Even though I try to be friends with everyone, even I have had exchanges with her that have left me rather heated.

That nominee makes sense if both sides are going to always put passionate proponents up as hosts, but if that was the case I would suspect must of us would want one of our representative to be an equally passionate debater along the lines of you, trotsky, warren, heddi, Atheist Crusader, Skepticscott, etc...

[mr blur]

17. I'm afraid that I can't agree with you.

I'm always treated with the utmost respect and fairness over there. Any mild criticism I might make is always accepted with grace and humility. I admit that it's gone downhill a little since Thatsmyopinionanditshouldbeyours left but there are always other Progressive Religionistas ready to step forward and preach.

Anyway, if you don't go there, how will you find out what the atheists are doing/saying/thinking/reading/writing and having for dinner?

[onager]

18. They know what we have for dinner: Xian baby

And I think you just demonstrated a whole new level of "British understatement." I laughed out loud at your post.

As for Heddi's OP and the responses, yep, I agree completely. For a long time now I just check the "R" group for lulz, which are plenty. No use trying to debate. And the news about their new, fair-n-balanced host just means things will probably get worse. From day one that person came into the "R" group with an obvious hate-on for non-believers, IMO.

Trotsky's analysis of how things got this way is spot-on, at least as I remember it. I was following those events he describes very closely. Especially since She Who Must Be Obeyed was pulling some of her passive-aggressive drive-bys on me personally at the time.

As Mr. T noted, the Bayer-at-the-Moon Trinity was very careful NOT to reveal their relationships at first. This was right after the change from "moderators" to "hosts." They were dishonest from the start. And suddenly the "R" group was full of bafflegab about "making this group a NICER place."

Right. Just like that old Twilight Zone episode "It's a GOOD Life." And pretty soon it became obvious who the Kumbayers wanted to wish into the cornfield - any non-believers who stood up for themselves.

[Heddi]

20. That's awesome

Wanna make out?? Hehehe

[Goblinmonger]

25. Oh, sure,

him you want to make out with. I start a nearly 500 response shitstorm in Religion and what do I get?

[Heddi]

27. I'm a polyamorist so the more the merrier

Hehe

[onager]

29. Get a room, you three! Er...us three...

Thanks for the extremely great compliment, Mrs. H!

As for GM...he's right. That was one hell of a marathon thread. I read the whole thing. I was LMAO seeing some of the usual elephants complaining about the atheist mice stepping on their precious tootsies.

For that slug-fest, he deserves some sort of atheist version of The 72 Virgins In Paradise. But given the sadistic nature of Afterlife stories, the poor guy would get to Paradise and discover that all 72 virgins were either Mods, Hosts, or frequent posters in the "R" group...

[mr blur]

35. Oh good - do we have to use or real names?

[JNelson6563]

23. lolz I love you guys.

Just.finished reading whole thread. You all never fail to brighten the day with your rapier wit and mastery of understatement.

Julie

[Rainforestgoddess]

24. I have never been brave enough to dip my toe in there

I've been reading in this group since before I was allowed to post in it (when you had to be a contributor, and I wasn't) that set up a long habit of reading but not participating, which I still mostly follow.

I have, however, joined Heddi and some others in the super secret place, and the water is warm and inviting. There's also a fabulous facebook page I follow called atheists vs religion, which has moderators of both stripes, but is never unfair. If you're looking for reasonable debate, check that one out. A good friend of mine is an atheist moderator there. It's probably more weighted towards non believers, but anyone is welcome. https://www.facebook.com/atheistsVSreligion?fref=ts

[onager]

30. Stick around and play with us! We're friendly!

[Goblinmonger]

31. We cloned Heidi for that picture.

Ok, I'm done picking on Heidi for the day.

[Heddi]

36. Heidi? Call Me Wesley's wife?

WHY ARE YOU CHEATING ON ME

[onager]

51. Stop TRIGGERING me, you two!

With all this "Heidi" crap.

I mean the Heidi from the 10,000,000 books/movies, that horrible little Nazi sprog. Yeah, yeah, I know, she said she was SWISS. But MOST NAZIS SAID THEY WERE SWISS AFTER THE WAR, NOW DIDN'T THEY?

The original Heidi book is horribly bigoted against atheists because Heidi's grandpa starts out as a non-believer who never goes to church and doubts the existence of Gawd.

Then Little Miss Know-It-All goes off to the big city, eventually coming back home to Swiss Berchtesgaden with her buttholish "relentlessly cheerful" personality (probably evidence of drug use in the big city, most likely meth.)

And in no time, she's got Grandpa going to church regularly and being just as boring as his neighbors (and less face it, nobody on earth is more boring than the Swiss. Spend a weekend in Zurich and you'll know where John Calvin got his ideas about Hell.)

That's it. All this Heidi shit has TRIGGERED MY PTSD!!! I'm going to lie down in a dark room suffering for 3 days. Then I may resurrect myself and write a 30,000 word Salon article on "Bigotry In Children's Literature." Or not, depending on whether or not I can find enough research material on Google, Wikipedia and Oprah. What? My cable is out? OPPRESSION!!!

Where's that fucking Xanax...

[Heddi]

53. I always wanted a Dirndl

it would fulfill my husband's alpine/bavarian fantasies. That and beer. Beer for me. Spindly dress for him

[Rainforestgoddess]

46. eep!

[EvilAL]

28. In the 8 or so years

I have been reading DU and the RT forum, I haven't posted a hell of a whole lot, i don't think i have ever posted in here unless it was off the main page or something. I have seen a lot of shit go down over there and Goblinmonger's thread really solidified a few things for me regarding some of the members of the group. For the most part it is easy to see where everyone stands in that group, some were suspiciously silent, some were incredibly vocal. As bad as it turned, I am glad it happened. There are also a couple of other things that happened that made me glad too but I'll adhere to the no call-out kinda rule and leave it at that.

[NeoGreen]

32. Ditto...

... I have always enjoyed reading DU whenever I could, over the years,but never really felt the need (confidence?) to post, since I'm not always able to access DU in a timely manner, and conversations in internet forums tend to require a lot of free-time/dedication.

However, the GB IhapwaRh thread was quite informative for me and solidified many inferences I have had but wasn't..quite..sure....

Oh, and does anyone know where I can redeem my uriel1972 and trotsky points?

[Beearewhyain]

33. About Arguing with Theist

As someone who has only recently been exposed to the Religion forum I am not sure that I can offer much in the way of insight or solutions but looking it over I would like to offer observations from the peanut gallery. In addition, this is more a general argument about arguments as opposed to specifically about the R forum and I have no plans to dip my toes or any other body part in that pool.

I have never been very “evangelical” about my Agnostic Atheism. I am grateful for some that are as I think it has done much to open the discussion and granted us a seat at a table that we were recently excluded from. That said, in general I find those discussions, especially on the internet to be rather pointless and ungratifying personally. Theists are rarely swayed by arguments I may make and the basis for their theism practically excludes them from accepting a countering argument. The religion forum seems to highlights this perspective. In other words, you can’t use reason to change someone’s belief that they did not use reason to obtain.

Nothing brings two people closer together than the mutual hatred of a third

This brings me to my next point. Why are we engaging theist on terms that allow us to be cornered as “the enemy”. The fact of the matter is that just below the surface for theist is a smoldering caldron of theological animus and sectarian strife. The thing that keeps them civil between themselves is the hatred of atheist and making strictly antithetic arguments provides them with a unifying rallying cry of “burn the heretic”. As a tactic, I think it is an unnecessary expenditure of time and energy and I am a bit lazy. This is especially true due, in part, that they themselves can do much of the work for you.

When making arguments we often try to highlight the absurdity that is present in religious belief and the often self contradicting nature of those systems. What we don’t understand is that much like a zen riddle, those contradictions are not a bug, but a feature. It keeps the mind off balance and pliable, ready for the next bit of theological indoctrination. But those zen riddles are often in direct conflict with other similar, but different religious view points.

What’s my point then? Well, let’s look at transubstantiation as an example as it is a subject that genuinely fascinates me. It is an article of faith for Catholics that communion literally becomes the body and blood of Christ. This is not a widely held belief among most other denominations and I, of course, find the notion absurd. However, if I was wanting to find out information about the differing beliefs on this subject and want to draw attention to the lack of a unifying theology among the anti-atheist crowd I very well might bring it up and ask, “Who’s right, Catholics or Protestants?” Often this would result in sectarian strife and in the process, make many of the arguments that we ourselves would make questioning the divinity of any particular religious doctrine without the effort or painting a bullseye on atheism. Did I mention that I am internet lazy?

Now you might say that this is trolling and I could see how it might be perceived as such, however, I disagree. If the point of the activity above was strictly to stir up trouble alone then yes it would be trolling but could be accomplished through better means. If it is an exercise to bring up the contradictory nature of many religious doctrines and presented, ostensibly, to bring clarity for the questioner, then it is legitimate debate. Personally I have never found a satisfying answer to the question of transubstantiation and can only conclude that someone is going to hell. Not sure who though.

Just my couple of pennies.

[JNelson6563]

59. I have to agree.

It always amazes me how deftly the sectarian strife that really exists among them gets glossed over.

Julie

[Lordquinton]

61. Questions of that nature get labeled as trouble making

and how you're mocking/ being dismissive of their beliefs, like the Santa clause question: there is no answer that doesn't make the whole thing look ridiculous so the question is attacked. Your question has come up (maybe not transubstantiation specifically, butthe "Who is right/going to hell" question) and it always gets shot down as trouble making.

[Beearewhyain]

63. This is among the many reasons

I rarely choose to engage with theists. It would seem to make sense that if you truly believe that you possess the knowledge of the One True Faith ™, that these theological questions would be something that you would be inclined to embrace. By dismissing these questions it can be concluded that the theist is either more concerned with their disdain for Atheists than "the truth" or that their faith is so nebulous that definitions are impossible. A postmodern pastiche of religion, or as some have called it - cafeteria christianity/religion.

Whatever the case, if these questions are not answered or refused to be answer I can only conclude that the faith can not be defined by any objective standard that holds much truth for anyone beyond the adherents of that particular sect. Hence, they fail not only the argument but also any personal convictions of their faith.

As I said above, I find the process to be a bit pointless and ungratifying and does little to raise my own level of understanding. They are free to do and believe as they wish but I think it would do them well to realize that this hole in their discussions can only result in more and more people like us concluding that religious belief is not sustainable. The cacophony of the absurd if you will.

[Rob H.]

49. I love how the argument has morphed to "the hosts don't set the tone"

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

Even the infamous "you atheist arseholes" post got a grand total of two religious posters saying that was over the top and the poster was allowed to return to the group simply by deleting his own post, no apology necessary. If an atheist had done something similar, he probably would've gotten PPRed or at the very least a permablock from that group.

I would remind them that, in the words of Australian Lt. Gen. David Morrison, "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept."

[progressoid]

50. I only post there if one of the threads shows up on the Greatest Page and I

respond not realizing what forum it is.

My happiness level has increased since abandoning that forum.

[Delmette]

55. I'm sorry I haven't posted here.

I read the posts about once a week, but I don't feel ready to join in on the discussions. I'm getting a good education even from the trolls. Keep up the good work, we need a place like this.

Thank you to everyone who joins the discussions!!!

[smartphone]

56. I am about in the same place you are, but I just signed up on DU a few weeks ago

I can read them without being signed in.

Imagine: a few dozen religionists, questioning if "religionistas" is a good or bad term and being proud of expelling someone for having used it.

The epitome of self-centered arrogance, there is a line in a novel about King Louis XIV or one of those kings, wondering if a newly coined French word used to make mockery of him was actually meant as a compliment. I am too old to remember the novel, or even the author, early 1800's, but it was popular back then, I had to read it in college, long ago, very insightful about arrogance, power, popular movements, searches for the truth, privilege. I will try to dig it up and translate some great passages that resemble what I am reading "over there".

[deucemagnet]

57. Thanks for the perspective.

I never considered how something like that might look to a fresh set of eyes. I'll bet the denizens of the other forum never did either.

[Goblinmonger]

58. Could it be Quentin Durwerd

or something like that by Sir Walter Scott? Think that us a very negative novel about Louis XI that I read many decades ago. I don't remember the word discussion you recount but it was very unflattering account.

[Arugula Latte]

60. Welcome to DU, smartphone, ya durn godless heathen!

[Heddi]

64. Heh. I can't even follow my own advice

so don't listen to me.

[Vashta Nerada]

65. Clearly they're biased against Atheists:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=123998

Most does NOT equal all.

But now apparently it does.


On Tue Apr 15, 2014, 09:38 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

That's because most religious people are hypocrites.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=123998

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This member keeps coming into this group to attack and make broad brush statements against religious people. This is a clear violation of the community standards of this site. Despite having had posts removed, she thinks it's a-ok to just keep doing it.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Apr 15, 2014, 10:00 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Only at Home Depot and Lowes can you find a broader brush.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Everyone has a right to an opinion...
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't believe that the religion forum is a protected group, like a forum about a particular religion or a general faith-based group would be. Both pro and anti religious folks can post. If this post had said that ALL religious people are hypocrites, I would have voted to hide.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm an atheist, and I think this is a broad-brush.

FYI, alerter, I've never had a post hidden in that group...until now. Not only that, the last hidden post I had was in Atheists/Agnostics group: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=21296

[Heddi]

66. They must've forgotten that Religion isn't a Safe Haven

Or someone is just upset that their nasty Personal Attacks against other DU'ers was hidden earlier and is alert-trolling for vengeance.

[Vashta Nerada]

67. It's obvious alert-trolling.

Maybe I should start stoop down to their level and alert-troll posts.

And you're right. It's not a protected group, so my post should be un-hidden.

[Goblinmonger]

68. FWIW, I was on the jury for the one you responded to

and it was 3-4 so it stood.

[Goblinmonger]

69. So I decided to up my Ignore list.

I'm up to 5. And Religion is a much better place. I highly recommend it.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. There was a glitch and I got carpet bombed. Lent is extended.

But I haven't extended my list. The others don't bother me so much.

[Act_of_Reparation]

71. I have as well.

Obvious trolls are obvious.