The crap on religion room

[el_bryanto]

Went over to the religion forum - boy for a group that constantly claims that the religious are the aggressors they have sure managed to clean that group out of most who would disagree with them. I guess I wouldn't be surprised if they made another play at this room sometime.

Bryant

[Fix The Stupid]

1. I can do meta too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141257138


What's your thoughts on this?

An do you not like the jury system at DU? Mad that someone is in a timeout? So you go and start this in a safe haven to take shots at people?

What would dear Joseph Smith think about that bevaviour?

[el_bryanto]

2. Hey who could have seen that coming

I don't really have any thoughts on that article. I do know that I wouldn't go into the Atheists room to alert or attack, but I guess you don't feel the same way.

Bryant

[kentauros]

6. We allow people here to complain from time to time about the big forums.

Every group does that on DU. It's not difficult to notice.

Also, I see nothing in Bryant's post that takes shots at specific people. Rather, it's a shot at the dynamic of a forum, of how it's evolving (or devolving.) If you have a problem with that, bring it to us hosts and not out in the public.

And yes, this is indeed a safe haven. If you need a definition of that, then please ask.

[TexasProgresive]

3. You went there, Bryant?

I gave up on that group a year ago. I wouldn't mind having discussion with agnostics and atheists on religion but it just doesn't happen there.

[el_bryanto]

4. I don't post there anymore - every so often i visit - to remind myself why not to bother.

The Anti Theists are kind of running that room - to the exclusion of believers of course but also those atheists or agnostics who would want a discussion of religion.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

8. I have not looked at it for ages

My chief complaint is that the atheists can make quite remarkably bigoted statements about religion and/or believers, and this is deemed perfectly acceptable. However, to respond by saying "that is a bigoted statement" is not acceptable.

[gelatinous cube]

25. Sadly, I agree with this.

I'm an atheist, but far too often I see replies and threads that are bigoted against religion. Jokes and memes are one thing in the A&A group (can't get enough of NeoGreen's polls), but I would love to have a civil conversation, or honest discussion about the effects of religion and atheism on the world, without ever openly attacking the other person or his/her beliefs. We claim to be enlightened and without prejudice, but if we ever were like that, many of us have lost it. What's worse, of the few times I've ever posted, I can see this same hypocrisy in my posts.

[kentauros]

26. Interesting take on that,

and nice of you to be honest about your own posts. I'm constantly trying to keep myself reminded of the same thing in my own posts. I'd rather be consistently wrong than inconsistent

Welcome to Interfaith, too

By the way, I laughed out loud at your user name! There's a thread in GD on RPG gaming, so I know the reference

[No Vested Interest]

5. You're correct, Bryant. I have to laugh to myself

when glancing at the number of responses to a posting, in the lower right corner, when, for example, 10 are listed and I see only two. - Then I realize that the other eight are from those on my ignore list. Heh, heh.

[Leontius]

7. I say screw' em I not going to give them the forum.

I'm going to stay and fight their bigotry even if the odds are always 10 to 1.

[el_bryanto]

9. An interesting week

Very depressing as I spent time in France so have been a bit morose thinking about what that country is going through.

But on the other hand we have a few explicitly saying what they mean by "Religious privilege" and it is what I've suspected. It's not that Christians get privilege in the United States (which we do) and get to assume that our religious beliefs are shared by everybody. Rather what at least some mean by religious privilege is that religion gets to exist at all publicly without being mocked and despised.

The world in which these anti-theists want to live in is one in which there is Atheist privilege - on the grounds that they are in the right and the rest of us are wrong. Atheists get to hold public office, atheists get preferential job treatment, atheists get all the societal benefits that Christianity in say that 1950s and 1960s got.

Bryant

[el_bryanto]

10. I do read what I write

The fact that it isn't likely to happen in the short term doesn't mean it can't ever happen - and its worthwhile to understand what some of our Anti-Theists mean by religious privilege. If I heard that term for the first time I would assume that it refers to the fact that in many communities Christians are given benefits that other religions and non-believers enjoy. For example the "right" to have your pastor pray in front of a public meeting. Or the fact that a non-Christian in most of the United States has an uphill climb to be elected. That sort of Religious Privilege is awful and I think should be abandoned.

That's not what religious privilege always means though - to some it means that the right of people to attend a religion or to profess believe without being treated as a either a nut or the equivalent of a KKK member. And that definition is not one I can agree with, as I think everybody should have the right to believe or not believe as they like without legal or social detriment (assuming their actions are within the law naturally).

Bryant

[Leontius]

11. Just so you know this post has lead to a huge display of hypocrisy by the usual suspects.

Awhile back they all made a fuss about some things they posted, usually just rude comments about believers, in their echo chamber turning up in the religion forum. So what do they do now, post about this thread and whine about how nasty people here are. They evidently don't know how embarrassing this show of hypocrisy is.

[el_bryanto]

12. I saw that - it's one of those things.

The old anti-theist two step is in full force. One anti-theist says something about how they want to see reigion treated, a believer underlines it, than another anti-theist pretends that the believer is paranoid ("Of course we would never do that.&quot Oh well.

Bryant

[el_bryanto]

13. It is mordently amusing to note that on their survey of the religion room

nobody has identified themselves as a theist. I wonder why that is? Is it possible that nobody in the religion room is a believer? They've all been driven off? Or alternatively they don't want to stick their heads up to get attacked?

Either way it does make it hard for the Anti-theists to portray themselves as outnumbered victims in the religion room.

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

14. The religion room is a shell of its former self.

Too much baiting and fake outrage. It became more about personality then religion.

[No Vested Interest]

15. You've got that correct.

Good to see you among us today.

[hrmjustin]

16. Thanks. Good to be back.

Clearly they got what they set out for in there but I wonder if some of them regret it. That room is very quite now.

I guess they can go to their eco chamber and crow about it there. Looks like some already did.

[No Vested Interest]

18. Who cares? Certainly not I. nt

[goldent]

17. I occasionally look at it out of curiosity, but no desire to post.

It reminds me a little of an abandoned amusement park.


I got a kick out of the survey asking how religious you were.

[okasha]

19. Interestingly, some of the same crowd

are dreadfully upset that Hillary supporters now have a troll-free site. They hate being ignored.

[hrmjustin]

20. Looks like you hit a nerve.

[el_bryanto]

21. Guess so

Obviously some Anti-theists/Atheists don't spend a huge amount of time complaining about how biased the board is against Atheists; and some do. Just like some of the Anti-theists in that room aren't dishonest, willing to say anything to win an argument. Some of them aren't mean nasty people eager for rhetorical blood. But enough of them are that I'm not interested in participating among them.

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

22. It was my mistake to allow myself to get drawn into that mess.

It is clear that was not about dialog but baiting and I foolishly walked into that thread.

Dialog is simply not possible.

[el_bryanto]

23. I know we disagree on this, but that's part of why the policy of this room

towards atheists hasn't been ideal. They are shown the door too quickly, in my opinion. Anti-theist yes; if your stated position is that all faiths should be done away with than I don't know how you have a meaningful discussion in an interfaith setting. But in the zeal to protect the room, some times atheists have been shown the door that might have been able to contribute to a meaningful discussion.

Bryant

[hrmjustin]

24. I have no issue with the hosts rethinking the bans or the way things are done here. That is healthy.

But the individuals banned were banned with cause. Remember it is not their atheism that is the problem but the way they treat people.

They came to bait and get people hidden posts and that is the biggest reason the ban hammer came down. But i do take your point.

[snooper2]

36. So you can educate all faiths at the same time?

[kentauros]

37. Dawkins certainly seems to think so in that clip.

Last edited Wed Dec 9, 2015, 12:02 AM - Edit history (1)

And really, whatever your intended reasons for posting it, I find it to be the epitome of the nasty anti-theist we try to keep out of this safe-haven.

Thus, my decision now to ask you to self-delete it. I see nothing constructive there, nothing to start up a conversation, but everything to start a fight.

[font size="4"]By the way, my request that you self-delete this (which you have apparently ignored) is supported by the other hosts. Please do as we have requested, or...[/font]

[font size="3"]Well, I think you can fill in the rest of that sentence.[/font]

[goldent]

34. You are always the calm voice of reason in those debates.

Sometimes reminds me of the famous Muhammad Ali "rope-a-dope" boxing strategy.

[kentauros]

27. It does appear to be turning into A&A II.

Looking through all of the threads on the first page, I saw only a couple of believers and a couple of reasonable atheists as authors of threads. The rest are the usual suspects from A&A.

Maybe we should just suggest to Skinner to merge the Religion group in to A&A and be done with it.

[el_bryanto]

28. It is very hard to get any traction over there

There are plenty of people in that room I don't mind debating or discussing with; but in order to debate them I also have to put up with the dishonesty and nastiness of the others. It's not worth it.

They do seem to be paying close attention to what is said over here though - for the record, the person who started that particular post I don't have a problem with.

Bryant

[kentauros]

30. Well, if the intent of the antagonist types was to drive people out,

then they've done a fine job of it. We're already seeing people starting up and re-starting discussions here, and I'd assume the same is happening in some of the other religion groups. Maybe the people you enjoy conversing with will show up here from time to time

[hrmjustin]

29. I doubt skinner will do that.

It is clear to me that they have regrets that many of the people of faith and their friends have been driven off from the religion room. They regret it because they don't have someone to play with.

I think it shows how sad things have begun that they felt the need to bring up a two week old thread from interfaith in the religion room. They were spoiling for a fight. They knew I and another poster had come off our time outs and were looking for a fight. I got called out by name there so that is how I know this.

As most can see they don't get new believers in the room because it is clear some are there just to mock. It is pointless.

I am not using ignore but I am not responding to a few. It really pisses one off and he is refuced to the laughing icon and claiming I feel persecuted. How sad he needs to follow me. So sad.

[kentauros]

31. It was just a thought about Skinner doing such a thing.

I know he wouldn't, but that room will continue to devolve into nothing more than a click-bait group. Fine with me. Those that understand how to have a conversation without being nasty and mean will also go elsewhere.

It's also surprising that those who have continued to remind us of their intellectual superiority due to a lack of belief couldn't have also foreseen that people would stop 'playing' with them.

[hrmjustin]

32. And they act like they are all innocent.

I know I have not been an angel but they think they are spotless.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. I think you need to look at timings to see who 'brought up a 2 week old thread'

All timings are in GMT:

Mon Nov 16, 2015, 02:19 PM This 'crap on religion room' thread started in Interfaith. it gets 10 replies before:

Thu Nov 19, 2015, 01:54 AM a 'crap on atheists room' thread started in Religion, in response

Thu Nov 19, 2015, 04:36 PM thread locked because the Religion group says "We have not permitted attacks back into other groups in the past and this is no different." (I pause to note that Interfaith is " to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance", but this thread remains open, despite posts like "I say screw' em I not going to give them the forum. I'm going to stay and fight their bigotry". While that thread is open, there is one oh-so-tolerant post in this, talking of "
"a huge display of hypocrisy by the usual suspects&quot .

Mon Nov 23, 2015, 09:57 PM The thread starter posts to this thread again

Sun Nov 29, 2015, 02:34 PM You post to this thread, the first of 6 posts by you and others to this thread, before a new thread appears in Religion - "Let's talk about Interfaith", at Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:29 PM/

Somehow, you have described this as "they felt the need to bring up a two week old thread from interfaith in the religion room." Clearly, it was you who resurrected this thread. You weren't mentioned in the 'crap on atheists' thread at all. The first time you were mentioned in the 'about Interfaith' thread was after you posted, in this thread, "Looks like you hit a nerve".

You seem to think your posts here are invisible to atheists.

[kentauros]

39. Just so you know, at least with this group,

resurrecting threads is not a problem. Unless it's locked, it's open to all to post additional comments.

[Leontius]

40. If you're not one of the hypocrites or bigots referred to why so upset?

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Good question - it's because I object to other people being insulted, as well as me

Perhaps that's a new concept for you - you're happy calling your fellow DUers 'hypocrites' and 'bigots', but, as long as you personally aren't called any names, you don't care about anyone else.

I think you'll find that this could be an important concept for you if you want to participate in interfaith discussions - you need to think about how other people feel. Good luck. Glad to help to learn.

[Leontius]

42. I would be happy if there weren't hypocrites and bigots to deal with.

I get along fine in interfaith discussions when I deal with people who want to discuss issues in good faith but caring about the feelings of those whose only intent is to wound and ridicule others, I'll pass, so endeth the lesson.

[goldent]

33. Don't think it will happen

but if it does, I have a suggested name:

Atheists, Agnostics, and other religions.

[kentauros]

35. It was just an idea.

Realistically, it will probably just die. Although your idea of renaming it works, too