Calling All Atheists and Interested Parties

[Contrapuntal]

Yeah, it's a poll, but you know it's gonna end up here.


Atheists: Do you feel that your views are oppressed here on the Dope? Does it seem that policy is weighted against you, and that the moderators go out of their way to chastize you, especially with regard to your interactions with Christians?

Others: From the outside looking in, same questions.



I'll start. Atheist. No. Not at all.

[Revenant Threshold]

Athiest, no.

[badchad]

Moderators in general, no. Moderator Tomndebb in particular, yes.

[Clothahump]

Agnostic.

Not really. The Dope is probably one of the more open-minded areas around. I post on several other boards and the absolute vitriol that I get when I post something that isn't 100% dyed-in-the-wool Christianity is astounding.

[FinnAgain]

Gnostic agnostic a-theist. And no... this is just about the most supportive place one could wish for in a debate about proper epistemology.

[hajario]

Atheist. Not in the least from any of the moderators.

[What Exit?]

Agnostic who is basically anti-church and no, the board is pretty good about atheist, agnostics, and every faith except Scientology.

Of course this poll is dedicated to pseudotriton ruber ruber, so why not say so?

Jim

[Contrapuntal]

Agnostic who is basically anti-church and no, the board is pretty good about atheist, agnostics, and every faith except Scientology.

Of course this poll is dedicated to pseudotriton ruber ruber, so why not say so?

JimIt is not dedicated to him, so that is why I did not say so. It is intended to elicit evidence with regard to his position. Hijacking the other thread seemed to be poor form. If you can read minds, or at least my mind, why don't you say so and win a million dollars?

[silenus]

Reformed Congregationalist, now a Pantheistic Hedonist.

No, not at all.

[jsgoddess]

Atheist. No.

I forget sometimes how open I can be here regarding atheism and then I go other places and get a shock.

[Contrapuntal]

Moderators in general, no. Moderator Tomndebb in particular, yes.Other than by Tom, do you believe that your views are oppressed? Do you feel that policy here is weighted against you?

[What Exit?]

It is not dedicated to him, so that is why I did not say so. It is intended to elicit evidence with regard to his position. Hijacking the other thread seemed to be poor form. If you can read minds, or at least my mind, why don't you say so and win a million dollars?
Oh, my apologies, you are only intending to elicit evidence with regard to his position, how could I ever mistake that for what I said?

Jim

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Moderators in general, no. Moderator Tomndebb in particular, yes.
I agree with this 100%. The phrasing is perfect, the punctuation is flawless, the parallel structure is beyond reproach. What a fantastic post this was! Just gorgeous, pure genius. I dont know how he does it, time after time, post after post, getting it exactly right. I'm in utter awe.

[GIGObuster]

Agnostic-Soft Atheist.

Nope, and I disageed once, for 20 minutes, with tomndebb in GD when he defended a mystic.

It was not a big deal and tomndebb did not even put on a moderator hat, Imagine that... badchad.

[Contrapuntal]

Oh, my apologies, you are only intending to elicit evidence with regard to his position, how could I ever mistake that for what I said?

JimFuck off. You said it was dedicated to him. How about you find me a piece of text from anywhere, fact or fiction, dated prior to now, where "dedicated to" means "trying to elicit evidence about his position."

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Artheist-

Most open and supportive place I've ever discussed atheism.

(Why is this in the pit?)

[badchad]

I agree with this 100%. The phrasing is perfect, the punctuation is flawless, the parallel structure is beyond reproach. What a fantastic post this was! Just gorgeous, pure genius. I dont know how he does it, time after time, post after post, getting it exactly right. I'm in utter awe.
Thanks. :)

[badchad]

Other than by Tom, do you believe that your views are oppressed? Do you feel that policy here is weighted against you?
As for other moderators and policy, no and no. Which I think is what I said the first time.

[Contrapuntal]

As for other moderators and policy, no and no. Which I think is what I said the first time.Thanks.

[What Exit?]

Fuck off. You said it was dedicated to him. How about you find me a piece of text from anywhere, fact or fiction, dated prior to now, where "dedicated to" means "trying to elicit evidence about his position."
Dedicated: ded·i·cat·ed, Designed for a particular use or function: “The satellite beams the information down to Earth, where it is sent through dedicated telephone wires to the Space Telescope Science Institute” (Boston Globe). from http://www.answers.com/dedicated&r=67

I believe you design this thread for a particular use, to prove PRR wrong.

You might want to apologize for the 'fuck you' as I proved you incorrect in about 5 seconds of using an online dictionary.

Jim

[GIGObuster]

I agree with this 100%. The phrasing is perfect, the punctuation is flawless, the parallel structure is beyond reproach. What a fantastic post this was! Just gorgeous, pure genius. I dont know how he does it, time after time, post after post, getting it exactly right. I'm in utter awe.

In the other thread you replied to me that:
This site promotes a subtle (and not-so-subtle) pro-religious and specifically pro-Chirstian bias, which is the single most heinous act of hypocrisy for a site claiming to be about fighting ignorance.
Nice tap dancing there, you can not jump from "this site" and now say that one moderator is the problem.

[Zoe]

Liberal Christian

Do you feel that your views are oppressed here on the Dope?

Not by moderators. Some with jerkish behavior attempt to, but that comes with the territory. (See reviling, persecution in Concordance) :D



Does it seem that policy is weighted against you, and that the moderators go out of their way to chastize you, especially with regard to your interactions with [Atheists]?

Never.

[Contrapuntal]

from http://www.answers.com/dedicated&r=67

I believe you design this thread for a particular use, to prove PRR wrong.

You might want to apologize for the 'fuck you' as I proved you incorrect in about 5 seconds of using an online dictionary.

JimYour belief has fuck-all to do with how things actually are. And your cite has fuck-all to do with this statement --Of course this poll is dedicated to pseudotriton ruber ruber, so why not say so?Of course, if you had said that you believe that the poll was dedicated to proving him wrong, rather than to him, your cite would apply, but you would still have your head up your ass.

I am interested in the results of the poll, wherever they lead. Again, I invite you to win the million. Just prove that you can read my mind.

[What Exit?]

Your belief has fuck-all to do with how things actually are. And your cite has fuck-all to do with this statement --Of course, if you had said that you believe that the poll was dedicated to proving him wrong, rather than to him, your cite would apply, but you would still have your head up your ass.

I am interested in the results of the poll, wherever they lead. Again, I invite you to win the million. Just prove that you can read my mind.
:rolleyes:

[Guinastasia]

Non-specific-theist, raised very liberal Catholic:

No, no, and hell no.

[capybara]

Hard atheist. No. I feel that some of the other resident atheists can be. . . dicky about things. As dicky as fundamentalist Christians, and even if I agree with them there's still a place for decorum and respect for others. Being an ass never convinced anyone of anything. You can't reason yourself out of a corner that you didn't reason yourself into, but in the end religion is not about reason and these debates never end well.

[Guinastasia]

I agree with this 100%. The phrasing is perfect, the punctuation is flawless, the parallel structure is beyond reproach. What a fantastic post this was! Just gorgeous, pure genius. I dont know how he does it, time after time, post after post, getting it exactly right. I'm in utter awe.

Oh Christ, get a room already.

:rolleyes:

[Contrapuntal]

:rolleyes:Brilliant! Come back when you grow up, girl.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Mainly agnostic. No³.

[Bryan Ekers]

Atheist here. Not only is this place just fine for atheists, it can apparantly serve as matchmaker for assholes.

[Charlie Tan]

I'm free of religion and have never noticed a bias towards theism from the mods here.

That said, and as abbrasive as PRR has been lately, he does have a point. The default setting in Europe / The Americas is 'Christianity' and Christians do get a free pass on their (what some regard as silly) belief. That's not very strange, considering that the whole fabric of our culture is founded in religeous belief in YHVH and his son.

If I remember my McLuhan correctly, he argues that the merging of the Latin alphabet (very few symbols, which made it ideal for the printing press and moving type) and Christianity was what made Europe the cradle of the renaissance. Monotheism, especially Christianity, has rewarded initiative and curiosity, in a way other contemporary religions didn't manage.

So, even if I, personally, am free of religion, I realize that religion is a big factor in my living the life I do, and being able to question theism.

Staunch atheists, that claim that all religion is evil, have a bad grasp of history. They're being contrary just because. It's not very attractive.

[What Exit?]

Brilliant! Come back when you grow up, girl.
You started a thread to prove PRR wrong. I actually think you are right that he is wrong. My first post indicated as much. However you are now nitpicking over Of course this poll is dedicated to pseudotriton ruber ruber, so why not say so?
You are insulting me like an immature teenager would and you wonder about my manhood apparently.

Why don't you try some intellectual honesty and include the fact that PRR's claims inspired you to start this poll in the pit? Which is of course what I basically meant by "dedicated to".

I guess I am obligated to curse you out and insult you now, but I do not feel like falling to your level.

Jim (BTW: If you did not want a little grief for this thread, maybe you should have started this in IMHO instead)

[cerberus]

This board seems reasonably "heathen-friendly".

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Oh Christ, get a room already.

:rolleyes:
Oh, Christ, get a sense of humor already. :rolleyes:

[Bites When Provoked]

Wouldn't hold my breath for an apology, Jim. Some folks consider that merely having a thread in the Pit is sufficient reason on its own for foul-mouthing anyone who questions them. :rolleyes:

To take the OP at face value, however:
I am an atheist. Raised Anglican, and even 'Confirmed' in my teens. However, as an adult I started looking at my religion from a purely rational viewpoint and found that for me, it didn't hold up under scrutiny any more than Santa and the Easter bunny did. I can quite happily accept that other people don't feel that way, and honestly rather envy them the comfort that belief in Divine Justice and an afterlife brings. But it's not something I believe in.

I've never encountered any hostility or unfairness towards atheists/atheism from any moderator, nor have I ever noticed it occurring in any thread I've read. If I had, I would certainly support those who are complaining about it now, much as I don't personally care for them.

If I have any complaints about moderator behaviour, it's that they give people who don't 'play nice' far too many chances to redeem themselves. A few more suspensions wouldn't go astray. (And while I think your rudeness is out of line, Contrapuntal, I'm not talking about you here or singling anyone out - it's a general opinion.)

FWIW, I find hardline atheists and hardline fundamentalists equally obnoxious. Neither group defends their viewpoint with any rationality, though both claim to have all the facts to support themselves. It's my personal view that one group is as ignorant as the other.

[According to Pliny]

Well, it's my view that religion is so irrational, being based entirely in the supernatural, i.e. outside reality, that no other defense of atheism is necessary.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Lapsed Congregationalist/now atheist: What Guin said -- "No, no, and hell no." This is a fine place to show one's nontheistic colors. Any atheist around here feeling oppressed is probably getting brickbats for being an asshole.

[Guinastasia]

Well, it's my view that religion is so irrational, being based entirely in the supernatural, i.e. outside reality, that no other defense of atheism is necessary.

Uh, that wasn't the question.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

In the other thread you replied to me that:

Nice tap dancing there, you can not jump from "this site" and now say that one moderator is the problem.

Both could be true, and both are true.

There is a large, general pervasive flaw in the design of the SD site, in that it is dedicated (thanks, Jim!) to fighting ignorance but is selectively tolerant of Xian ignorance, and permits Xians to spout nonsense and then slink away from discussing it in a manner simply not allowed for other purveyors of isuperstitious views. I don't know what can be done about this, other than to hope that Cecil can be appealed to, and the burden of proof be made to be shared equally by all.

There is also a specific problem in Tom's confusion of his role as GD Mod, where he's supposed to be defusing problems, preventing personal attacks, warning violators of Forum tone, etc. in an unbiased manner, and his role as GD participant where he's free to go apeshit on anyone he chooses, within (so to speak) moderation.

May I have the next dance?

[neutron star]

Agnostic, leaning towards atheist.

What are you, kidding, Contrapuntal?

Hell, no!

This place feels like home for non-believers.

[Contrapuntal]

You started a thread to prove PRR wrong.And for the third time, you are wrong. You have no fucking idea why I started the thread. Call Randi. Win the million. I have told you twice that I will go where the results lead me.

You ae being insulted because you insulted me, and continue to do so. How about you provide some actual evidence to support your assertion, or, again, shut the fuck up?

[Dangerosa]

Deist Unitarian, recovering Catholic, married to an atheist.

No. I've found this place supportive of all questions I have or opinions I hold, and the resident Christians respectful of my choice to no longer be Christian. Particularly our "active Catholics" tomndebb and Bricker.

[jjimm]

Atheist. Not oppressed, and certainly not by moderators.

[What Exit?]

And for the third time, you are wrong. You have no fucking idea why I started the thread. Call Randi. Win the million. I have told you twice that I will go where the results lead me.

You ae being insulted because you insulted me, and continue to do so. How about you provide some actual evidence to support your assertion, or, again, shut the fuck up?
You admitted why you started the thread above. That was a pretty fair description of dedicated. Maybe I should call the good James Randi. While I was not attempting mind reading, I believe you find my statements eerily close.

You knew I could read minds across the Internet via posted messages. Nope, I would chalk this one up to a decent cold reading with plenty of information.

So I will not shut up to appease you. Again, if you did not want any grief, you should have just admitted what inspired you up front and/or start it in IMHO.

Are you now claiming you did not post?
It is not dedicated to him, so that is why I did not say so. It is intended to elicit evidence with regard to his position. Hijacking the other thread seemed to be poor form. If you can read minds, or at least my mind, why don't you say so and win a million dollars?

Jim

[GIGObuster]

Both could be true, and both are true.
Wow, it is like seeing the birth of the old Trinity tripe. Just by the input of virtually all atheists so far, I can say your "this site bias" is not true.

There is a large, general pervasive flaw in the design of the SD site, in that it is dedicated (thanks, Jim!) to fighting ignorance but is selectively tolerant of Xian ignorance, and permits Xians to spout nonsense and then slink away from discussing it in a manner simply not allowed for other purveyors of superstitious views. I don't know what can be done about this, other than to hope that Cecil can be appealed to, and the burden of proof be made to be shared equally by all.
That is because after they lost "burning at the stake" as their best argument, they are like de-fanged tigers. As I came from them, I can tell you there are better but specific reasons when we should bring the rack and Iron maiden to them: like when they attempt to impose their faith on us.

Complaining about transubstantiation and Santa Claus is at the level of "this thread is too stupid to live"

There is also a specific problem in Tom's confusion of his role as GD Mod, where he's supposed to be defusing problems, preventing personal attacks, warning violators of Forum tone, etc. in an unbiased manner, and his role as GD participant where he's free to go apeshit on anyone he chooses, within (so to speak) moderation.
No one is perfect, but I defer to others in saying your personal experience is not evidence enough. (you know, the old and accepted in this circle of ignorant fighters saying that the plural of anecdote is not data)

May I have the next dance?
Tap dancing usually is a solo activity you numbnuts. (and even in a group, usually no touching)

[RedFury]

Strong atheist when it comes to human made cults/religions. Don't really have a clue about Genesis. Guess anything is possible.

Hassled on the SDMB? Only by the very people that oppose my views. Hardly surprising. Other than that ---and a couple of "cool it" suggestions by mods -- no problem at all.

Must say though, as any other particularly knowledgeable poster on any number of topics, I like Tom. Would he'd get his shit (or considerable brain-power) together and come to the only logical, fact-based conclusion. Funny though, I've had a few posters praying for my "salvation." Shit, they manage to do that, and I'll fuckin' guarantee there's no hell. Regardless of the fact that I can say the same thing right now. Yet another absurd religious concept out the window.

But hey, I'm not in the indoctrinating business. Figure it only makes makes me angrier and firmer in my beliefs. Works both ways I guess, any time anyone tries witnessing to me they get a lump of coal. And then some. Ironically I've recruited some atheist/agnostics that way.

OTOH, whne I get witness on, I mostly keep my trap shut -- mostly 'cause it's members of my family that try. I am of a mind that a tight family relation is far more valuable than religious differences -- much like politics, BTW
.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Ya know, I have could have saved some time and trouble, if you;d only asked me what I thought this poll would show. I understand that many people think Tom is a fine fellow. Hell, I used to think so myself.

Maybe now that I've pointed out how I feel Tom moderated immoderately a couple of my posts, and a couple of other selected hard-atheists' posts, he'll start behaving better and you'll never have cause to come into my camp. That's just fine with me.

[Monty]

LDS here:

Do I feel that the moderators oppress those with religious beliefs? No.
Do I feel that the moderators oppress those without religious beliefs? No.
Do I feel that the board policy is weighted towards one or the other of the above groups? No.

[Derleth]

Atheist who thinks all forms of belief about the non-physical are fundamentally delusional. No.

[Contrapuntal]

Are you now claiming you did not post?


JimYou cannot be this stupid. You really cannot be this stupid. Tell me you are not this stupid. It is not dedicated to him. It is not dedicated at all. It is an attempt to elicit opinion. While it is indeed Designed for a particular use or function: “The satellite beams the information down to Earth, where it is sent through dedicated telephone wires to the Space Telescope Science Institute”key phrase "designed for a particular use or function", it is not dedicated to prr. prr is not the function. The function is gathering information. Christ, do I have to spell it out for you? prr is a poster on the Dope. Gathering information is a process. The two are not the same. The two are not similar. The two are not remotely related.

Was this thread inspired by the posts of prr.? Yes. Do I suspect that the results will provide a counter to his assertions? Yes again. Is this in any way remotely like dedicating a thread to him? Apparently, in your mind, it is. I urge you to disabuse yourself of this train of thought. It is without merit.


However the poll goes, so goes the poll. I seek information. Thanks awfully for your input.

[What Exit?]

You cannot be this stupid. You really cannot be this stupid. Tell me you are not this stupid. It is not dedicated to him. It is not dedicated at all. It is an attempt to elicit opinion. While it is indeed[/I]key phrase "designed for a particular use or function", it is not dedicated to prr. prr is not the function. The function is gathering information. Christ, do I have to spell it out for you? prr is a poster on the Dope. Gathering information is a process. The two are not the same. The two are not similar. The two are not remotely related.

Was this thread inspired by the posts of prr.? Yes. Do I suspect that the results will provide a counter to his assertions? Yes again. Is this in any way remotely like dedicating a thread to him? Apparently, in your mind, it is. I urge you to disabuse yourself of this train of thought. It is without merit.


However the poll goes, so goes the poll. I seek information. Thanks awfully for your input.
Congrats, you win, I will back out. Bites When Provoked, you were correct.

Jim

[Contrapuntal]

Ya know, I have could have saved some time and trouble, if you;d only asked me what I thought this poll would show. I understand that many people think Tom is a fine fellow. Hell, I used to think so myself.

Maybe now that I've pointed out how I feel Tom moderated immoderately a couple of my posts, and a couple of other selected hard-atheists' posts, he'll start behaving better and you'll never have cause to come into my camp. That's just fine with me.Oh please. This poll is not about whether Tom is a fine fellow. Frankly, I think he has yanked me around a couple of times, and wrongly. This poll is about whether as a matter of policy, the SDMB, and its moderators, are strongly biased against atheists in favor of Christians, a claim you have made on numerous occasions.

Now your complaint is that he has been immoderate with you and a couple of other posters? On a couple of posts? How fast will that bike go in reverse, anyway?

[Contrapuntal]

(And while I think your rudeness is out of line, Contrapuntal,Care to expound on that, o ye of the ironic username? ;)

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Oh please. This poll is not about whether Tom is a fine fellow. Frankly, I think he has yanked me around a couple of times, and wrongly. This poll is about whether as a matter of policy, the SDMB, and its moderators, are strongly biased against atheists in favor of Christians, a claim you have made on numerous occasions.

Now your complaint is that he has been immoderate with you and a couple of other posters? On a couple of posts? How fast will that bike go in reverse, anyway?

You really can't read, can you? it's okay. Tell us, and we'll find you some help.

Or is it that you think that "a couple of posts" means the same thing as "a couple of posters"? The words look similar, but examine the endings. They're different, aren't they? That might mean that the words "posts" and "posters" mean different things.

Now "immoderate" is harder. It might denote a mild form of "non-neutral behavior" but (and here's the difficult part) it might also mean an understated
form of extreme non-neutrality, as in "Pol Pot behaved immoderately towards Cambodian intellectuals" to mean that he slaughtered millions of them.

English is funny that way, but I promise you if you study hard, it will pay off, and you will be able to understand people much better.

[GIGObuster]

You really can't read, can you? it's okay. Tell us, and we'll find you some help.

Or is it that you think that "a couple of posts" means the same thing as "a couple of posters"? The words look similar, but examine the endings. They're different, aren't they? That might mean that the words "posts" and "posters" mean different things.

Now "immoderate" is harder. It might denote a mild form of "non-neutral behavior" but (and here's the difficult part) it might also mean an understated
form of extreme non-neutrality, as in "Pol Pot behaved immoderately towards Cambodian intellectuals" to mean that he slaughtered millions of them.

English is funny that way, but I promise you if you study hard, it will pay off, and you will be able to understand people much better.
Indeed, now check the meaning of the plural of anecdote is not data.

[Contrapuntal]

English is funny that way, but I promise you if you study hard, it will pay off, and you will be able to understand people much better.Not sure if I want to.



OK, so he was immoderate with you a couple of time, and with a couple of other posters an unspecified number of times? Did I get it?

And this relates to a systematic policy of abuse against atheists, and in favor of Christians, exactly how?


Does the fact that no so far no one, including badchad, believes this to be true suggest anything to you?


Your Pol Pot example is a joke, right? Do you use language that way? When you want to be understand? Genocide = immoderacy? Your audience is supposed to understand that?

[catsix]

I'm an atheist, and while I don't think that atheism is treated poorly here, I do think that it's a bit of a double-standard that christianity is treated any differently than scientology here.

Debates about scientology usually involve a large measure of calling beliefs of scientologists stupid and delusional, and that's considered to be pretty much all that's necessary. Debates against christians here are not accepted if the main component of the argument is that it's delusional and/or stupid to believe in what's in the bible.

Why the difference? I think that in huge portions of the US and some other parts of the world, the christian monotheistic god is taken as a fact, and that has leaked over here, when really there's no more reason to take christianity or judiasm or islam any more seriously than scientology.

[What Exit?]

I'm an atheist, and while I don't think that atheism is treated poorly here, I do think that it's a bit of a double-standard that christianity is treated any differently than scientology here.

Debates about scientology usually involve a large measure of calling beliefs of scientologists stupid and delusional, and that's considered to be pretty much all that's necessary. Debates against christians here are not accepted if the main component of the argument is that it's delusional and/or stupid to believe in what's in the bible.

Why the difference? I think that in huge portions of the US and some other parts of the world, the christian monotheistic god is taken as a fact, and that has leaked over here, when really there's no more reason to take christianity or judiasm or islam any more seriously than scientology.
Amen ;)

[Guinastasia]

I'm an atheist, and while I don't think that atheism is treated poorly here, I do think that it's a bit of a double-standard that christianity is treated any differently than scientology here.

Debates about scientology usually involve a large measure of calling beliefs of scientologists stupid and delusional, and that's considered to be pretty much all that's necessary. Debates against christians here are not accepted if the main component of the argument is that it's delusional and/or stupid to believe in what's in the bible.

Why the difference? I think that in huge portions of the US and some other parts of the world, the christian monotheistic god is taken as a fact, and that has leaked over here, when really there's no more reason to take christianity or judiasm or islam any more seriously than scientology.


I think it's mostly because there's so many different versions and varieties and denominations of Christianity-it's a pretty broad umbrella. Whereas Scientology is one very specific little group.

[jsgoddess]

Why the difference? I think that in huge portions of the US and some other parts of the world, the christian monotheistic god is taken as a fact, and that has leaked over here, when really there's no more reason to take christianity or judiasm or islam any more seriously than scientology.

I see a reason to take them more seriously, just as you'd take a threat from someone in your home more seriously than a threat from someone on the internet.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I'm an atheist, and while I don't think that atheism is treated poorly here, I do think that it's a bit of a double-standard that christianity is treated any differently than scientology here.

Debates about scientology usually involve a large measure of calling beliefs of scientologists stupid and delusional, and that's considered to be pretty much all that's necessary. Debates against christians here are not accepted if the main component of the argument is that it's delusional and/or stupid to believe in what's in the bible.

Why the difference? I think that in huge portions of the US and some other parts of the world, the christian monotheistic god is taken as a fact, and that has leaked over here, when really there's no more reason to take christianity or judiasm or islam any more seriously than scientology.

Well said.

[GIGObuster]

Why the difference? I think that in huge portions of the US and some other parts of the world, the christian monotheistic god is taken as a fact, and that has leaked over here, when really there's no more reason to take christianity or judiasm or islam any more seriously than scientology.
Close, but as another doper pointed out, Scientology hides mayor items of their faith until you have paid enough, Christianity does not do that and has been tamed after Luther and others traduced the Bible and then others decided that separation of church and state was a good idea.

I do think only as an acknowledgment that many believers did allow this separation to become a reality that they deserve some respect, but lets not forget that this site does throw stones to creationism, intelligent design, and many other Christian items and preachers that continuously attempt to breach the wall of separation.

[Guinastasia]

Close, but as another doper pointed out, Scientology hides mayor items of their faith until you have paid enough, Christianity does not do that and has been tamed after Luther and others traduced the Bible and then others decided that separation of church and state was a good idea.

I do think only as an acknowledgment that many believers did allow this separation to become a reality that they deserve some respect, but lets not forget that this site does throw stones to creationism, intelligent design, and many other Christian items and preachers that continuously attempt to breach the wall of separation.

And Christianity has given us:

-Lord of the Rings
-The Chronicles of Narnia
-Michaelangelo's Pieta and the Sistine Chapel
-Handel's Messiah



What has Scientology done for us? Battlefield Earth. And Leah Remini.

[GIGObuster]

Well said.
Wrong again. :)

Over here, Der Trihs has no problem in saying essentially an item of faith is bollocks, and he does not need to become an ass to say so. Or is threatened by a moderator.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=401295

The key is in the first statement of the OP: He started that thread because the other was not civil.

[badchad]

I'm an atheist, and while I don't think that atheism is treated poorly here, I do think that it's a bit of a double-standard that christianity is treated any differently than scientology here.

Debates about scientology usually involve a large measure of calling beliefs of scientologists stupid and delusional, and that's considered to be pretty much all that's necessary. Debates against christians here are not accepted if the main component of the argument is that it's delusional and/or stupid to believe in what's in the bible.

Why the difference? I think that in huge portions of the US and some other parts of the world, the christian monotheistic god is taken as a fact, and that has leaked over here, when really there's no more reason to take christianity or judiasm or islam any more seriously than scientology.

I agree with that and only want to add a bit. I agree that it’s not that atheism is treated poorly, (I really can’t recall being asked to defend it) but that Christianity, the nominal variety at least, is treated with more respect that it rationally deserves. Not so much by mods as most (aside from Tom) have been quite fair, and the policies of the forum are fair. Aside from Tom the bias comes from many of the straight dope members who are either nominally Christian themselves, or like Miller who have friends and family who are, and thereby treat these “Christians” rather well, when they have also said they have no problems in treating Scientologist and psychics with much less respect.

The people who really get the boot around here however, are fundamentalist Christians. Guys like Polycarp slur them to no end calling them neopharisees, bigots etc, and until I arrived here he got nothing but accolades from it. Which pretty much means he’s bad mouthing my parents, who for all their faults are hardworking people (more than I can say for Poly), and try to do what they think is right. And while the religious beliefs of my parents may be wholly irrational (which believe me, I let them know it) I don’t think it right that they should be slurred by an every bit as loony, if not more so, a bastard as Poly. And yes, he is the prominent offender in this regard, and for that, as well as a few other reasons, has earned my attention.

Cheers.

[Sublight]

Atheist by upbringing. I perform as a minister each weekend for large sums of money, but still an atheist.

Nope, never been even remotely persecuted for it.

[Frank]

Moderators in general, no. Moderator Tomndebb in particular, yes.
I agree with this 100%. The phrasing is perfect, the punctuation is flawless, the parallel structure is beyond reproach. What a fantastic post this was! Just gorgeous, pure genius. I dont know how he does it, time after time, post after post, getting it exactly right. I'm in utter awe.
My goodness, will I be happy when Christmas is past and the circle jerk ends till Easter.

Ourobouros, indeed.

[Caridwen]

I'm an atheist, and while I don't think that atheism is treated poorly here, I do think that it's a bit of a double-standard that christianity is treated any differently than scientology here.

Debates about scientology usually involve a large measure of calling beliefs of scientologists stupid and delusional, and that's considered to be pretty much all that's necessary. Debates against christians here are not accepted if the main component of the argument is that it's delusional and/or stupid to believe in what's in the bible.

Why the difference? I think that in huge portions of the US and some other parts of the world, the christian monotheistic god is taken as a fact, and that has leaked over here, when really there's no more reason to take christianity or judiasm or islam any more seriously than scientology.


It's no different on any other board that has discussions about scientology. I might be wrong, but haven't seen any scientology posters on this board to refute remarks about their beliefs. The best I've seen anyone come up with is to say that what scientologists believe is no more crazy than what christians believe. It's impossible to get any objective information because even the pro-scientology site give out little information.

But why stop at scientology? How about Aum Shinrikyo, Heaven's Gate or the Unification Church?

I'm not saying scientology is the same, but who really knows what they believe because they're so secretive? The only reason scientology gets any press at all compared to other groups is because of the celebrity factor. They really aren't any different than the hundreds of other alt. religions out there.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

My goodness, will I be happy when Christmas is past and the circle jerk ends till Easter.

Ourobouros, indeed.
Frank --how did you capture that internal quotation within the quotation? For example I tried to copy your entire post, internal quotes and all, but only your own words, and not your quote of me, shows up in my text. What's the trick? Thanks

[Klaatu]

Jesus Fucking Christ, and Sweet OG! This is what, the third offshoot of a thread of a thread?

[saoirse]

My goodness, will I be happy when Christmas is past and the circle jerk ends till Easter.

Ourobouros, indeed.

Frank --how did you capture that internal quotation within the quotation? For example I tried to copy your entire post, internal quotes and all, but only your own words, and not your quote of me, shows up in my text. What's the trick? Thanks

I manually select, copy and paste the quote within the quote. Put it inside the quote you already have. Put quote tags around it. Add = and the name of the poster. Voici.

[Der Trihs]

Atheist (duh ). No, no, and Tomndebb, but only slightly, and only on a personal level; I can't recall him acting unfairly towards me in his role as a moderator, and he can be as unfair/biased as he likes towards me on a personal level, and it won't count as oppression.

This is easily one of the most atheist tolerant places I've encountered. If anything, the problem is that as mentioned by others, religion, especially Christianity, is given a pass on nonsense that would cause a major pile on if someone spouted the same level of foolishness about other belief systems.

[Frank]

Frank --how did you capture that internal quotation within the quotation? For example I tried to copy your entire post, internal quotes and all, but only your own words, and not your quote of me, shows up in my text. What's the trick? Thanks
I cut and pasted the entire post, like this:

pseudotriton ruber ruber
Charter Member Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,030
Location: mossy forest

Quote:
Originally Posted by badchad
Moderators in general, no. Moderator Tomndebb in particular, yes.


I agree with this 100%. The phrasing is perfect, the punctuation is flawless, the parallel structure is beyond reproach. What a fantastic post this was! Just gorgeous, pure genius. I dont know how he does it, time after time, post after post, getting it exactly right. I'm in utter awe.

Then edited the extraneous matter and added appropriate quote tags so that it looked like this:

{quote=pseudotriton ruber ruber}
{Quote=badchad}Moderators in general, no. Moderator Tomndebb in particular, yes.{/quote}
I agree with this 100%. The phrasing is perfect, the punctuation is flawless, the parallel structure is beyond reproach. What a fantastic post this was! Just gorgeous, pure genius. I dont know how he does it, time after time, post after post, getting it exactly right. I'm in utter awe.{/quote}

With, of course, braces instead of brackets.

[saoirse]

Forgot to add that I'm a former atheist and lapsed Catholic, now a non-scheduled Christian Deist. I think that catsix has hit it square. There is no institutional bias, as far as I can see, but the response "You're insulting the sincerely held beliefs of millions of people" really has no place here.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

This is easily one of the most atheist tolerant places I've encountered. If anything, the problem is that as mentioned by others, religion, especially Christianity, is given a pass on nonsense that would cause a major pile on if someone spouted the same level of foolishness about other belief systems.

I also agree with this. This place is wonderful--I just think it could be a little better if all belief systems followed the same exact standards of supporting arguments with evidence.

[Dangerosa]

I suspect Scientology is treated poorly because, to the best of my knowledge, we haven't had a Scientologist Doper willing to stick it out and defend it. Additionally there is the whole "cult/fraud/bilking people out of money" aspects that aren't well respected among Dopers.

We treat Fundie Christianitity poorly - but its been far better treated when we had Fundie's on the board willing to defend it - especially ones that have been willing to stick around.

I'm always surprised how respectfully Wicca gets treated. We have some (and as long as I've been here have always had) active and respected Wiccan/Pagan posters who are willing to defend their beliefs.

[Equipoise]

Atheist (raised Lutheran). No, no and no, but then, I don't debate so how would I know?

I love this place for all the atheists/agnostics/anti-$cientologists on board. And liberals.

[Monty]

Wasn't there one poster, a practicing Scientoligist, a while back?

[Q.E.D.]

Wasn't there one poster, a practicing Scientoligist, a while back?
I believe so, although I don't think he stayed very long at all, for obvious reasons.

[Kythereia]

Jesus Fucking Christ, and Sweet OG! This is what, the third offshoot of a thread of a thread?

Merry Christmas, eh?

Honestly (not being facetious) I'm not sure where Christianity gets a free pass on the boards and atheism doesn't.

[susan]

I'm an atheist, culturally Jewish, with many values derived from Judaism, and philosophically Buddhist-ish.

No. However, when I enter threads with religious content, I try to stick to speaking about my own beliefs, or from my own knowledge, and generally avoid GD on religious issues related to the veracity or merit of any particular religion or belief system. Part of this is that I experience these debates as acrimonious, larded with insults, and generally unpleasant to participate in. I've also never been very interested in or concerned about questions like "Is there a deity?," and questions such as "Which is the correct deity?" are not relevant to me. I'm very interested in religion and its transmission, but whereas face-to-face conversations sometimes go somewhere interesting, I experience the majority of the religion discussions here as shouting matches.

[Yookeroo]

Agnostic/soft athiest. No. No. No.

[xash]

Atheists: Do you feel that your views are oppressed here on the Dope? Does it seem that policy is weighted against you, and that the moderators go out of their way to chastize you, especially with regard to your interactions with Christians?

I'll start. Atheist. No. Not at all.Atheist. No. No.

My personal beliefs/preferences/likes/dislikes do not interfere with my judgements as a moderator on the dope, even when they are in conflict.

[Evil Captor]

I'm not superstitious, i.e., I'm an atheist. No and no to the OP's question. But catsix nailed the problem with Christianity here. It's as full of lardbrained malarkey as most other religiions, but it gets a pass in a way the others don't. It's not institutional bias, though, it's cultural bias.

[Derleth]

I think it's mostly because there's so many different versions and varieties and denominations of Christianity-it's a pretty broad umbrella. Whereas Scientology is one very specific little group.Google "Free Zone Scientology". Scientology is one main group, the cult called the "Church of Scientology", and a lot of much smaller groups spread around the world (at least in America and Germany that I know of) which worship Hubbard and his teachings in their own way. I've never heard of the small groups engaging in the cult behavior the CoS does.

[JimOfAllTrades]

Born and raised LDS, but have been an agnostic leaning toward atheism for nearly 40 years now.

To directly answer the OP, I see no oppression of atheist views, and no moderation that seems to favor Christianity over atheism.

To address other issues raised in this thread, and in some of the other related current threads, I also don’t think that Christianity regularly gets more of a pass than scientology on the board, or more than other non-xian religions.

But they do sometimes get treated a little differently.

We’ve all seen the xian fundamentalist come in, make statements about how one thing or another is *proof* of the their particular “truth”. And we’ve all seen them torn to shreds logically, and sometimes personally if it winds up in the pit, all without moderator intervention. Many times we’ve had mods join in. I seem remember such a thread recently, where Tomndeb repeatedly challenged a particularly ignorant poster’s claims and trashed his arguments.

So these kinds of claims mostly get treated like any other nutjob claim. Cites are called for, correct information is posted, ignorance gets fought.

But if a xian (or poster of pretty much any religion) posts about beliefs, does not claim to have scientific proof, or even any proof, just a belief, they usually aren’t given too much grief. And they might even get mod protection if one of our oh-so-noble-we-just-HAVE-to-fight-ignorance-or-we-betray-all-we-hold-dear atheists gets a little too frisky.

In my opinion, this is the way it should be.

And it seems to me that for a couple of reasons, we see more xians posting just about beliefs than we do other theists. For one, there’s a bunch more xians in the population that the board draws most of its membership from. For another, some religions, such as Scientology, pretty much base their entire set of beliefs on things that are, well, scientific. Things that are directly testable, or for which hard evidence exists to the contrary.

So the xians (or other theists) who don’t make falsifiable claims, or who at least aren’t basing their main points on falsifiable claims, may get treated differently then those who do. Again, IMHO, this is ok.

[John Mace]

This is an atheist friendly place. You'll find atheists overrepresented here as compared to the US population in general, and as an atheist myself I don't find the mods to be predisposed to rule in favor of religion or non-religion. The only people who would think otherwise, IMO, are the ass-hole atheists who think it is their duty to unconvert the religious. We just don't care one way or the other here. Profess your faith, as faith, and that's fine. Claim scientific certainty about your faith and you'll be ripped to shreds.

[Frosted Glass]

Atheists: Do you feel that your views are oppressed here on the Dope? Does it seem that policy is weighted against you, and that the moderators go out of their way to chastize you, especially with regard to your interactions with Christians?



Confirmed Congregationalist now soft Atheist/Agnostic. Not in the least. Nope.

[Liberal]

Renegade Christian who believes that Jesus is God, and the universe is not real...

In general, there is very little official bias either way. The only problems of this kind I've ever had were with DavidB (now pretty much defunct) and MEBuckner, who seems intent on keeping me out of Great Debates.

[Ice Wolf]

Agnostic. I don't get into many, if any, deep philosophical discussions around here, but I don't think there'd be impediments against participation in such discussions. Certainly no one pulling the "Oh, you're threatening our belief!" ploy.

[Dunderman]

Hard atheist, no, no. Not from tomndebb or anyone else.

[uglybeech]

From a relative perspective: this is the most atheist-friendly environment I've ever been in.

From an absolute perspective: I have on occasion been criticized as "disrespectful to other people's beliefs" - not because I attacked a specific person's particular beliefs (I almost never do that), but because, in simply stating my beliefs, I appeared too dismissive of religion in general. Or from my perspective, not even dismissive - but not sufficiently reverent. Since, as an atheist, I grant religion no special status, I get seriously annoyed when my honest beliefs are characterized as "disrespectful" or stating them plainly is seen as a "gratuitous attack." This happens here, as elsewhere in the culture. But I can't say any mod has been guilty of it that I can remember.

[Apos]

I don't get it, the point of the thread, why anyone would ask the question, why anyone is bothering to answer, or why it was put in the pit by someone who would then seemed surprised to be called a fucktard of of the blue.

[Contrapuntal]

I don't get it, the point of the thread, why anyone would ask the question, why anyone is bothering to answer, or why it was put in the pit by someone who would then seemed surprised to be called a fucktard of of the blue.Why did you bother to answer? Who was called a fucktard out of the blue?

[MrDibble]

Atheist, and no, no, no.

[Liberal]

I don't get it, the point of the thread, why anyone would ask the question, why anyone is bothering to answer, or why it was put in the pit by someone who would then seemed surprised to be called a fucktard of of the blue.It was asked, I think, because there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in another thread by Badchad and Pseudo about how atheists are persecuted mercilessly on this board especially by Tom. I'm glad the question was asked because I was wondering myself how prevalent that feeling was among atheists. Apparently, there are only two crosses on that hill.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

It was asked, I think, because there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in another thread by Badchad and Pseudo about how atheists are persecuted mercilessly on this board especially by Tom. I'm glad the question was asked because I was wondering myself how prevalent that feeling was among atheists. Apparently, there are only two crosses on that hill.
Way to mischaracterize, Liberal! Good un!

As I've noted, I (not badchad, btw) find it hypocritical of a website dedicated to fighting ignorance to relax that admirable standard where one particularly entrenched species of ignorance is concerned. There's no martyrdom involved here, no complaints about being systematically oppressed, none of that shit. Simply a mild noting of an oddity that I've learned to live with over the years, doubly odd because it's so well established that Xians are given a pass on the SD that no one really notes it anymore, though I'm please to see the many, many atheists in this poll who acknowledge that, yes, that's certainly the case, Xians are treated like privileged spouters of an unsubstantiated belief.

As to Tom , it's simply my opinion that he is a little bit too zealous in promoting a pro-religion agenda on GD. He's a bright fellow, and moderate in his beliefs (compared to most nutters), subtle, likeable, amusing, often knowledgable, and if he doesn't actually get in your face, wholly unobjectionable. But putting a fox as head of security in a henhouse simply strikes me as unwise, and I've made that known. Pardon me, please, for expressing a minority opinion.

[Lord Ashtar]

I agree with this 100%. The phrasing is perfect, the punctuation is flawless, the parallel structure is beyond reproach. What a fantastic post this was! Just gorgeous, pure genius. I dont know how he does it, time after time, post after post, getting it exactly right. I'm in utter awe.
I'm not usually one to toot my own horn, but I'll be damned if I didn't call this one (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7908235&postcount=611).

[Debaser]

Atheist here. No. Not in the least. We're way overrepresented here vs the rest of the US.

[What Exit?]

And Christianity has given us:

-Lord of the Rings
-The Chronicles of Narnia
-Michaelangelo's Pieta and the Sistine Chapel
-Handel's Messiah



What has Scientology done for us? Battlefield Earth. And Leah Remini.
Once again your argument is garbage and you are trying to reduce it to a popularity contest.

Scientology is an obvious bunch of garbage to any outside observer, but what makes you think the Bible does not look just as silly to a non-Christian?

Jim

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I'm not usually one to toot my own horn, but I'll be damned if I didn't call this one (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7908235&postcount=611).
Omigod, would you cretins realize when you're being made fun of? I can't agree with badchad without someone reiterating the whole "get a room" meme anymore, so since I did agree completely with that modest post of his, I went way over the top in an attempt to amuse you. Instead I seem to have filled you with self-righteous gloating at last confirming your pointless point about how he and I agree on a lot of stuff.

[What Exit?]

Omigod, would you cretins realize when you're being made fun of? I can't agree with badchad without someone reiterating the whole "get a room" meme anymore, so since I did agree completely with that modest post of his, I went way over the top in an attempt to amuse you. Instead I seem to have filled you with self-righteous gloating at last confirming your pointless point about how he and I agree on a lot of stuff.
But if they think badchad is Evil and you always agree with him then that proves that you are Evil too. It all makes perfect logical sense. He does not need to add anything else. He wins the internets.

Jim

[AHunter3]

Theist (roll yer own variety, not christian). No, and No.

I'm not superstitious, i.e., I'm an atheist. No and no to the OP's question. But catsix nailed the problem with Christianity here. It's as full of lardbrained malarkey as most other religiions, but it gets a pass in a way the others don't. It's not institutional bias, though, it's cultural bias.

I don't see it that way. There's a lot of leeway to say "The following assertions are unmitigated bullshit"; there is less leeway to say "If you believe that, you're a fucking moron". Christians have no more license than anyone else to make ad hominem attacks on people whose beliefs don't jibe with their own, and folks who are in vehement disagreement with Christians have no less license to take the intellectual scalpel to Christian beliefs than SDMB members have in general for taking on any set of assertions or beliefs.

Moderator action (as opposed to people inputting their takes on things, some of which people may be moderators) seldom pertains to the content of what is being asserted. I do see exceptions, some of which is well-explained and some less so, but I really don't see moderators shutting down intellectual deconstructions & dismemberments of Christian belief systems, nor a granting of license to Christian posters to be vituperative in a way that the rest of us are not allowed to be.

[saoirse]

Omigod, would you cretins realize when you're being made fun of? I can't agree with badchad without someone reiterating the whole "get a room" meme anymore, so since I did agree completely with that modest post of his, I went way over the top in an attempt to amuse you. Instead I seem to have filled you with self-righteous gloating at last confirming your pointless point about how he and I agree on a lot of stuff.

But if they think badchad is Evil and you always agree with him then that proves that you are Evil too. It all makes perfect logical sense. He does not need to add anything else. He wins the internets.

Jim


Get a room, you two.

[According to Pliny]

Uh, that wasn't the question.I was responding to the post directly above mine. The hijack was his not mine. What can I tell you, it happens.

[Tamerlane]

Atheist son of atheist parents and only nominally religious grandparents. Nope, no directed bias against atheism.

But I will agree with RJKUgly on this...

But if a xian (or poster of pretty much any religion) posts about beliefs, does not claim to have scientific proof, or even any proof, just a belief, they usually aren’t given too much grief. And they might even get mod protection if one of our oh-so-noble-we-just-HAVE-to-fight-ignorance-or-we-betray-all-we-hold-dear atheists gets a little too frisky.

In my opinion, this is the way it should be.

So the xians (or other theists) who don’t make falsifiable claims, or who at least aren’t basing their main points on falsifiable claims, may get treated differently then those who do. Again, IMHO, this is ok.

- Tamerlane

[Liberal]

No one should make any demand for a falsifiable claim about faith. To do so, a person would have to be either ignorant about both science and faith, or else just a troll. It's no different from a person demanding that science be tested by prayer.

[AHunter3]

Aye, but there's the proverbial rub. It seems to me that there are people on this board who are radical empiricists who believe that everything that exists (or for which to speak of existence has any meaning) does by definition exhibit qualities that lend themselves to falsifiable claims that demonstrate their existence. Furthermore, they do not regard that as being subject to debate. Rather, like rationality, it is simply assumed to be a starting point.

[According to Pliny]

What's a "falsifiable claim"? Is that like a "claim"? If not, what's different?

[Bryan Ekers]

And Christianity has given us:

-Lord of the Rings
-The Chronicles of Narnia
-Michaelangelo's Pieta and the Sistine Chapel
-Handel's Messiah



What has Scientology done for us? Battlefield Earth. And Leah Remini.

To be perfectly fair, Christianity's been around longer. And one were to compile lists of negatives....

[Lord Ashtar]

Omigod, would you cretins realize when you're being made fun of? I can't agree with badchad without someone reiterating the whole "get a room" meme anymore, so since I did agree completely with that modest post of his, I went way over the top in an attempt to amuse you. Instead I seem to have filled you with self-righteous gloating at last confirming your pointless point about how he and I agree on a lot of stuff.
I would've bought it as a joke if it didn't seem that you'd had your lips attached to his ass by a plastic surgeon months ago.

[AHunter3]

What's a "falsifiable claim"? Is that like a "claim"? If not, what's different?

Falsifiable claim: All horses have hooves. How: Find me one horse with no hooves.

Claim difficult to falsify: No horses have antlers. How: Investigate every single horse in existence and verify lack of antlers.

Claim difficult to falsify: The Allosaurus had red skin. How: develop whatever technologies are necessary to allow you to determine skin pigment from fossil specimen records and/or other conceivable artifacts of the period;

Claim not subject to falsification: Honest people are more dignified than deceitful people.

Claim not subject to falsification: The sight of the midwinter sky from a remote mountaintop is more beautiful than the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony.

Claim not subject to verification: The course of evolution is a manifestation of the will of God.



Does that clarify the distinction?

[Dunderman]

It seems to me that there are people on this board who are radical empiricists who believe that everything that exists (or for which to speak of existence has any meaning) does by definition exhibit qualities that lend themselves to falsifiable claims that demonstrate their existence. Furthermore, they do not regard that as being subject to debate. Rather, like rationality, it is simply assumed to be a starting point.I am one of those people. Not to be a narrowminded asshole (really), but I truly don't understand the opposing view. This isn't exactly the thread to discuss it, but I would appreciate it if you would start a Great Debates thread outlining your view.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Omigod, would you cretins realize when you're being made fun of? I can't agree with badchad without someone reiterating the whole "get a room" meme anymore, so since I did agree completely with that modest post of his, I went way over the top in an attempt to amuse you. Get better material because the only one you amused is yourself.

[AHunter3]

I am one of those people. Not to be a narrowminded asshole (really), but I truly don't understand the opposing view. This isn't exactly the thread to discuss it, but I would appreciate it if you would start a Great Debates thread outlining your view.
I think that would be a good idea, and would well serve both the atheists and those who have squared off with them in those acrimonious debates to do this meta-debate first :)

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Get better material because the only one you amused is yourself.
Apparently, I'm one of those comedians with a small cult following.

[Syntropy]

Agnostic, no, no, and no.

I think it would take some very selective reading to believe that Anglican/Catholic/Protestant Christians are given a pass any more than any other group. What I do notice is a willingness to jump an argument from anyone of any faith when that argument is not presented in a reasonable, well thought out manner. The vast majority of the Christians here are well educated and intelligent. They present their arguments in such a way that encourages open and frank discussion, and they're respectful of other posters' arguments (for the most part.) They are responded to in kind, even when other posters disagree with them strongly. That isn't bias. To my knowledge, that's the way it's supposed to work in Great Debates. (I don't hang out there often, please feel free to correct me.)

Frothing fundie doofuses who show up posting end times bullshit are routinely pointed and laughed at after the thread is inevitably moved here. As are Chick Tracts, the Westboro Baptists, the Pope (at least three pit threads in the past few months that I can recall), Christians who believe that Jesus showed up in pizza/toast/shower grout etc., Christians who are heads of PAC churches that try to get gay marriage outlawed and get found out to be having gay sex with a coke spoon up their nose.....the list goes on and on.

If Christians can be perceived to get more of a pass on this board than Scientology, perhaps it's because there are so many fun and enjoyable examples in the media of Scientologists exhibiting bizarre behaviour. If they just shut up and practiced their religion and didn't flip out and sue every time someone made fun of them, it'd probably be fine.

I would also suggest that perhaps it isn't the views expressed by badchad that is causing the perceived bias, but the fact that he feels it necessary to be such a dick while doing so. Just my two cents.

[Valteron]

I am an agnatheist, or agnostic/ soft atheist if you will.

I actually like and greatly admire all of the moderators, INCLUDING TOMNDEB (I will give him a second to pick himself up off the floor after reading those words). I think they are all doing a good job.

My suspicion is that Tomndeb is a liberal Roman Catholic. I stand to be corrected, but as a former Catholic, I can smell them at a hundred paces.

I think he sees the RC Church as more liberal and less reactionary than it is through wishful thinking. For example, many of his posts seem to imply that it is possible for a practising homosexual (practising be damned, I've had it down pat for decades :D ) to belong to that church without any contradiction. To justify his view, he clings to the Catholic doctrine about supremacy of the conscience. Of course, he completely ignores the corollary fact that the Catholic Church tells its faithful to be guided by its teaching. And its teaching on gays is very non-equivocal.

As a liberal, Tom wishes the Church were more accepting and so he sees it a so.

Similarly, I think he subscribes to the "benefit of clergy" tradition. If you post irrational beliefs that fly in the face of scince and reason, people in the SD boad will quite rightly jump on you. After all, if we are fighting ignorance, surey there is no greater ignorance than believing things on faith in direct contradiction of facts.

But label that ignorance as "my faith" in the religious sense and presto, you get some form of modern "benefit of clergy".

And why does anyone need protection by moderators anyhow?

When you get right down to it, the postings on this board are nothing but words on a screen. Go ahead and call me a butt-fucking, shit-covered, pansy-ass faggot who is afraid to have normal sex with a woman and wants to make decent people bow down to his mental illness and perversion in the name of phoney civil rights, and ho is going to burn in hell. I will just laugh and go to another board or another site.

Moderating is often nothing more than just censorship and tin-out dictatorship.

[Valteron]

Moderating is often nothing more than just censorship and tin-out dictatorship.
:smack: Ton-pot dictatorship.

[JustAnotherGeek]

Agnostic / Soft Atheist.

Help, help, I'm being oppressed!
Come and see the violence inherent to the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!




[ahem]

I mean "No, and no."

Also count me in the group of non-believers who gets annoyed at the non-believers who take the offensive over every tiny little niggling display of faith. I find these folks every bit as obnoxious as the occasional "you're all going to hell for believing in evolution" trolls that wander through.

[Syntropy]

Tin pot?

[Valteron]

:smack: Ton-pot dictatorship. :smack: Tin-pot dictatorship. I'm not dyslexic, I swear to Dog I'm not. :D

[the PC apeman]

Aye, but there's the proverbial rub. It seems to me that there are people on this board who are radical empiricists who believe that everything that exists (or for which to speak of existence has any meaning) does by definition exhibit qualities that lend themselves to falsifiable claims that demonstrate their existence. Furthermore, they do not regard that as being subject to debate. Rather, like rationality, it is simply assumed to be a starting point.
FTR, I assume rationality to be the starting point only for rational debates. YMMV

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

If Christians can be perceived to get more of a pass on this board than Scientology, perhaps it's because there are so many fun and enjoyable examples in the media of Scientologists exhibiting bizarre behaviour. If they just shut up and practiced their religion and didn't flip out and sue every time someone made fun of them, it'd probably be fine.

I would also suggest that perhaps it isn't the views expressed by badchad that is causing the perceived bias, but the fact that he feels it necessary to be such a dick while doing so. Just my two cents.

People seem to be confusing the two issues

1) if Xians are given a pass by the SD on their belief systems denied to other belief systems

and

2) whether that bias, if it exists, bothers them very much.

The consensus seems to be

1) Yeah, I suppose, slightly.

and

2) Not really.

The OP seemed to me to be just about item #1. If you want to minimize the importance of item #1, go right ahead. But don't pretend item #1 isn't true, please, when it's agreed that it is true but just not very important to you.

As to your two cents, I agree with this as well. Badchad has an irritating and abrasive style of interacting with people. Style, however, is not substance, and his substance is considerable. When people find his impressive energy and intellect too much to deal with in debate, the discussion then turns to how big an asshole he is. This is not so interesting a subject to me, and might be considered to be a systematic hijack by a fair-minded Mod, which is in short supply on GD these days.

[Syntropy]

People seem to be confusing the two issues

1) if Xians are given a pass by the SD on their belief systems denied to other belief systems

and

2) whether that bias, if it exists, bothers them very much.

The consensus seems to be

1) Yeah, I suppose, slightly.

and

2) Not really.

The OP seemed to me to be just about item #1. If you want to minimize the importance of item #1, go right ahead. But don't pretend item #1 isn't true, please, when it's agreed that it is true but just not very important to you.
The part of my post that you edited out addresses just that very thing. Examples and everything. That there are specific posters who are Christian and yet have not been thrown to the lions of the Pit speaks more to their overall character than to any bias toward Christianity. IIRC, there have been a few posters who were pitted for their overzealous preaching in GD.

As to your two cents, I agree with this as well. Badchad has an irritating and abrasive style of interacting with people. Style, however, is not substance, and his substance is considerable. When people find his impressive energy and intellect too much to deal with in debate, the discussion then turns to how big an asshole he is. This is not so interesting a subject to me, and might be considered to be a systematic hijack by a fair-minded Mod, which is in short supply on GD these days.
Substance is wonderful, if it can be added with a certain tone in GD. Personally, I fnd the tone required restricting, especially when I can't tell the person who refuses to directly answer a simple question to either put up or fuck off, so I argue here. It just fits my posting style better. Well. That and the dedication to the dissection of minutiae in GD borders on mind numbingly pedantic. Likewise, badchad might find his arguments are less restricted here and receive more support. It's all a matter of appropriate actions for appropriate fora.

[Yookeroo]

Omigod, would you cretins realize when you're being made fun of? I can't agree with badchad without someone reiterating the whole "get a room" meme anymore, so since I did agree completely with that modest post of his, I went way over the top in an attempt to amuse you. Instead I seem to have filled you with self-righteous gloating at last confirming your pointless point about how he and I agree on a lot of stuff.

If you post something that you think is over the top, yet no one reads it that way, that may say more about you than the "cretins" reading your posts.

Now I know how moderate/progressive Christians feel when someone like Pat Robertson opens his mouth.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Agnostic/weak atheist.

No and no.

I've been involved in a lot of EOG related debates and never felt constrained about expressing my opinions -- certainly not by the mods.

Oddly enough, I think I've gotten more angry responses for dismissing the existence of ghosts and psychics than for God.

[wolf in second hand clothing]

Atheist. I do think that there have been more than a few times where statements about Christianity are given the privilege of not being held to the scrutiny that is the standard of this board.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

If you post something that you think is over the top, yet no one reads it that way, that may say more about you than the "cretins" reading your posts.

Now I know how moderate/progressive Christians feel when someone like Pat Robertson opens his mouth.
Just curious: is there any degree of repetitious iteration of "I agree with badchad here" that might have indicated to you that I was making fun of what you believe is my slavish devotion to him? If I'd posted, say, for three pages, just solid "Yup, he's so smart, his post has hit the nail on the head, RIGHT-ON, BADCHAD" etc. would that have given you a hint I was joking? Six pages? A day and a half's worth of typing?

Or would you have simply never gotten the point I was making, because you had your head so squarely up your humor-free ass? If your answer is "No, you pretty much could have gone on all day, and I would have assumed you were serious and sycophantic," that may say something about you rather than me.

If you look at that post, and conclude my problem is that I was being too subtle, you need immediate work on your tonal skills.

[CarnalK]

Atheist here and I wouldn't say there's a moderation bias.

Like I said in the " So why was Ammonius Saccus banned?" thread, I do think that Christian or "real" religion gets more of a pass around here (from Dopers in general, not mods). If someone expressed "Faith" in the existence of ghosts they generally get a lot more pointed questions than someone expressing faith in some sort of "higher power". If religionists DO happen to get the more pointed questions they are just as quick as the spirit world crowd to call persecution or stalking.

Diogenes, do you think you publicly dismiss God the same way you dismiss ghosts and psychics?

[Yookeroo]

Just curious: is there any degree of repetitious iteration of "I agree with badchad here" that might have indicated to you that I was making fun of what you believe is my slavish devotion to him? If I'd posted, say, for three pages, just solid "Yup, he's so smart, his post has hit the nail on the head, RIGHT-ON, BADCHAD" etc. would that have given you a hint I was joking? Six pages? A day and a half's worth of typing?

Or would you have simply never gotten the point I was making, because you had your head so squarely up your humor-free ass? If your answer is "No, you pretty much could have gone on all day, and I would have assumed you were serious and sycophantic," that may say something about you rather than me.

If you look at that post, and conclude my problem is that I was being too subtle, you need immediate work on your tonal skills.

You could write a Robert Jordan length series of books praising badchad, and I'd think you were dead serious. Shoot, you could fill a whole library with books of badchad worship, and I'd think you were completely on the level.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Atheists: Do you feel that your views are oppressed here on the Dope? Does it seem that policy is weighted against you, and that the moderators go out of their way to chastize you, especially with regard to your interactions with Christians?


Lukewarm independant Christian here.

Atheists are at the top of the social heirarchy on the SDMB. After all, by definition they are not obviously conflicted by irrational beliefs and are free to follow the direction of scientific inquiry without prejudice. This attitude most perfectly fits with the primary objective of this board in fighting ignorance.

But they are not alone here in their desire to seek and dispense (emphaisis on dispense) the truth through logic and science like most of the rest of us.

As long as atheists can show respect for others who share the goals of the SDMB, this will be a nice community.

But when a very few atheists get radical and assert that only they have the truth, they come off just like the political fundies, and that is an attitude that does not go over well around here.

So if you are an intolerant atheist you will be made to feel uncomfortable.

[What Exit?]

Get a room, you two.
:D
But just to clarify, I am only defending PRR from attacks that are dishonest or illogical. I think he is wrong about Tom. I think I made that clear with my first post.
I would also suggest that perhaps it isn't the views expressed by badchad that is causing the perceived bias, but the fact that he feels it necessary to be such a dick while doing so. Just my two cents.
I really agree with this. badchad, Der Trihs & PRR would do themselves and other atheists/agnostics a favor if they tone it down.

I think the difference is, I do not think they have to tone it down until a moderator steps in and tells them to, the noise ratio of people telling them to, is as bad as what they do.

BTW: The fact that the mods, not even Tom, have forced them to tone it down is a good indication of how fair this board is to the Anti-Religious.

Jim

[AHunter3]

Priceguy, upthread a page: Originally Posted by AHunter3
It seems to me that there are people on this board who are radical empiricists who believe that everything that exists (or for which to speak of existence has any meaning) does by definition exhibit qualities that lend themselves to falsifiable claims that demonstrate their existence. Furthermore, they do not regard that as being subject to debate. Rather, like rationality, it is simply assumed to be a starting point.

I am one of those people. Not to be a narrowminded asshole (really), but I truly don't understand the opposing view. This isn't exactly the thread to discuss it, but I would appreciate it if you would start a Great Debates thread outlining your view. [/quote]


Here you go (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=401640)

[Zeriel]

Zen Buddhist. No, No, No.

[Hogwash]

Agnostic; maybe, maybe, maybe.

[saoirse]

Plenty of atheists have showed up. When is this "Interesting party" going to start?

[yojimbo]

Atheist, no and no.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Diogenes, do you think you publicly dismiss God the same way you dismiss ghosts and psychics?
Probably not directly as much, but I have been comparably unequivoval in dismissing specific claims of miracles and many of the historical assertions of the Bible. I also tend to refer to any and all beliefs in the supernatural -- including religious beliefs -- as belief in "magic."

I've never been anywhere near as vociferously anti-religion as a couple of others around here, though.

[Roonwit]

I agree with this 100%. The phrasing is perfect, the punctuation is flawless, the parallel structure is beyond reproach. What a fantastic post this was! Just gorgeous, pure genius. I dont know how he does it, time after time, post after post, getting it exactly right. I'm in utter awe.

Hey, at least you've got a good sense of humor.



That'll come in handy when you're BURNING IN HELL. :D

[Liberal]

Atheists are at the top of the social heirarchy on the SDMB. After all, by definition they are not obviously conflicted by irrational beliefs and are free to follow the direction of scientific inquiry without prejudice. This attitude most perfectly fits with the primary objective of this board in fighting ignorance.Yeah, except that science isn't the only thing knowable or worth knowing. (I know you didn't mean to imply that, given the rest of your post, but I just wanted to emphasize the fact.)

[Khadaji]

Agnostic. No.

[Derleth]

Yeah, except that science isn't the only thing knowable or worth knowing.That is why we write fiction.

[JRDelirious]

Others: From the outside looking in, same questions.

Raised/educated RC, currently off of active participation in organized religion. Parted in cordial terms, however ;)

As mentioned in other threads, I do not believe there is institutional oppression of the hard-atheist POV in the Dope. There is, as has been acknowledged by others and myself, a certain preponderant set of social-cultural mores and sensibilities -- there being no such thing as tabula rasa -- that tend to convey an expectation of respect and sentitivity towards moderates and mainstreamers on both the religious and atheist side. Far-fringe religions or spiritualities, including fundamentalist Christianity, receive fewer courtesies. But again, it's not policy, it's the culture of the population of the Board.

Badchad has an irritating and abrasive style of interacting with people. Style, however, is not substance, and his substance is considerable. When people find his impressive energy and intellect too much to deal with in debate, the discussion then turns to how big an asshole he is. Oh, that I can agree with -- badchad has his shit together and then some. And in one of this current festival o' threads he said something either yesterday or earlier today that was very spot on and has got me to thinking quite a bit (I just gotta find the appropriate thread to follow up...). Which is why I wonder what opportunities for good thought-provocation are lost because people get sick of the style before the point finally gets through. Even if style/form is not substance, it DOES create impressions [i]about[/i[ the substance. I guess I just cannot understand the whole notion of having a good, strong point and a rock solid argument in my hand, and then presenting it in a manner that I should know is going to alienate people; I suppose it just does not fit my personality to do that even when I know I'm right.

[Guinastasia]

Once again your argument is garbage and you are trying to reduce it to a popularity contest.

Scientology is an obvious bunch of garbage to any outside observer, but what makes you think the Bible does not look just as silly to a non-Christian?

Jim

It's called a joke, son.

[Liberal]

That is why we write fiction.True, it is. It's also why we write books about logic, world history, and important people. It's why we write and listen to music. Why we create and enjoy art. Why we try to get along with others who share our world. I'll reiterate that science isn't the only thing knowable or worth knowing. And based on what you said, I'll add that the notion that there is science and that everything else is fiction is a misconception.

[xenophon41]

Lapsed RC, former agnostic atheist, nonreligious (possibly irreligious) Christian. No and no.

Because my change in belief came during my participation on the Dope, and due to the fact that I used to be a frequent GDenizen, I've found myself on both sides of belief/antibelief discussions. I have not discerned any difference in moderation which involved me or those arguing along similar lines. Nor have I noticed any differences in the finer theological arguments or in the dissections of religious myth which sometimes masquerade as more "profound" examinations.

Oh, that I can agree with -- badchad has his shit together and then some. And in one of this current festival o' threads he said something either yesterday or earlier today that was very spot on and has got me to thinking quite a bit (I just gotta find the appropriate thread to follow up...).
This is interesting. Can you find that "something" and link to it? It goes against my experience with badchad, and may help me discover why a few posters whose substance and style usually impress me are supportive of him. IME, his arguments consist of rude examination of others' beliefs without followup discussion of the replies other than to characterize the replies as inadequate without demonstration that this is so. -And if bc's questioning were purely Socratic in nature, it would be defensible, but it is not. There is no following a path of examination in pursuit of understanding; his entire body of work at the Straight Dope has been to oppose belief and mock faith (almost exclusively Christian belief and faith unless I've missed something). Worst of all, his opposition is little more developed than an internet list of biblical quotations presented to point out scriptural inconsistencies, as if that exercise reveals anything about the theology itself -or says anything about nondogmatic faith. It is exactly as damaging to Christianity as a religion as a critical dissection of the inconsistencies between Ulysses and Huckleberry Finn would be to English Literature as a study.

[woodstockbirdybird]

Yeah, except that science isn't the only thing knowable or worth knowing. (I know you didn't mean to imply that, given the rest of your post, but I just wanted to emphasize the fact.)

I'd agree with that; but I'd also say that "God" as most theists define it is also unknowable. And the "you can't argue logically about matters of faith" argument can be (and is, in some cases) taken to ludicrous extremes - the fact that someone believes strongly in something in no way makes that belief valid in any objective sense. This has been done to death, and I'm sure nobody wants another debate on it here.

As to the OP:

Atheist; no across the board.

[Merijeek]

Atheist, and not really.

There does however, seem to me to be a sort of "enforced respect" toward the Big religions. I find them all to be bullshit, and I don't see why Christianity should get any more respect than Scientology. More than a few Cafe Society threads have turned into Scientology-bashing threads, but I don't recall seeing any mod action. A CS thread morphing into a Christian-bashing through certainly wouldn't have stayed there, and I believe would likely have been closed.

I do, however, find it hilariously hypocritical how the various Mythologists out there are so accepting of the other Mythologists...as long as they fit into one of the First Tier Myths.

First Tier, of course, are based strictly on membership as near as I can tell. Certainly their myths are no more probable than those on the Last Tier - such as the Scientologists.

-Joe

[Liberal]

What myth(s) are you talking about? The Great Flood might be a myth. Even changing water to wine might be a myth. But my experiences with God? I'm not a myth. And if you insist that I'm delusional, then maybe you're a part of that delusion as well. How about just let's both acknowledge this: you've experienced some things I never have, and I've experienced some things you never have. Yours aren't myths just because they aren't mine, and vice versa.

[Cisco]

I came in here to say basically what catsix, uglybeech, and Merijeek said. In short, it's not so much that atheists are biased against, than that the big three, and especially Christianity, is biased for. I think it's that there are more Christians here than anything else, and most Christians are raised to not take kindly to questions or disagreements about their religion.

Is there less of a Christian bias here than just about anywhere else? Yes, absolutely. Are atheists welcome here? Yes, absolutely. Is there, in general, an unofficial Christian bias among the members here? Yes, absolutely.

It's more complicated than 1 or 2 yes or no questions.

And FWIW, I've been to enough other boards to know that the mods here deserve my respect.

[Der Trihs]

What myth(s) are you talking about? The Great Flood might be a myth. Even changing water to wine might be a myth. Both are definately myths, or in the case of the latter, possibly a fraud ( a magician's trick ).

But my experiences with God? I'm not a myth. No, but your experiences are; you can't have experiences with a fictional being; and again, there simply isn't any evidence that God is anything more. Or you could just be lying; religious people seldom seem to have problems lying if it supports their favored myth.

How about just let's both acknowledge this: you've experienced some things I never have, and I've experienced some things you never have. Yours aren't myths just because they aren't mine, and vice versa.Except that claiming something known to be possible, or is known to exist, or both is not the same as claiming something that is neither known to be existent or possible - like God.Without objective evidence, making a claim that you've "experienced God" deserves nothing more than a dismissal and a sneer.

[Merijeek]

What myth(s) are you talking about? The Great Flood might be a myth. Even changing water to wine might be a myth. But my experiences with God? I'm not a myth. And if you insist that I'm delusional, then maybe you're a part of that delusion as well. How about just let's both acknowledge this: you've experienced some things I never have, and I've experienced some things you never have. Yours aren't myths just because they aren't mine, and vice versa.

Oh fuck off you little trolling drama queen. Opinions were asked for and given.

Seems that lately threadjacking is now a big offense. Why don't you just give up your account to save the mods the trouble of banning you?

-Joe

[Revenant Threshold]

What myth(s) are you talking about? The Great Flood might be a myth. Even changing water to wine might be a myth. But my experiences with God? I'm not a myth. And if you insist that I'm delusional, then maybe you're a part of that delusion as well. How about just let's both acknowledge this: you've experienced some things I never have, and I've experienced some things you never have. Yours aren't myths just because they aren't mine, and vice versa. I have a problem with this. Life experience, as you point out, can be a delusion. The best thing to do would be to take all the evidence we have - scientific tests, anecdotal data, and our life experiences - subject it all to logical analysis and see where we come out. So let's just both acknowledge this; I base my nonbelief on many types of evidence, plus my own life experience. You base yours on your life experience, whatever other evidence you accept, and faith. Why faith? Because the evidence isn't enough, otherwise. So please don't try to draw equivalency, as you seem to be doing here.

[catsix]

Liberal said:
What myth(s) are you talking about? The Great Flood might be a myth. Even changing water to wine might be a myth. But my experiences with God? I'm not a myth. And if you insist that I'm delusional, then maybe you're a part of that delusion as well. How about just let's both acknowledge this: you've experienced some things I never have, and I've experienced some things you never have. Yours aren't myths just because they aren't mine, and vice versa.

And this is exactly what I was talking about. The existence of the Big Three's god is taken for granted in such a way that no other god around here is.

Nobody here who came in and said that the existence of Xenu is not a myth, or the existence of Zeus is not a myth, would ever be taken seriously at all. They'd be told that these are myths and sent on their way. We've gotten past the point of even asking for proof, because we know there is none and that these things don't exist.

But the Big Three god gets a total pass. It's a myth more widely believed at this time than Xenu or Zeus, but a myth none the less.

[What Exit?]

And this is exactly what I was talking about. The existence of the Big Three's god is taken for granted in such a way that no other god around here is.

Nobody here who came in and said that the existence of Xenu is not a myth, or the existence of Zeus is not a myth, would ever be taken seriously at all. They'd be told that these are myths and sent on their way. We've gotten past the point of even asking for proof, because we know there is none and that these things don't exist.

But the Big Three god gets a total pass. It's a myth more widely believed at this time than Xenu or Zeus, but a myth none the less.
Again, true and well said.

Over in Cafe, I only chime in about a few current shows normally. One is "My Name is Earl". The stars happen to be Scientologists. They appear to be perfectly rational people who do not mention their religion or include it in the show or suggest others should join them. In over half the threads about "My Name is Earl", someone brings up the point that they are Scientologists like it is an important fact. Usually questioning their intelligence or motives as everyone must know that "all Scientologist are either crazy or out to brainwash people into their cult". If they keep their religion out of their acting and writing, who cares what faith they follow.

It seems no different if someone went into a thread about a show to complain that several of he lead actors were Jewish. If anyone did do that, they would be smacked down and pitted for being the fools they are.

So yes, some religions, especially Christian religions, appears to be more equal than others. I still think the board is extremely tolerant and the mods are exceptionally even handed. They might even bend over backwards the other way to give posters with hard-line views more leeway, than other offensive posters. I think this is for the good.

Jim

[Evil Captor]

Theist (roll yer own variety, not christian). No, and No.



I don't see it that way. There's a lot of leeway to say "The following assertions are unmitigated bullshit"; there is less leeway to say "If you believe that, you're a fucking moron". Christians have no more license than anyone else to make ad hominem attacks on people whose beliefs don't jibe with their own, and folks who are in vehement disagreement with Christians have no less license to take the intellectual scalpel to Christian beliefs than SDMB members have in general for taking on any set of assertions or beliefs.

Moderator action (as opposed to people inputting their takes on things, some of which people may be moderators) seldom pertains to the content of what is being asserted. I do see exceptions, some of which is well-explained and some less so, but I really don't see moderators shutting down intellectual deconstructions & dismemberments of Christian belief systems, nor a granting of license to Christian posters to be vituperative in a way that the rest of us are not allowed to be.

You're misinterpreting what I said. I wasn't complaining because it wasn't okay to call people names, I was complaining because Christian-style lardbrained malarkey gets a pass that other varieties do not. Frex, this whole Holy Ghost thing is considered somehow less of an obvious crock than Xebu or the 72 virigins or the giant turtle that the universe rests on. It's all obvious bullshit, the Christian stuff no less than any other, but the Christian bullshit doesn't get the short shrift it deserves, although Muslim and Scientology and others do.

I don't think the Mods have anything to do with this state of affairs, but it IS the state of affairs.

[CarnalK]

What myth(s) are you talking about? The Great Flood might be a myth. Even changing water to wine might be a myth. But my experiences with God? I'm not a myth.

Well, you've already been questioned about the fuller quote but I have to focus in on this. Your experience with God is entirely in your head. God doesn't interact with my brain nor perceivably with the physical world. Your experiences with God are akin to my experiences with floating across rooms and walking through walls - in other words, experiences from my dreaming/meditative state. I don't deny your experiences, merely announce the fact that they are proof of nothing beyond the power of your imagination.

[AHunter3]

You're misinterpreting what I said. I wasn't complaining because it wasn't okay to call people names, I was complaining because Christian-style lardbrained malarkey gets a pass that other varieties do not. Frex, this whole Holy Ghost thing is considered somehow less of an obvious crock than Xebu or the 72 virigins or the giant turtle that the universe rests on. It's all obvious bullshit, the Christian stuff no less than any other, but the Christian bullshit doesn't get the short shrift it deserves, although Muslim and Scientology and others do.

I don't think the Mods have anything to do with this state of affairs, but it IS the state of affairs.
I just don't see that. Lots of us poke fun at Christianity's theological metaphysics here on the board. I admit I've slacked off over the years — just a feeling that it's been said already, I guess — but I can recall penning a sendup or two of God the Almighty being required to sacrifice his Only Begotten Son (who is Himself, incidentally) before He will be allowed to forgive us for our sins... who writes this stuff?!@? :D

I've never been made to feel that doing so was off-limits. The thoughtful Christians with minds of their own don't get their hackles up about it (some of them even do their own sendups... not all Christians devour the babytalk pablum version of their faith's theologies). I've never been subjected to a pile-on nor gotten a wrist-slap from a moderator for doing it.

In this environment I'm more likely to take on the atheists. It's more fun.

[CarnalK]

Hmm, considering the seeming unanimity, I propose a concurrent and more open ended poll: How many of you feel that there is ANY undue bias on ANY issue in the moderation of the boards.
(any who have already answered, perhaps append)


To begin and to be obvious, the mods are ridiculous on intellectual property stuff sometimes.

[What Exit?]

Hmm, considering the seeming unanimity, I propose a concurrent and more open ended poll: How many of you feel that there is ANY undue bias on ANY issue in the moderation of the boards.
(any who have already answered, perhaps append)


To begin and to be obvious, the mods are ridiculous on intellectual property stuff sometimes.
I would like to agree with you on this, except that ultimately they work (as volunteers mostly) for a newspaper and they seemingly have to be extra-sensitive on intellectual property even when there is a lot of gray area.

Jim

[CarnalK]

Well, ISTM a newspaper ought to have an investment in freedom of information and free speech. I'm not expecting them to give away the farm but newspapers would be in a lot of trouble if they rolled over for every iota of a chance of a frivolous lawsuit.

[What Exit?]

Well, ISTM a newspaper ought to have an investment in freedom of information and free speech. I'm not expecting them to give away the farm but newspapers would be in a lot of trouble if they rolled over for every iota of a chance of a frivolous lawsuit.
I agree, but don't you get the feeling the directive to be diligent about copyright issues is coming from at least the Ed Zotti level or above?

I am just holding the mods blameless in this. I do not know what their guidelines are, but if you are going to do the job, you need to follow whatever guidelines are set.

Jim

[MEBuckner]

MEBuckner, who seems intent on keeping me out of Great Debates.
This is completely untrue.

[CarnalK]

I really don't know if it's a straight directive or something that just built up into the mod culture from a few early decisions. That magician thing was pretty wacky (and in my darkest of hearts, most amusing).

Anyway, I don't really want a poll on that question necessarily. Just curious of other peoples' perception of Board/Mod biases.

[xenophon41]

This is completely untrue.
I haven't see any evidence for it, and won't take Lib's assertion on faith, as it conflicts with too much that I know empirically. I hope he reassesses his belief and retests his perceptions...

[What Exit?]

I really don't know if it's a straight directive or something that just built up into the mod culture from a few early decisions. That magician thing was pretty wacky (and in my darkest of hearts, most amusing).

Anyway, I don't really want a poll on that question necessarily. Just curious of other peoples' perception of Board/Mod biases.
Okay, but what was the magician thing? I missed that one.

[CarnalK]

Thought you would've heard about it - don't know why I assumed . 1 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=266080) 2 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=266110) 3 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=266273) 4 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=266416)

Oddly, I had to search for those. Thought I had them saved somewheres, lol.

[badchad]

Well here’s my generalized take on the situation, whether you want to hear it or not.

It seems the consensus, at least among atheists, that there is no institutionalized prejudice against us, and as a population here, while we may not be the majority, our population is highly over representative. What as I and others have noted is that for the most part our beliefs are not treated poorly, but on a rational basis Christianity (particularly the liberal/nominal version) is treated with far too much respect, at least when compared to other equally irrational beliefs such as Scientology, Islam, psychics, dowsers, fundamentalist Christianity, etc.

Now I know a few will protest that some Christian beliefs are as unfalsifiable much as are leprechauns, fairies, and the flying spaghetti monster, and as such are beyond reproach. To this I answer that just because a belief isn’t falsifiable does not mean it isn’t patently ignorant. Especially, when said belief has piggy back rode on a mountain of already falsified claims. I mean really, the bible has been proven incorrect right, left, and center, and yet people actually believe it can be trusted when referring to the resurrection of room temperature, 2 day old, exsanguinated dead man? Give me a break. And we should remember that the goal of the straight dope is to fight ignorance, not to fight ignorance only when we perceive it serving our immediate selfish needs. Sure it is true some god’s can’t be proved not to exist but that does not mean it’s not incredibly ignorant to believe in any of them, especially ones riddled with contradictions, such as the problem of evil, or a system of justice necessitated on the impossible concept of free will, to name just a couple.

The straight dope is a good website, and one of the best I have found for finding good information and the debunking of bad information. Newcomers come here and say, “damn theses guys know there shit and ideas that are condemned, sure look like they deserve to be.” However with the overly good treatment that rationalist give Christianity, a newcomer will look and think “hey, this Christianity isn’t treated quite like Scientology or psychic surgery, there must be something extra-good about it.” “Christians who witness in favor of their beliefs get more respect, thus it must be it for some reason.” “The atheists who criticize it are often berated by other atheists for their intolerance, which isn’t demanded for Scientologists.” “There must be a good reason for it.” Whose fault is this? It’s not the Christians, for their (hopefully) compartmentalized stupidity/delusions really makes it so they know not what they do. Rather it is the fault of the silent and apologetic atheists here who selfishly give the superstition of their friends and family a free ride, when in fact it is quite true that there is no argument Christians can make in favor of their beliefs which we can not shoot down handily with knee jerk responses (problem of evil here, no free will here, this guys revelation is incompatible with yours here, supporting evidence is far insufficient for a given claim here, Jesus contradicts himself here, Jesus really wasn’t that loving or wise here, etc, etc, etc). The atheists here might not be a majority but they are a large enough minority to have a far greater influence than they do now. When new people come here they could, and I say should, see the wishy washy liberal Christian get his hat handed to him in a pileup the same way a fundamentalist does and the undecided lurker might think “goddamn, those beliefs are stupid” the same way onlookers think when they read a 6 day creationist get reamed.

People can say badchad is too mean, badchad is too blunt, badchad is too abrasive. But all I have done is treat most respected version of Christianity here (the liberal kind) with the respect it deserves, which is none. I treated these beliefs with the same respect other rationalists here treat beliefs in psychic powers, Scientology, and werewolves, and for that matter the same way many liberal Christians treated the beliefs of their fundamentalist brothers. I took who was arguably the most popular, most eloquent, and most influential Christian one these boards (Polycarp, made him my project and fucked his shit up. I took his well worded bullshit and pointed out that it was merely bullshit. I took his beliefs apart (not straw man versions either) piece by piece. Some Christians here realized it, I figure most atheist here do, and Polycarp definitely knows it ;) . I did this in part because I thought he was the strongest and best defender of his type of faith, and in part because I thought he deserved a taste of his own medicine. All he can do is hope that I get banned or bored and that the membership of this board has a short memory, because since I have returned a few months ago his theology has again become a non factor.

Now if I can do this single handedly the collective work of other atheists here can do a lot more. Sure people might were mean in the short term. To which respond “fuck you were right” and it’s time we start acting like it instead of giving pretence to the toleration and respect of stupidity. So in short, I am saying to the atheists out there who think we deserve to speak proudly of our disbelief, not just on an anonymous message board but in public without fear of censure, and to those who think we should not be troubled by discriminatory practices based on outdated religious moors is:

START PULLING YOUR WEIGHT!

QUIT COMPLAINING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY GETTING A PASS, AND STOP GIVING IT A PASS!

[What Exit?]

Thought you would've heard about it - don't know why I assumed . 1 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=266080) 2 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=266110) 3 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=266273) 4 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=266416)

Oddly, I had to search for those. Thought I had them saved somewheres, lol.
Thanks, that happened a year before I got here and it looks like it was small potatoes compared to some other controversies. I am sad that they think the policy has to apply even to magic tricks.

I got shut down on a question about a product that never violated an existing law, but that the RIAA had successfully nuisance suited the company out of existence. I got an apology it was closed, but at the same time told it could not be asked.

badchad, I choose the opposite approach, when someone berates an illogical belief, I ask them to treat the believers like they would treat any mainstream believer.

Keep fighting your good fight, but remember you cannot convince others when foam is coming from your mouth. ;)

Jim

[CarnalK]

The straight dope is a good website, and one of the best I have found for finding good information and the debunking of bad information. Newcomers come here and say, “damn theses guys know there shit and ideas that are condemned, sure look like they deserve to be.” However with the overly good treatment that rationalist give Christianity, a newcomer will look and think “hey, this Christianity isn’t treated quite like Scientology or psychic surgery, there must be something extra-good about it.” “Christians who witness in favor of their beliefs get more respect, thus it must be it for some reason.” “The atheists who criticize it are often berated by other atheists for their intolerance, which isn’t demanded for Scientologists.” “There must be a good reason for it.” Whose fault is this?

Sorry, thought I'd pick that out. It might get a little lost in the middle of that layout but it seems to me your central point of the post and in general ... please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Bryan Ekers]

However with the overly good treatment that rationalist give Christianity, a newcomer will look and think “hey, this Christianity isn’t treated quite like Scientology or psychic surgery, there must be something extra-good about it.”

So your position boils down to "won't someone please think of the children who might be reading this message board?"

Frankly, any newcomer who thought this place was endorsing Christianity simply by not suppressing it to the degree you seem to want is too dumb to hang around here, anyway.

Incidentally, do you think Judaism is given an equal pass? We've had numerous threads about Jewish ritual and several posters who prefer to type "G_d", yet I'm not aware of any moderator crackdown, which to you apparently implies tacit support.

[xenophon41]

Well, now that we know the great and powerful badchad has singlehandedly nullified the theology of our most influential Christian -and using only kneejerk reactions!- I guess we can consider to this poll to be moot.

What hubris! How can so much arrogance fit in so small a container?

Y'know, the sad thing is bad in a way has the right attitude about silence in the face of obnoxious ignorance. It's a shame he doesn't put his own ignorance in that category. And that's a sincere statement of regret. I came to this board to fight my own ignorance along with any other type I found, and I've benefitted greatly from that. Had I come here convinced that my way of knowledge was the only one acceptable, I'd have gained nothing -and given nothing.

[Caridwen]

People can say badchad is too mean, badchad is too blunt, badchad is too abrasive. But all I have done is treat most respected version of Christianity here (the liberal kind) with the respect it deserves, which is none.

Well that's a little creepy. That post made Caridwen's head hurt.

...Polycarp, made him my project and fucked his shit up..

Did you ever think about taking a little breather from the religion posts?

[Liberal]

No, but your experiences are [mythical]; you can't have experiences with a fictional being; and again, there simply isn't any evidence that God is anything more. Or you could just be lying; religious people seldom seem to have problems lying if it supports their favored myth.Then that makes you more delusional than I, doesn't it? I mean, here you are attempting to reason with a man who is, in your view, an irrational liar.

Without objective evidence, making a claim that you've "experienced God" deserves nothing more than a dismissal and a sneer.And where is the objective evidence of your assertion? What proof do you have that you've lived my life and know about my experience? Or is it another case of applying different standards to yourself than you apply to others?

So let's just both acknowledge this; I base my nonbelief on many types of evidence, plus my own life experience. You base yours on your life experience, whatever other evidence you accept, and faith. Why faith? Because the evidence isn't enough, otherwise. So please don't try to draw equivalency, as you seem to be doing here.You have yet to show by what objective criteria the evidence you accept is superior to the evidence I accept. Two jurors at the same trial may vote opposite verdicts having heard and evalutated the same evidence. I'm afraid that, too often, we think that the juror who agrees with us is the one who is smart and who evaluates evidence correctly.

But the Big Three god gets a total pass.Really? So far, I've been called delusional, a liar, deserving of nothing more than a dismissal and a sneer, living in a dream world, believing what I believe without any evidence. And what else? Oh, that I should be banned. If that's a total pass, I'd hate to see resistance.

I don't deny your experiences, merely announce the fact that they are proof of nothing beyond the power of your imagination.Then what's the difference? If I've imagined my experiences with God — or with you, for that matter — the effect is exactly the same. I have the memories, the emotional and intellectual responses, the physical consequences, and the comprehension of significance.

[CarnalK]

Then what's the difference? If I've imagined my experiences with God — or with you, for that matter — the effect is exactly the same. I have the memories, the emotional and intellectual responses, the physical consequences, and the comprehension of significance.
The difference I suppose, is that I was under the impression that you felt God was something outside of yourself, as well as within. Nothing in your list of things you've gained from God offends my intellectual sensibilities in the least. It's only if you think we share a God that we would differ in opinion.

[Mtgman]

START PULLING YOUR WEIGHT!

QUIT COMPLAINING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY GETTING A PASS, AND STOP GIVING IT A PASS!Nah. I don't really give a shit. Those who have examined their faith have found what they believe to be a substantial, if not scientific or rational, basis upon which to continue it or have abandoned it. Those who are not interested in examining their faith won't be swayed by anything I say. So here's how I play it. I don't want people coming up to me demanding I re-examine my position on religion all the time. So, in the greatest tradition of non-religious based ethical behavior, I don't do it to other people.

You want to do the atheist equivalent of knocking on people's doors early on the weekends with handfuls of leaflets, go for it. Don't be suprised when people don't answer the door, or occasionally turn hose on you. Demanding other atheists join you in your early morning weekend excursions is seriously laughable. One of the biggest perks of being nonreligious is sleeping in on the weekends!

Enjoy,
Steven

[Lord Ashtar]

You're misinterpreting what I said. I wasn't complaining because it wasn't okay to call people names, I was complaining because Christian-style lardbrained malarkey gets a pass that other varieties do not. Frex, this whole Holy Ghost thing is considered somehow less of an obvious crock than Xebu or the 72 virigins or the giant turtle that the universe rests on. It's all obvious bullshit, the Christian stuff no less than any other, but the Christian bullshit doesn't get the short shrift it deserves, although Muslim and Scientology and others do.
Well then, I guess it's a good thing my beliefs don't contain any Christian-style lardbrained mularkey.

[Bryan Ekers]

QUIT COMPLAINING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY GETTING A PASS

Out of curiosity, who here aside from you is doing this?

[Sevastopol]

...We've had numerous threads about Jewish ritual and several posters who prefer to type "G_d", yet I'm not aware of any moderator crackdown, ... What's to crack down on?

[Triskadecamus]

Well, well, well.

Okay, first things first.

I am a Christian. No, I don't feel persecuted, prosecuted, or even much poked at, by mods, or by the population of the board. I find myself unwilling to call someone ignorant, or stupid, or evil because of a difference in beliefs. No, I don't use the standards of scientific proof as the sole guide to my decision making in life. I try to be respectful to atheists, Hindus, Scientologists, and even the only actual Luciferian Satanist we had on the board. But then, I think that has more to do with personal habits than theology, or philosophy. I just try to be respectful. The only time I really loose it is with Republicans, and I always feel badly afterwards.

But, I don't much try to convince anyone to be a Christian with logical argument. I don't much try to intellectually defend my faith. I seldom pray for engineering plans, or political influence, either.

I sometimes get a little bit embarrassed when someone here starts whacking atheists with the bible. That seems to me to be a disrespectfully secular use of the founding document of your religion. But then, I find using it as a biology text is more than silly.

I don't post much in the theology threads, because most of them are undisciplined, rude, and drowning in the echoes of dead atheists and saints, and past posters. Some people think I am a fool for having faith in the Lord Jesus. I can't prove them wrong. I don't even think they are wrong. Being right is not always the most important thing. Being a fool is not always such a bad thing.

I do try to examine the world in ways that reflect careful observation, or at least the reports of people I know are widely believed to be careful observers. I try to understand the incredible complexity of the universe in which many believe we exist. I don't though. Understand it, that is. And I think that that does not prove it wrong, or right. I don't all that often find proof.

I have found kindness here. And humor, and a lot of information, some of it even accurate! I have tried to return that in kind. Some kindness, some information, and some accuracy.

The most useful tool I have found for dealing with intransigent hostility on matters of intellectual opinion is the page down key. Try it, you might like it.

Tris
----------------------------
"As I know more of mankind, I expect less of them, and am ready now to call a man a good man, upon easier terms than I was formerly." ~ Samuel Johnson, 1783 ~

[Der Trihs]

QUIT COMPLAINING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY GETTING A PASS
Out of curiosity, who here aside from you is doing this?To various degrees, him, me, Cisco, catsix, uglybeech, Merijeek, What Exit, Valteron, Evil Captor, pseudotriton ruber ruber, and probably other's I've missed have pointed out this board's Christian/religious bias.

Then that makes you more delusional than I, doesn't it? I mean, here you are attempting to reason with a man who is, in your view, an irrational liar. Not delusional. I just like arguing with people. I would never expect to convince anyone about religion, because if they were rational on the subject they wouldn't be religious in the first place. Nor did I say you were an irrational liar, although you might be; I said you were irrational or a liar; that's my opinion of people who make silly claims without evidence. I'd say the same if you claimed to be communing with the Valar.

And where is the objective evidence of your assertion? What proof do you have that you've lived my life and know about my experience? Or is it another case of applying different standards to yourself than you apply to others? As I and others have pointed out many times, it's the burden of the believer to come with evidence.

[Zoe]

Der Trihs: As I and others have pointed out many times, it's the burden of the believer to come with evidence.

No, we don't have to provide you with evidence. Certain non-believers are the ones demanding evidence. Why should we take on this burden? We can just go to another thread or another forum where two or three fellow Dopers aren't wanting to hit us with big sticks.

It's not as if we all want to convince you of anything.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

you cannot convince others when foam is coming from your mouth. ;)
And why beholdest thou the foam that is in thy brother's mouth, but considerest not the foam that is in thine own mouth?

[Der Trihs]

No, we don't have to provide you with evidence.I'm not talking about me, I'm pointing out that it's the believer's logical burden, if they want to be anything other than a self deluding fool. Whether you are trying to convince or anyone else or not.

Why should we take on this burden? We can just go to another thread or another forum where two or three fellow Dopers aren't wanting to hit us with big sticks.And you'll be wrong there instead of here. Quite the accomplishment.

[Liberal]

The difference I suppose, is that I was under the impression that you felt God was something outside of yourself, as well as within. Nothing in your list of things you've gained from God offends my intellectual sensibilities in the least. It's only if you think we share a God that we would differ in opinion.Sorry about that, then. There was definitely a misunderstanding. I do stipulate (and actually always have) that from your perspective there is indeed no God, and it is as valid a perspective as my own (in which there is). Experience with God is an intimate, personal, and subjective thing, just like consciousness.

[Liberal]

As I and others have pointed out many times, it's the burden of the believer to come with evidence.But how could you apprehend my evidence with it right in your face? My wife cannot apprehend why I don't like social schmoozing. My experience is my evidence, and that part of the universe is completely closed to you. You can't replicate it. Hence, the silliness of demands for scientific evidence.

[Revenant Threshold]

You have yet to show by what objective criteria the evidence you accept is superior to the evidence I accept. Two jurors at the same trial may vote opposite verdicts having heard and evalutated the same evidence. I'm afraid that, too often, we think that the juror who agrees with us is the one who is smart and who evaluates evidence correctly. I make no claim that my evidence is superior to your evidence. I'm saying that how we create our worldview is different. My worldview is the result of looking at the evidence. I must take it on faith that i'm not a brain in a jar, but beyond that my worldview is entirely supported by the evidence that I have seen. Your worldview, on the other hand, not only requires faith that you're not a brain in a jar, but also faith that it works at all. The evidence that you have seen does not fully account for your worldview; you need faith. So while your and my evidence may indeed be perfectly equal, I do not need to add faith to support my worldview. That's the difference.

[What Exit?]

And why beholdest thou the foam that is in thy brother's mouth, but considerest not the foam that is in thine own mouth?
Yeah, but with me it is only usually involving baseball. It might come to blows in a bar or stadium, but never to war in the real world. ;)

Triskadecamus: Well said and I appreciate your position. This is a sound way to go through life, especially if you separate your religion from your politics and where you think scientific research should be taking us.

I still await the proof from my atheist friends that God(s) does not exist. I think the fallacies and contradictions of the bible are obvious and numerous, I think the teachings of any Christian church that still insist the Bible is the "Word of God" is far out of step with reality, but I have yet to see any scientifically rigorous proof that God(s) did not set off the Big Bang and directed the acting of physical laws. It is even possible he rigged evolution to produce us humans. ;)

When anyone claims to know what God is or what he wants, I do immediately dismiss him or her as being as crazy as a tinfoil mad hatter.

Anyway, that is why I am not an Atheist and I am a mostly recovered Roman Catholic.

Jim

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I still await the proof from my atheist friends that God(s) does not exist. I think the fallacies and contradictions of the bible are obvious and numerous, I think the teachings of any Christian church that still insist the Bible is the "Word of God" is far out of step with reality, but I have yet to see any scientifically rigorous proof that God(s) did not set off the Big Bang and directed the acting of physical laws.
Look at the portion of Der Trihs' sig that says "When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours." You're shifting the burden of proof onto Atheists, demanding that we prove a negative proposition. Whatever reason is sufficient to a Xian for his certainty in knowing that Shiva or Baal do not exist applies precisely to atheists regarding a Xian God.

[What Exit?]

Look at the portion of Der Trihs' sig that says "When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours." You're shifting the burden of proof onto Atheists, demanding that we prove a negative proposition. Whatever reason is sufficient to a Xian for his certainty in knowing that Shiva or Baal do not exist applies precisely to atheists regarding a Xian God.
I understand there is a huge difference between someone claiming that only their God is the one true God and an Atheist saying there is no God. Most religious folk I know do not make such claims. I do know a few that do and in most ways they function well in society despite these odd beliefs.

I am not demanding you disprove God, I am merely saying I do not have the certainty that god(s) does not exist and I have never seen any convincing proof that God does not. Nor have I seen any convincing proof that he does.

I do believe that religion has done too much harm in the past and continues to do too much harm currently. I do believe we would be far better off with a lack of organized, Word of God Churches/Temples.

So, while I sympathize far more with atheists than the devout, I cannot completely dismiss the idea of an impersonal Creator. I am left questioning. I am happy with any denomination that lets people live their life, preaches tolerance and does not interfere with birth control and safe sex classes. If they do no harm, they are just another social club to me.

Jim

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I. I am happy with any denomination that lets people live their life, preaches tolerance and does not interfere with birth control and safe sex classes. When you find one, LMK.

[twickster]

When you find one, LMK.
Society of Friends (Quakers).

[JustAnotherGeek]

When you find one, LMK.

The UU's. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism)

[JustAnotherGeek]

To badchad:

QUIT ACTING LIKE A BOLLOCK. YOU MAKE SOME VERY GOOD POINTS, BUT YOUR POSTING STYLE IS DETRACTING MORE THAN YOUR INTELLIGENCE ADDS.

IOW: The "beat 'em over the head" approach will not acheive the results you desire. Because of your posting style, you get treated with just as much tolerance as the missionaries that bang on doors at 7:00am on Saturdays. I understand your desire to fight the good fight, but I don't understand your lack of tact(ics).

[JRDelirious]

And badchad is kind enough to provide his own examples of how on the one hand he has good, strong points worth thinking of:


What as I and others have noted is that for the most part our beliefs are not treated poorly, but on a rational basis Christianity (particularly the liberal/nominal version) is treated with far too much respect, at least when compared to other equally irrational beliefs such as Scientology, Islam, psychics, dowsers, fundamentalist Christianity, etc.

[....] Sure it is true some god’s can’t be proved not to exist but that does not mean it’s not incredibly ignorant to believe in any of them, especially ones riddled with contradictions, such as the problem of evil, or a system of justice necessitated on the impossible concept of free will, to name just a couple.

[...] Newcomers come here and say, “damn theses guys know there shit and ideas that are condemned, sure look like they deserve to be.” However with the overly good treatment that rationalist give Christianity, a newcomer will look and think “hey, this Christianity isn’t treated quite like Scientology or psychic surgery, there must be something extra-good about it.” “Christians who witness in favor of their beliefs get more respect, thus it must be it for some reason.” “The atheists who criticize it are often berated by other atheists for their intolerance, which isn’t demanded for Scientologists.” “There must be a good reason for it.” Whose fault is this? It’s not the Christians, for their (hopefully) compartmentalized stupidity/delusions really makes it so they know not what they do. Rather it is the fault of the silent and apologetic atheists here who selfishly give the superstition of their friends and family a free ride, when in fact it is quite true that there is no argument Christians can make in favor of their beliefs which we can not shoot down handily [...]
[...]I treated these beliefs with the same respect other rationalists here treat beliefs in psychic powers, Scientology, and werewolves, and for that matter the same way many liberal Christians treated the beliefs of their fundamentalist brothers.
[...]
QUIT COMPLAINING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY GETTING A PASS, AND STOP GIVING IT A PASS

That bit I bolded near the end is something that does give me pause: why indeed should someone in the more liberal school of any religion act all censorious towards the more radicals?

And indeed, there is no need to kowtow needlessly. Being frank and firm is not the same thing as being rude.(HOWEVER... the converse is also true.)


... BUT then of course, he also shows how the other hand he can be quite the dick about it:


[...] When new people come here they could, and I say should, see the wishy washy liberal Christian get his hat handed to him in a pileup the same way a fundamentalist does and the undecided lurker might think “goddamn, those beliefs are stupid” the same way onlookers think when they read a 6 day creationist get reamed.

People can say badchad is too mean, badchad is too blunt, badchad is too abrasive. But all I have done is treat most respected version of Christianity here (the liberal kind) with the respect it deserves, which is none. I took who was arguably the most popular, most eloquent, and most influential Christian one these boards (Polycarp), made him my project and fucked his shit up. I took his well worded bullshit and pointed out that it was merely bullshit. I took his beliefs apart (not straw man versions either) piece by piece. Some Christians here realized it, I figure most atheist here do, and Polycarp definitely knows it ;) . I did this in part because I thought he was the strongest and best defender of his type of faith, and in part because I thought he deserved a taste of his own medicine. All he can do is hope that I get banned or bored and that the membership of this board has a short memory, because since I have returned a few months ago his theology has again become a non factor.

[..] Sure people might <say/feel> were mean in the short term. To which <I> respond “fuck you were right” [...]

Unfortunately, in the Real World of Real People, "Fuck you, we're right!" is just as effective as the curses PRR gets in hate-mail. All it says is you are yourself an absolutist on your side of the issue, and you've made it MORE than just a matter of fighting for truth because it's good to do so, but have made it a matter of crushing your opponent. (FWIW, "Fuck you, we're right!" is the official George Bush policy towards the opinion of the international community. Lotsa good it does anybody...)

And that "made him my project" campaign to destroy someone who, though held in high personal esteem, had already made it patent that he should not be held to speak in the name of any institutional interpretation of Christianity but his very own? Speaks volumes to your character; you talk of not fighting ignorance for our own selfish interest, but reveal a streak of pleasure in the carnage. Not for me, thank you very much. If an idea I disagree with neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, I have no need to go after it and its supporters all guns blazing, and it pains me not that it may pass later rather than sooner.

[cosmosdan]

I make no claim that my evidence is superior to your evidence. I'm saying that how we create our worldview is different. My worldview is the result of looking at the evidence. I must take it on faith that i'm not a brain in a jar, but beyond that my worldview is entirely supported by the evidence that I have seen. Your worldview, on the other hand, not only requires faith that you're not a brain in a jar, but also faith that it works at all. The evidence that you have seen does not fully account for your worldview; you need faith. So while your and my evidence may indeed be perfectly equal, I do not need to add faith to support my worldview. That's the difference.

I don't agree. After lots of discussions here on the boards I think we all operate on a certain amount of faith. There's a movement to remove the protected status of religious belief and to challenge them. I'm all for that. There are plenty of myths and traditions that need to be challenged. What I find interesting is that the same people want to remove that protected status want to keep religious faith in a separate category {one far worse} from the faith we all operate on.

I may operate on a faith that there is a spiritual connection between all mankind and you don't find that particular bit of faith necessary. You still operate on some kind of subjective system of values in which you have faith and determines your day to day choices. What is the foundation of your value system? It isn't some nebulous deity , but it may be just as vague and uncertain. In order for us to move forward we must operate on faith.

[Lord Ashtar]

And why beholdest thou the foam that is in thy brother's mouth, but considerest not the foam that is in thine own mouth?
Fundamentalist evangelical Christians get the same reaction that badchad is getting. Is that somehow unfair?

[fluiddruid]

...but on a rational basis Christianity (particularly the liberal/nominal version) is treated with far too much respect, at least when compared to other equally irrational beliefs such as Scientology, Islam, psychics, dowsers, fundamentalist Christianity, etc. ...And we should remember that the goal of the straight dope is to fight ignorance, not to fight ignorance only when we perceive it serving our immediate selfish needs. Yet, there are important differences between those things. Saying that any belief that incorporates the supernatural is equally as false and worthless as any other is ignorant. There is a very real and very obvious difference between believing in psychic surgery and Scientology and having an ethical belief system with any notion of a God.

Scientology and psychic surgery are harmful things. Scientology has caused known harm and even deaths, and furthermore harms by holding people away from medical treatments that may benefit them. The same thing applies to psychic surgery (as well as voodoo and certain fatalistic sects of Christianity).

However, one can be a Christian - particularly a liberal one - and find the idea of a personal, loving God compelling, but still put forward ideas and solutions that destroy ignorance. In fact, I think that religion may not be a wholly destructive influence on society - the idea of having ethics reinforced by a supernatural force may indeed be present in society because societies that have religious beliefs tend to thrive, even if their beliefs are not fundamentally true.

However with the overly good treatment that rationalist give Christianity, a newcomer will look and think “hey, this Christianity isn’t treated quite like Scientology or psychic surgery, there must be something extra-good about it.” “Christians who witness in favor of their beliefs get more respect, thus it must be it for some reason.” Frankly, I do not see a problem with this.

I live in a country - as do the majority of Dopers - that is a Christian majority. Screaming "your beliefs are as stupid as believing in satyrs and leprechauns" at Christians is just as stupid, ignorant, and aggressive as Christians screaming at atheists "You're going to Hell and you're rejecting God!" It's extremely arrogant and does nothing to increase rational discourse, and, in turn, holds back progress rather than moves things forward.

You are giving atheists the appearance of being intolerant grumps who want to take away Santa Claus from kids because your opinion of absolute truth can never be compromised nor any other options explored. This makes you the same as a fundamentalist Christian - someone to be criticized and suspect of, rather than respected as you surmise is appropriate.

Saying "all religions are the same" is just as asinine coming from an atheist as it is coming from someone who has a feel-good attitude that we're all somehow worshipping the same God and, oh, why can't we just get along? There are qualitative differences between religions just as there are qualititative differences between arguments for atheism. I agree with your premise but not your tactics, nor your reasoning.

[catsix]

Liberal said:
Sorry about that, then. There was definitely a misunderstanding. I do stipulate (and actually always have) that from your perspective there is indeed no God, and it is as valid a perspective as my own (in which there is).

I don't consider the perspective of belief in an mythical (yes, as in the definition of myth) god as being 'valid' at all. Widely held, yes. Valid, no.

What Exit? said:
I still await the proof from my atheist friends that God(s) does not exist.

Again the difference between the Big Three and all other religions. If someone showed up here and demanded proof that Thor doesn't exist, they'd be laughed out of town.

Do you also insist upon proof that the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus and the Great Pumpkin don't exist?

I am not demanding you disprove God, I am merely saying I do not have the certainty that god(s) does not exist and I have never seen any convincing proof that God does not. Nor have I seen any convincing proof that he does.


Do you believe that unicorns exist?

How about dragons?

[Triskadecamus]

You know, the burden of proof is a voluntary burden. The Scientific Man's burden, if you will. It falls upon those who seek to prove something to someone else. I don't have it. You might well want me to feel it, but I am not trying to prove anything to you, so I don't really have it at all.

Have you read "Principia Mathematica?" About fifteen years ago, I realized that I had not actually read this founding document of western philosophy. I had had it referenced to me hundreds of times. So, I bought a copy, and read it. Tough going, in the later parts. (My mathematical ability tends to be more spiritual than scientific. :))

But the thing that I noticed most about it was how very much it was ol' Newt just begging his peers, "No, really, don't take my word for it, get some balls and tracks and try it yourself!" When I discuss my faith, I pretty much take the same track. Don't take my word for it, look into your heart, and see if you can find a place there where you can meet the Lord. (Well, you might want to clean the place up just a bit, first. Just in case He really is the Lord of All, ya know?) After you do that, you might want to read The Book.

Or, don't. I won't say it's all the same to me, just that convincing you is irrelevant to the phenomenon. I have faith that you will meet Him. And when you do, you won't ask Him for His identification. But my faith is not your faith, and it doesn't make me better than you.

Tris

[What Exit?]

When you find one, LMK.
What twickster & JustAnotherGeek said. I just do not feel any need to join them.

Again the difference between the Big Three and all other religions. If someone showed up here and demanded proof that Thor doesn't exist, they'd be laughed out of town.

Do you also insist upon proof that the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus and the Great Pumpkin don't exist?

Do you believe that unicorns exist?

How about dragons?
Two answers:
In the huge multiverse, which is accepted scientific theory; it is likely that somewhere creatures that would pass for Dragons and Unicorns do exist.

That out of the way, I find all the personalities and creatures you mentioned every bit as likely to exist as the Christian God, Jehovah or Allah. The difference is that the ones you mentioned are far more enjoyable to contemplate. ;)

I thought I made it clear, I do not insist that anyone proves to me that God does not exist. I just have never seen enough proof to convince me of the non-existence. I do not think you really have an argument with me. I think I am just expressing myself very poorly again.

Jim

[cosmosdan]

And badchad is kind enough to provide his own examples of how on the one hand he has good, strong points worth thinking of:

That bit I bolded near the end is something that does give me pause: why indeed should someone in the more liberal school of any religion act all censorious towards the more radicals?

And indeed, there is no need to kowtow needlessly. Being frank and firm is not the same thing as being rude.(HOWEVER... the converse is also true.)


... BUT then of course, he also shows how the other hand he can be quite the dick about it:



Unfortunately, in the Real World of Real People, "Fuck you, we're right!" is just as effective as the curses PRR gets in hate-mail. All it says is you are yourself an absolutist on your side of the issue, and you've made it MORE than just a matter of fighting for truth because it's good to do so, but have made it a matter of crushing your opponent. (FWIW, "Fuck you, we're right!" is the official George Bush policy towards the opinion of the international community. Lotsa good it does anybody...)

And that "made him my project" campaign to destroy someone who, though held in high personal esteem, had already made it patent that he should not be held to speak in the name of any institutional interpretation of Christianity but his very own? Speaks volumes to your character; you talk of not fighting ignorance for our own selfish interest, but reveal a streak of pleasure in the carnage. Not for me, thank you very much. If an idea I disagree with neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, I have no need to go after it and its supporters all guns blazing, and it pains me not that it may pass later rather than sooner.

I thought something along these lines when I read that post. You've expressed it better than I could have. Thanks.

What irks me about posters like DerTrihs and BC
is that when you point out to them how their behavior is so similar to those they decry, or that portions of their argument are just equally wrong mirror images of the beliefs they are bashing they retreat to simple denial and misdirection, which is another tactic they ridicule in others.

To response to some of your points. IMHO the more liberal schools of religion have a better live and let live attitude. I have my beliefs and I respect your right choose your own path providing it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg, to borrow your phrase. There's also a difference between believing in something on speculative and subjective evidence and believing something in spite of serious objective evidence against it. Even then, if someone believes the Bible was written by God and focuses on love thy neighbor I won't hammer them on the subject. If someone pulls a verse out of context and tries to use it to suppress the civil human rights of gays then they need to be fought.

In language I have little problem with people saying "I believe this" I feel this way about it" " I think this is true" because they are taking ownership of their beliefs. When their language changes to "God said, The Bible says, Jesus says" in a way that implies it is not just their interpretation but an absolute truth, I have a problem. In a similar way when our more extreme atheists assert their own opinions as "the obvious truth" I have a problem. To me it indicates a mind that is more interested in asserting it's ideas rather than understanding others.

I agree our society has a misunderstanding over what rude actually means. Being truthful, frank and direct are not rude. In many cases they are acts of consideration and respect. Add those qualities to a touch of diplomacy and someone can really win my respect and admiration. As my brother says, "Free speech is a right, not an obligation"

[Bryan Ekers]

To various degrees, him, me, Cisco, catsix, uglybeech, Merijeek, What Exit, Valteron, Evil Captor, pseudotriton ruber ruber, and probably other's I've missed have pointed out this board's Christian/religious bias.

Then my follow-up question is how many of you have been banned because of it?

I mean, it's a war, right? One would expect casualties.



Sevastopol:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers
...We've had numerous threads about Jewish ritual and several posters who prefer to type "G_d", yet I'm not aware of any moderator crackdown, ...

What's to crack down on? [/quote]

I was asking if the lack of hostiile response of the mods to questions involving Judaism suggest tacit approval, as the lack of hostile response to questions about Christianity apparently suggests toward that faith. I don't recall any time during a thread about Judaism that a moderator stepped in and said "You all realize the whole thing is a crock, don't you? From now on, all posts about Jewish ritual will require a footnote saying so." I suspect but don't have the evidence offhand that a poster who came into such a thread and volunteered such a comment risks being warned by the mods for being a jerk. I'm curious why badchad has never seized on this (or maybe he has and I missed it). I'm assuming it's because he has a strident bias against Christianity, rather than religion per se.

[woodstockbirdybird]

I may operate on a faith that there is a spiritual connection between all mankind and you don't find that particular bit of faith necessary. You still operate on some kind of subjective system of values in which you have faith and determines your day to day choices. What is the foundation of your value system? It isn't some nebulous deity , but it may be just as vague and uncertain. In order for us to move forward we must operate on faith.

I hear this particular argument a lot, and I have to say I disagree with it. My value system - and, I'd wager, most value systems, even those espoused by religions - is based on reason. There doesn't have to be any mystical spiritual connection behind it; the fact that I'm a human being and can communicate with other human beings lets me know that others feel exactly the same as I do when violence (theft, whatever) is committed upon them, and it is reasonable to conclude that it is a good thing not to add to the suffering in the world by committing violence (theft, whatever). Basic empathy, really - but even that has a logical base.

I am not demanding you disprove God, I am merely saying I do not have the certainty that god(s) does not exist and I have never seen any convincing proof that God does not. Nor have I seen any convincing proof that he does.

I don't mean this to sound snarky, but honestly, what would be convincing proof that God doesn't exist? I can think of all kinds of empirical evidence that could prove he did exist, none of which has ever occurred. Also, just to nitpick, this:


In the huge multiverse, which is accepted scientific theory; it is likely that somewhere creatures that would pass for Dragons and Unicorns do exist.

The multiverse is hardly "accepted scientific theory"; it is merely conjecture made by certain scientists, but they have no possible experiments that would verify it even a tiny bit yet.

[Revenant Threshold]

I don't agree. After lots of discussions here on the boards I think we all operate on a certain amount of faith. There's a movement to remove the protected status of religious belief and to challenge them. I'm all for that. There are plenty of myths and traditions that need to be challenged. What I find interesting is that the same people want to remove that protected status want to keep religious faith in a separate category {one far worse} from the faith we all operate on.

I may operate on a faith that there is a spiritual connection between all mankind and you don't find that particular bit of faith necessary. You still operate on some kind of subjective system of values in which you have faith and determines your day to day choices. What is the foundation of your value system? It isn't some nebulous deity , but it may be just as vague and uncertain. In order for us to move forward we must operate on faith. Certainly we all live with some kind of faith. But there's a big difference between the faith of athiests and the faith of religious people (or even the faith of religious people on most subjects and the faith of religious people in their god). I like to think of it as the athiest having faith that everything is as it appears, and the theist having faith that things aren't actually as they appear.

As I pointed out before, both athiests and theists have faith that the universe is as we generally see it; we're not brains in jars being poked with probes. Athiests look at the world and say, ok, assuming what I see is accurate, then there are no gods. Theists look at the world and say, ok, assuming what I see it accurate, then there might be a god, and I have faith that there is one. It's an extra level of faith - it rises past the general faith we all have that we are actually people operating in reality.

My own value system is another example of this. I base it on the maximum amount of people being happy, and the minimum amount of people being unhappy. Just like a theist has faith that what God says is good, I have faith that being happy is good. However, I can directly measure the effects of my value system; I can go out and see if people are happier than before. A theist has no such way of determining their value system has the right results; they can't go out and ask God if he is actually happy with what they're doing. So again, there's an extra level of faith there.

[Liberal]

A theist has no such way of determining their value system has the right results; they can't go out and ask God if he is actually happy with what they're doing.Huh? That's news to me. But wait... you're starting with the premise that God doesn't exist to ask, right? That kinda begs the question, doesn't it?

[Revenant Threshold]

Huh? That's news to me. But wait... you're starting with the premise that God doesn't exist to ask, right? That kinda begs the question, doesn't it? I'm not starting with that premise, no, but I did put what I meant badly. Apologies.

A theist can go and ask God something, but any result they get would be based on the same level of faith that God exists at all. The results of my value system can be obtained using only the faith that the world exists as we see it. The results of a theists's value system relies on both that and that God actually exists. Extra level of faith.

[Syntropy]

This was so good, it deserves a bump.
Nah. I don't really give a shit. Those who have examined their faith have found what they believe to be a substantial, if not scientific or rational, basis upon which to continue it or have abandoned it. Those who are not interested in examining their faith won't be swayed by anything I say. So here's how I play it. I don't want people coming up to me demanding I re-examine my position on religion all the time. So, in the greatest tradition of non-religious based ethical behavior, I don't do it to other people.

You want to do the atheist equivalent of knocking on people's doors early on the weekends with handfuls of leaflets, go for it. Don't be suprised when people don't answer the door, or occasionally turn hose on you. Demanding other atheists join you in your early morning weekend excursions is seriously laughable. One of the biggest perks of being nonreligious is sleeping in on the weekends!

Enjoy,
Steven

I would also add that saying because this board does not hound people of faith from its site, it is therefore biased toward the religious is about as silly as insisting that if a media outlet does not report news with a right slanting bias it must therefore be "liberal media."
The PTB do not turn away anyone because of religious preference. And why should they? They don't stop tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists from joining up, either. It's up to us as posters to either engage in arguments about religion or not and to hold our own in those discussions.
There are a ridiculously large number of threads within the past year alone with posts mocking Catholics, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, etc. Nobody gets a pass. Just because it isn't done universally or vociferously enough to a few posters's satisfaction does not make it bias in any direction.

[cosmosdan]

I hear this particular argument a lot, and I have to say I disagree with it. My value system - and, I'd wager, most value systems, even those espoused by religions - is based on reason. There doesn't have to be any mystical spiritual connection behind it; the fact that I'm a human being and can communicate with other human beings lets me know that others feel exactly the same as I do when violence (theft, whatever) is committed upon them, and it is reasonable to conclude that it is a good thing not to add to the suffering in the world by committing violence (theft, whatever). Basic empathy, really - but even that has a logical base.


Sure there doesn't have to be any spiritual connection. It's my belief there is. I see your point and it's a valid one. IMO I think thats only part of the picture though. Certainly our enviorment and our experiences in whatever part of society we grew up in influences our belief system. Lots of religious beliefs are like that too. Still, not all people do agree on what is right and wrong or where our moral compass should point when we get down to details. Thats part of what an changing society is all about. We find our moral compass as individuals and that affects the whole. Certainly there is some observed consequences to judge from. Somewhere along the way you have to decide based on faith what is right and wrong, positive and negative for society and ourselves. How far do we go in helping others? How far do we go in defending ourselves? If nobody knows and I can't get caught is it still stealing or cheating? IMHO the faith lies in dealing with the details. The day to day moment to moment stuff of life.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

I still await the proof from my atheist friends that God(s) does not exist. I think the fallacies and contradictions of the bible are obvious and numerous, I think the teachings of any Christian church that still insist the Bible is the "Word of God" is far out of step with reality, but I have yet to see any scientifically rigorous proof that God(s) did not set off the Big Bang and directed the acting of physical laws. It is even possible he rigged evolution to produce us humans. ;)
That's a very good point. When I look at the Universe, and all the things that had to happen in order to ensure that it was created, that planets appeared, that some developed life, and that humans, and maybe other intelligent life, appeared, I get so amazed that sometimes I get to thinking that maybe positing the existence of a God is simply the obvious choice. Yes, I know, it's a very anthropocentric position -- what is it that's really special about humans after all? -- and the "God" that I would posit probably wouldn't have the attributes that we usually give to gods. But it would still be an entity that exists outside of our limited experience as humans.

I still remain an atheist, at least for now. Since, even if this entity exists in some way, there is no way to even start to comprehend what it might be, I think that not having any belief whatsoever in the existence or inexistence of gods is the best choice, at least for me. But I can certainly understand why people would suppose the existence of The Entity and start believing in its existence.

Of course, that's more akin to deism than to Christianity. If I ever become a theist, a deist is probably what I will be. From what I know about the character of Jesus of Nazareth, I think he was a great man (if he existed), but I don't think that he needed to be any more than that. I see nothing that indicates to me that he had to be inspired by a supernatural entity, let alone one Himself. But my experience isn't the same as anyone else. Christians here have considered Jesus of Nazareth, and have concluded that He was more than a man. This isn't science: how do you scientifically conclude that what appears to be a man, is actually something more? There's no way to prove this scientifically.

Therefore I am somewhat puzzled by badchad's assertion that being a Christian is necessarily ignorance. Most of the Christians around here are clearly not ignorant, yet, for some reason, they're Christians. They have seen something that badchad and I haven't seen. But it's not something that is expressable in material terms.

[cosmosdan]

I'm not starting with that premise, no, but I did put what I meant badly. Apologies.

A theist can go and ask God something, but any result they get would be based on the same level of faith that God exists at all. The results of my value system can be obtained using only the faith that the world exists as we see it. The results of a theists's value system relies on both that and that God actually exists. Extra level of faith.

I think I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is that aside from simple belief that God is , may be, or is not we each apply our belief system to the decisions we make. If someone believes God wants them to be more loving and forgiving to others that may be the foundation of their choices. Their choices may yield positive results which they see as evidence that their foundation was solid. You might decide that your personal philosophy is to be more loving and forgiving to others and receive similar results and feel your philosophy is shown to be effective and God isn't necessary. Both start from a point of faith which affects the initial decision.

You might say that the theist could believe in the benefits of kindness and compassion without believing in any other deity as a source. Maybe, but I think it might be irrelevant. The fact is that the choice of actions is closely connected to our foundational belief system.
I think many believers are trying to operate in the world as they see it. They just see it a little differently and might see their purpose of being in the world differently as well.

If we strive to improve our world isn't the atheist operating on faith that we can make the world a better place for future generations? How does that relate to them world being as they see it , if they envision and aspire to make it better?

[Evil Captor]

Well then, I guess it's a good thing my beliefs don't contain any Christian-style lardbrained mularkey.

I understand that many intelligent people have become believers, but this generally involves a process of winnowing out the beliefs they can't reconcile with any form of rationality, or of explaining them away as metaphors and whatnot. We atheists do not have to undergo that process. There is no need to strain out the bathwater if you don't believe there's a baby in the tub. It's very Occams' Razor.

[woodstockbirdybird]

Sure there doesn't have to be any spiritual connection. It's my belief there is. I see your point and it's a valid one. IMO I think thats only part of the picture though. Certainly our enviorment and our experiences in whatever part of society we grew up in influences our belief system. Lots of religious beliefs are like that too. Still, not all people do agree on what is right and wrong or where our moral compass should point when we get down to details. Thats part of what an changing society is all about. We find our moral compass as individuals and that affects the whole. Certainly there is some observed consequences to judge from. Somewhere along the way you have to decide based on faith what is right and wrong, positive and negative for society and ourselves. How far do we go in helping others? How far do we go in defending ourselves? If nobody knows and I can't get caught is it still stealing or cheating? IMHO the faith lies in dealing with the details. The day to day moment to moment stuff of life.

I agree with you, for the most part. I just think we'd differ on our ideas of what constitutes "faith", and the degree of its role in determining values.

[catsix]

What Exit? said:
I thought I made it clear, I do not insist that anyone proves to me that God does not exist. I just have never seen enough proof to convince me of the non-existence. I do not think you really have an argument with me. I think I am just expressing myself very poorly again.

No, I really do have an argument with you.

You seem to think that it's necessary for me, an atheist, to provide you with evidence that proves the non-existence of something. That's not how it works. You wouldn't call anyone irrational for saying 'There's no such thing as the Boogeyman.' would you?

You've never asked anyone to prove that the Boogeyman doesn't exist, have you?

Well what you, and many other people on this board and elsewhere, cannot handle is that 'god' as is commonly referred to is no different from the Boogeyman, nor is it any more incumbent upon me to prove 'god' doesn't exist than it is to prove the Boogeyman doesn't exist. It's a myth. A scary fairy tale told to the children to keep them in line. Behave, or the Boogeyman will get you.

Bryan Ekers said:
Then my follow-up question is how many of you have been banned because of it?

I mean, it's a war, right? One would expect casualties.

I know for sure I never phrased it that way. All I said was that the Big Three seem to get special treatment so far as arguments against other religions are allowed to consist of nothing more than stating that they are idiotic delusions. If you were to say that about christianity, judaism or islam here, it's never considered enough to 'win the argument as it is with other religions, and at times has been implied to be hate speech.

Western culture defaults to taking as a given the existence of god and automatically granting respect to the Big Three religions where respect is not granted to many other religions which are roundly considered stupid, delusional, or flat out myths. This board is no different in that it grants automatic respect to the Big Three. Some of us atheists feel that the Big Three deserve no more respect than scientology or Boogeyman worship.

Also, considering the GD thread 'Can America trust atheists?', how long do the respondants to this thread think these topics would last:

Can America trust Christians?
Can America trust Jews?
Can America trust Muslims?
Can America trust Scientologists?
Can America trust Hindus?
Can America trust Rastafarians?
Can America trust Buddhists?

[Caridwen]

What Exit has been agreeing with you throughout this thread.

I think the GD topic had to do with a survey that was done.

http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

[catsix]

Actually Caridwen, anyone who says anything about needing proof that god doesn't exist:

What Exit? said:
I just have never seen enough proof to convince me of the non-existence.

Doesn't exactly agree with me.

I'm saying that no proof is necessary. There's no reason to do anything more than we'd do with a believer in the Boogeyman. We'd tell them the Boogeyman is bullshit, fantasy, pure myth, and that if an educated adult still believes in it, they're either ignorant or a liar.

And not one person would ever ask to 'see enough proof to convince me of the non-existence' of the Boogeyman.

[Liberal]

Hmm, I don't know. I've heard people passionately maintain that atheism isn't a religion, that parallels drawn between it and theism aren't valid. Even now, in another thread, people are going to great lengths to draw distinctions between the sort of faith Christians have in God versus the sort of faith atheists have in, say, gravity. So why here are we directly comparing "Can we trust Atheists" to "Can we trust Muslims"?

[woodstockbirdybird]

Hmm, I don't know. I've heard people passionately maintain that atheism isn't a religion, that parallels drawn between it and theism aren't valid. Even now, in another thread, people are going to great lengths to draw distinctions between the sort of faith Christians have in God versus the sort of faith atheists have in, say, gravity. So why here are we directly comparing "Can we trust Atheists" to "Can we trust Muslims"?

The difference being that the effects of gravity are directly observable to every single person on the planet. Not even remotely so with any claims to do with God.

[Revenant Threshold]

I think I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is that aside from simple belief that God is , may be, or is not we each apply our belief system to the decisions we make. If someone believes God wants them to be more loving and forgiving to others that may be the foundation of their choices. Their choices may yield positive results which they see as evidence that their foundation was solid. You might decide that your personal philosophy is to be more loving and forgiving to others and receive similar results and feel your philosophy is shown to be effective and God isn't necessary. Both start from a point of faith which affects the initial decision. I don't disagree that theists may believe they see results. I'm just saying that, with a moral system that involves pleasing God, any results must be taken on the same faith that God exists, plus the faith that the universe works as we see it. Whereas the results to an atheist moral system are more likely to have tangible effects that need only to be taken on the faith that the universe exists as we see it.You might say that the theist could believe in the benefits of kindness and compassion without believing in any other deity as a source. Maybe, but I think it might be irrelevant. The fact is that the choice of actions is closely connected to our foundational belief system. Actually, I think it's an interesting point. A theist who believes in a god, but whose moral system works entirely on the material plane, would certainly need less faith than a theist whose code involves a god. And an athiest's moral code could have intangible results; honour systems, for example. On the whole, however, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the vast majority of theists believe their moral system has results involving their god, and that a larger proportion of athiests have a moral system with purely tangible results.
I think many believers are trying to operate in the world as they see it. They just see it a little differently and might see their purpose of being in the world differently as well. Yes, they do, and that's my point. Both athiests and theists have faith that the world as they see it is the way they see it; we are humans, the sky is blue, and so on. But theists also have faith that. while the world is as they see it, their god is also actually involved somehow.If we strive to improve our world isn't the atheist operating on faith that we can make the world a better place for future generations? How does that relate to them world being as they see it , if they envision and aspire to make it better? Both the athiest and the theist operate on that faith. How does it relate to reality if we want to make it better? Well, again there's something of a difference. Both have faith that their idea of "better" is actually better. But theists still have the extra level of belief, because their idea of "better" usually includes some amount of "make my god happy", an intangible result. And for those results which are tangible - feeding starving people, for example, is pretty damn tangible - they have faith that it is through and with their god that it is accomplished, and not simply an act of humans alone.

[Bridget Burke]

You want to do the atheist equivalent of knocking on people's doors early on the weekends with handfuls of leaflets, go for it. Don't be suprised when people don't answer the door, or occasionally turn hose on you. Demanding other atheists join you in your early morning weekend excursions is seriously laughable. One of the biggest perks of being nonreligious is sleeping in on the weekends!

Enjoy,
Steven

And, by describing oneself as "nonreligious" instead of "Atheist" (even though both words might be accurate) one avoids being identified with those whose only reason for living is their Atheism.

From another "nonreligious"--raised RC, now Atheist/Agnostic. I find religion interesting in the context of myth/legend/psychology/art. Being fond of the scientific method doesn't mean that I think every part of life can be quantified.

And I spend more time at SDMB in areas where one can argue about whether Joss Whedon is God.

[Der Trihs]

But how could you apprehend my evidence with it right in your face? My wife cannot apprehend why I don't like social schmoozing. My experience is my evidence, and that part of the universe is completely closed to you. You can't replicate it. Hence, the silliness of demands for scientific evidence."My post is my cite", eh ?

An experience unsupported by evidence proves nothing but the experience itself, even to you. You may want to believe otherwise, but that changes nothing.

That bit I bolded near the end is something that does give me pause: why indeed should someone in the more liberal school of any religion act all censorious towards the more radicals? Because it lets the rabid ones run rampant and set the religious agenda. That's why I dismiss people who talk about nice religious people or how their church is tolerant and liberal - they don't matter. It is and always has been the bigots, power mongers and lunatics who have set the course of religion; the relatively reasonable people have little voice and less power.

In fact, I think that religion may not be a wholly destructive influence on society - the idea of having ethics reinforced by a supernatural force may indeed be present in society because societies that have religious beliefs tend to thrive, even if their beliefs are not fundamentally true. But they don't. Everywhere you look, societies with less religion are healthier than those with more. And before anyone whines about communism, as I've said a dozen times I consider that a religion.

You know, the burden of proof is a voluntary burden. The Scientific Man's burden, if you will. It falls upon those who seek to prove something to someone else. I don't have it. You might well want me to feel it, but I am not trying to prove anything to you, so I don't really have it at all.Yes, you do. It falls upon those who want to be right, who want their beliefs to have some connection to reality.

Then my follow-up question is how many of you have been banned because of it?

I mean, it's a war, right? One would expect casualties. "Bias" is not the same as censorship, or even a deliberate agenda. Nor did I ( and others ) say the bias was just or even mostly on the Mod's part.

If we strive to improve our world isn't the atheist operating on faith that we can make the world a better place for future generations?No, because it's already been done. It doesn't take any more faith than believing I can climb stairs that thousands of people have climbed before me.

[rayh]

I agree with this 100%. The phrasing is perfect, the punctuation is flawless, the parallel structure is beyond reproach. What a fantastic post this was! Just gorgeous, pure genius. I dont know how he does it, time after time, post after post, getting it exactly right. I'm in utter awe.

God, I feel dirty now. I must go and have a shower.

[Dob]

Always a fun topic!

It's not that some of the more rabid atheists on this board decry religion and God, its just the manner in which it is done. per this one poll (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) some 2 billion people follow Christianity alone. Do you truly feel that these 2 billion people are all willfully ignorant and stupid? they are all misled somehow? For something with no "proof" the enduring belief in God has been around for some time now, even with all the advances in science and critical thinking.

so are the other billions just not seeing something, or could it be you who aren't? Would you even consider the possibility?

[JustAnotherGeek]

Always a fun topic!

It's not that some of the more rabid atheists on this board decry religion and God, its just the manner in which it is done. per this one poll (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) some 2 billion people follow Christianity alone. Do you truly feel that these 2 billion people are all willfully ignorant and stupid? they are all misled somehow?

Always a fun argument!

Since there are over 6 billion people on this planet, do you truly feel that those 4 billion who do not believe in Christianity are all willfully ignorant and stupid? Are they all misled somehow?

[Dob]

Since there are over 6 billion people on this planet, do you truly feel that those 4 billion who do not believe in Christianity are all willfully ignorant and stupid? Are they all misled somehow?

Nope. I just used Christianity because it was the largest. per my link some 84% of the world believes in a deity of some kind.

In any case... I have never attacked an atheist on this board like some of the atheists in this post have attacked theists. I have never said atheists are ignorant, or stupid. if you are an atheist who has never attacked a theists then my post wasn't directed at you.

[Der Trihs]

per this one poll (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) some 2 billion people follow Christianity alone. Do you truly feel that these 2 billion people are all willfully ignorant and stupid? they are all misled somehow? I consider them and their fellow believers in other religions to be ignorant, fools or insane. Since the majority of historical cultures held slaves, I consider the majority of historical cultures to have been evil. Being the majority doesn't make you right.

For something with no "proof" the enduring belief in God has been around for some time now, even with all the advances in science and critical thinking. So ?

so are the other billions just not seeing something, or could it be you who aren't? Would you even consider the possibility?Why ? It's stupid. Some beliefs are so utterly foolish that they are not deserving of respect.

[Liberal]

"My post is my cite", eh ?(Bizarre experience. I could have sworn I answered this, but the post is nowhere to be found. I must have closed the tab without submitting or something. After all, it isn't there. The spirit of it went something like this...)

Strained analogy. My post is not to my cite as my life is to my experience. What you've quoted isn't even a paraphrase of what I said.

An experience unsupported by evidence proves nothing but the experience itself, even to you. You may want to believe otherwise, but that changes nothing.I agree with you. And that's what I've actually said. I've had (and do have) experiences with what I perceive as God. You can test scientifically for those by measuring my temporal lobe activity, just as you can test for my reaction to pain by measuring activity in my parietal lobes. But I could have the same reaction to everything from an hallucination to an epileptic seizure.

Science can tell you what happened in my brain, but not what happened in my life. Only I know that, and you can't replicate it. You have a life of your own with your own experiences. And I can't replicate those. Ever. Not with science nor by any other means.

[What Exit?]

Actually Caridwen, anyone who says anything about needing proof that god doesn't exist:

Doesn't exactly agree with me.

I'm saying that no proof is necessary. There's no reason to do anything more than we'd do with a believer in the Boogeyman. We'd tell them the Boogeyman is bullshit, fantasy, pure myth, and that if an educated adult still believes in it, they're either ignorant or a liar.

And not one person would ever ask to 'see enough proof to convince me of the non-existence' of the Boogeyman.
You are right Catsix, I do not agree with you completely, I am not an atheist. But you are also wrong as I am not asking you to prove God does not exist. I do not currently, nor for the last 32 years of my life have the mental makeup to be sure there is no Godlike being.

woodstockbirdybird: Are you sure the multiverse is not accepted physics currently. I might be under the wrong impression, but I thought it was tied into string theory and everything else. IANAP but I will ask you for cite that I am wrong.

severus: Thank you, I am glad that some atheists are comfortable with us less sure agnostics.

Jim

[cosmosdan]

I consider them and their fellow believers in other religions to be ignorant, fools or insane. Since the majority of historical cultures held slaves, I consider the majority of historical cultures to have been evil. Being the majority doesn't make you right.
That's correct. Neither does being adamantly opinionated.

Why ? It's stupid. Some beliefs are so utterly foolish that they are not deserving of respect.

Yes we've noticed.

[Syntropy]

Why ? It's stupid. Some beliefs are so utterly foolish that they are not deserving of respect.
But not so foolish and undeserving of your respect that you won't argue about it for hours on end?

[JRDelirious]

That bit I bolded near the end is something that does give me pause: why indeed should someone in the more liberal school of any religion act all censorious towards the more radicals?
Because it lets the rabid ones run rampant and set the religious agenda. That's why I dismiss people who talk about nice religious people or how their church is tolerant and liberal - they don't matter. It is and always has been the bigots, power mongers and lunatics who have set the course of religion; the relatively reasonable people have little voice and less power. I believe you've lost me, you seem to be replying to a different question/statement than mine. My rhetorical question: "why should someone in the more liberal religion act all censorious towards the more radical", is an observation that upon reading BC's commentary on the issue in the current multiverse o'threads, I thought, y'know, he has a point, liberal-progressive Christians should NOT puff themselves up over being so much more "enlightened" than their fundamentalist cohorts (among other things because it's unchristianlike), and can folks like myself who cue up "Another One Bites The Dust" whenever some Jim Bakker/Ted Haggard type gets exposed and brought down, honestly say we'd do the same if someone on our side of the ideological divide were himself revealed to be corrupt. Like a more recent poster pointed out, I should rather care about people's behavior, not just belief.

THAT is one good "teachable moment" look-at-myself type point I got from badchad in the course of these discussions. Alas, to get to it I had to wade through a containership's worth of his annoying, irritating, abrasive, smug, confrontational, absolutist "fuck you, I'm right" attitude, all of which IMO was unnecessary to make that point.

And goddammit, this was a thread about Atheist/theist bias, under accusation of being about pseudotriton, and now we've gone and hijacked it into a thread on badchad. :o So to get back on track, that folks on this board react badly to abrasive, smug, "fuck you, I'm right" antirreligious AND religious fundamentalists, but react favorably to soft-spoken, politically-correct moderates both theistic and atheistic, just tells you the kind of social culture we have. It's not persecution.

[Der Trihs]

But not so foolish and undeserving of your respect that you won't argue about it for hours on end?As I've said before, I like arguing.

[woodstockbirdybird]

woodstockbirdybird: Are you sure the multiverse is not accepted physics currently. I might be under the wrong impression, but I thought it was tied into string theory and everything else. IANAP but I will ask you for cite that I am wrong.


The multiverse theory is a hypothesis that is basically untestable withour current technology. Superstring theory itself is far from universally accepted among physicists. Some of the equations used in proposing SS theory are said to open up the possibility of multiple universes, but I admit I'm not fluent enough to understand the calculations (basically, the ten-dimensional model of reality explained in string theory allows a lot more variations of reality than our current 4-dimensional model). I'm not saying superstring and/or multiverse theory don't have serious backing from many respected scientists (I suspect they'll be proven at least mostly right), but at this point it's a fool's errand to put them on the same footing as evolution or gravity for explanatory purposes. I'm sure wikipedia or Google has tons of info on the debates around the topic; I'm at work right now, and relying mostly on memory of the books and articles I've read on the subject, but I'll try to remember to look up some info when I get home.

[kaylasdad99]

Why ? It's stupid. Some beliefs are so utterly foolish that they are not deserving of respect.It's possible to disrespect a belief, and yet still treat a person with respect, you know.

[Bryan Ekers]

Mod's[/i] part.

So it's a bias without repercussions? Heck, that can't be said of starting too many threads about Bush or bondage. Therefore Bush-haters and bondage-lovers have more concerns here than atheists because discussion of the subjects dear to them have to be limited.

[Der Trihs]

It's possible to disrespect a belief, and yet still treat a person with respect, you know.Sure, but it's dishonest, if it's the sort of false or disgusting belief that reflects badly on the holder of that belief. Do you treat racists with respect ? Homophobes ? Fascists ? Does anyone believe the fundies who rant and rave about how homosexuality is the ultimate evil, but also claim that they are compassionate and loving towards gay people ? I sure don't; when I hear people spout some variation on "hate the sin, love the sinner", I tend to think "liar !" As I think I've made clear while I've been here, I not only don't believe in religion, I regard it as evil and destructive.

So it's a bias without repercussions? < sigh > You talked about banning, not "repercussions", which I and others are complaining about. In this very thread.

[Zoe]

Der Trihs: And you'll be wrong there instead of here. Quite the accomplishment.

You misunderstand. When I said that I could always go to other threads or forums, I didn't mean to continue arguing about religion. I rarely introduce religious topics. Mostly I respond to questions. I respect the choices of atheists to expect evidence before they themselves would ever believe. I respect their non-believing. I admit that I may be wrong. To a point, I will share in discussions about experiences an beliefs.

What I won't do is do all of the sharing. And I won't answer questions on demand. And I won't provide evidence that God exists. I cannot! But then I don't wish to be involved in an arguement about whether God exists or not. That's why the burden will never be on me. (And, of course, it's really not on you either.)

It is and always has been the bigots, power mongers and lunatics who have set the course of religion; the relatively reasonable people have little voice and less power.

I hope that you are wrong on this one! If they are really more powerful, we will have a theocracy. I think they are just moderately powerful and very vocal. Just changes are coming much too slowly though, I will admit.

catsix: Can America trust Christians?
Can America trust Jews?
Can America trust Muslims?
Can America trust Scientologists?
Can America trust Hindus?
Can America trust Rastafarians?
Can America trust Buddhists?

As with atheists, teachers, accountants, Americans and children, more specific information should be specified. Which Christians? Which Jews? Which Muslims, Scientologists, Hindus, Rastafarians, Buddhists?

[Bryan Ekers]

< sigh > You talked about banning, not "repercussions", which I and others are complaining about. In this very thread.

What, having some of your threads closed? Having a mod wave a finger at you? Boo-hoo. For a variety of reasons, some thread topics create more problems than they're worth. Saying Christians are dumb just for being Christians happens to be one of those, though saying some Christians are dumb for seeking laws and wanting to change school curricula to match their beliefs have always been fair game.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99
It's possible to disrespect a belief, and yet still treat a person with respect, you know.Sure, but it's dishonest, if it's the sort of false or disgusting belief that reflects badly on the holder of that belief. Do you treat racists with respect ? Homophobes ? Fascists ? Does anyone believe the fundies who rant and rave about how homosexuality is the ultimate evil, but also claim that they are compassionate and loving towards gay people ? I sure don't; when I hear people spout some variation on "hate the sin, love the sinner", I tend to think "liar !" As I think I've made clear while I've been here, I not only don't believe in religion, I regard it as evil and destructive.Human behavior is what has the capacity for evil and destruction. It also has the capacity for benevolence and constructiveness. Religious belief is not necessarily implicated in any given human impulse toward evil and destruction, nor is it inherently excluded from implication in instances of generosity or elevation of the general Human Condition.

I don't see any conflict between a general policy of treating human beings with respect and calling out, confronting, and/or snubbing people whose behavior is reprehensible, whether that behavior is motivated by racism, homophobia, fascistic tendencies, fundamentalist religious zealotry, or atheistic evangelicalism.

[tomndebb]

It's possible to disrespect a belief, and yet still treat a person with respect, you know.Sure, but it's dishonest, if it's the sort of false or disgusting belief that reflects badly on the holder of that belief. Do you treat racists with respect ? Homophobes ? Fascists ? Pretty much. Of course, there is the bugaboo in which various people make "respect" a one-definition-and-it-is-mine word, making Humpty Dumpty proud.

There is respect for the belief or actions, an action that does, indeed, require that the respect be earned.

There is also respect for the humanity of the person, regardless of beliefs.
I prefer to not go about spitting on persons whom I know to be racist or homophobic--or haters of all things papist or middle aged white males or of several other categories into which I fall. There are people I know who have expressed hatred for one or more categories of identity into which I may be sorted, sometimes knowing I am "one of them" and sometimes ignorant of that fact. I do not see where that gives me the right to refuse to help push their cars out of snowbanks, to refuse to pick up their trash barrel blown into the road by a high wind, to drag my feet creating a report they need at the office, to refuse to fix their vB tags when they post a typo, or to refuse to answer their questions about how this board operates, (either technically or culturally). I do not see where their behavior gives me the right to throw trash on their lawn or toilet paper in their trees or to speak ill of them to other persons or to disparage them as persons.

I may defend myself against direct personal attack and I may make observations about their behavior, but I also believe that I must show respect to the person, regardless of their belief. (And I am sure that I periodically fail in that obligation, but it is still an obligation whether I succeed or fail.)

[Cisco]

I do not currently, nor for the last 32 years of my life have the mental makeup to be sure there is no Godlike being.

If you were raised by a pack of javelinas on a tropical island, would you ever even have considered the question?

[Triskadecamus]

per this one poll some 2 billion people follow Christianity alone. Do you truly feel that these 2 billion people are all willfully ignorant and stupid? they are all misled somehow? Since there are over 6 billion people on this planet, do you truly feel that those 4 billion who do not believe in Christianity are all willfully ignorant and stupid? Are they all misled somehow?So, this is an example of the sort of logic I am told I must apply to life. I think this particular type of logic is called the false dichotomy. Two statements demonstrating argument by popularity and an unspoken assumption that disagreement with the speaker can only be caused by stupidity and willful ignorance.

That isn't logic. That is prejudice dressed up in rhetorical clothes, and it is just another brand of ignorance. We fight that here.

Tris

[H3Knuckles]

Here, I'll even offer up some evidence that atheists aren't treated unfairly.

In this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7977372&postcount=58), I called soapopera a clod, jokingly I might add, for screwing up the "If God is all powerful, can He make a boulder so heavy even He can't move it?"

I got called out by tomndebb (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7978193&postcount=62) for it, and apologized.

Clod, now. Not a big insult to begin with, and so archaic I was sure they'd get that I was only teasing.

Oh, and tomndebb, the very mod pseudotriton ruber ruber is so sure is both harsh against atheists and unfairly lax on Christians.

So, yeah. There you go, instead of just making claims and expressing opinions, I'll actually bring proof to the table on this (get that prr?)

PS. A very liberal Christian here. I believe in Him, and try to follow the teachings of tolerance and understanding (within reason, I'll call out fools and assholes). But I freely acknowledge I could be wrong, I don't believe in taking anything from the Bible literally, don't support organized religion (but I'm not actively against it either), believe people will be judged on their deeds, and not what they do or don't worship, etc.

[Triskadecamus]

You know, the burden of proof is a voluntary burden. The Scientific Man's burden, if you will. It falls upon those who seek to prove something to someone else. I don't have it. You might well want me to feel it, but I am not trying to prove anything to you, so I don't really have it at all. Yes, you do. It falls upon those who want to be right, who want their beliefs to have some connection to reality.

Proof is a necessary condition to right. That which is not proven is wrong. What is not right has no connection to reality.

I can see this whole logic thing is very difficult to achieve. Subtle, and yet exactly constrained in ways not clearly evident to the ignorant. Tell me, are things that are not completely understood wrong? What about things that are unknown? Are they wrong until discovered, and proven?

I assume you are the entity to which proof must be demonstrated. A weighty burden it must be. Thank you for taking it up, I would find it tedious and unrewarding. I understand a bit more, now why you battle so furiously against this thing you call ignorance. Your arguments make it sound so inviting, and your own position so dreadfully encumbering.

Tris

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Here, I'll even offer up some evidence that atheists aren't treated unfairly.

In this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7977372&postcount=58), I called soapopera a clod, jokingly I might add, for screwing up the "If God is all powerful, can He make a boulder so heavy even He can't move it?"

I got called out by tomndebb (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7978193&postcount=62) for it, and apologized.

Clod, now. Not a big insult to begin with, and so archaic I was sure they'd get that I was only teasing.

Oh, and tomndebb, the very mod pseudotriton ruber ruber is so sure is both harsh against atheists and unfairly lax on Christians.

So, yeah. There you go, instead of just making claims and expressing opinions, I'll actually bring proof to the table on this (get that prr?)

PS. A very liberal Christian here. I believe in Him, and try to follow the teachings of tolerance and understanding (within reason, I'll call out fools and assholes). But I freely acknowledge I could be wrong, I don't believe in taking anything from the Bible literally, don't support organized religion (but I'm not actively against it either), believe people will be judged on their deeds, and not what they do or don't worship, etc.
You forgot to call me a name. It's basically a choice of "idiot," "liar" or "asshole," plus either salad or soup.

I never claimed that Tom exclusively harrasses atheists or protects Xians. If he had, he would have been noted by everyone here (well, maybe not everyone) as a blatent bigot. My point is that he is a subtle bigot, and a fairly adept sophist in the bargain. I've been resisting providing cites because it's both easier for me and easier on the board if we don[t get in a whole attack-defend-attack-defend cycle, at the end of which I will not have convinced people even if I can find a thread started by Tom entitled "I am a fucking bigot bwhahahaha." I may still do it, if fans such as yourself keep clamoring for it (I can't resist begging and pleading) but I do think we'll all be sorrier at the resulting trainwreck threads it's bound to cause, so I'm content to have people impugn my character for now as I express my unsupported opinions of Tom's behavior and motivation.

Don't all thank me at once. Form a line, please. Sorry, no autographs.

[rayh]

You forgot to call me a name. It's basically a choice of "idiot," "liar" or "asshole," plus either salad or soup.


Fuckwit.

[Danalan]

Sorry for the late entry to answer the OP -- I just now saw this thread.

I won't be addressing anything posted other than the OP, because I just don't discuss religion on the boards. I admittedly haven't even read this thread. Not interested.

I know full well that my atheism and essential disdain for 'Christians' in general and fundamentalism in particular are not appreciated here. So, in the interest of 'being nice', I avoid the subject.

There's lots of other things to talk about.

So yes, the attitude of the management towards religion inhibits me here. I can live with that.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

"Fuckwit" is extra.

[cosmosdan]

An experience unsupported by evidence proves nothing but the experience itself, even to you. You may want to believe otherwise, but that changes nothing. The experience isn't proof. It is however evidence in itself. The experience , the phenomenon, prompts the question , "What caused that?" "What's the source and reason for that phenomenon?"
It doesn't seem reasonable for me to conclude that such a source must be God, meaning the supreme entity of Judeo Christian belief. It does seem reasonable to entertain to entertain the possibility of something unexplained by science.

Because it lets the rabid ones run rampant and set the religious agenda. That's why I dismiss people who talk about nice religious people or how their church is tolerant and liberal - they don't matter. It is and always has been the bigots, power mongers and lunatics who have set the course of religion; the relatively reasonable people have little voice and less power.
I won't even bother asking for a cite for this.
But they don't. Everywhere you look, societies with less religion are healthier than those with more. And before anyone whines about communism, as I've said a dozen times I consider that a religion.
This however is interesting. Please give some examples and why you think they are healthier.
Yes, you do. It falls upon those who want to be right, who want their beliefs to have some connection to reality.
Interesting new twist. Have you been working on it long? The problem is that it is not up to you to define what reality officially is. Those who believe in God do believe their belief has a large connection with reality. They believe it is your belief system that is disconnected from reality. You seem to be rephrasing an old point. That is , that objective evidence recognizable to all is required for a belief to be legitimate. It simply isn't so.


No, because it's already been done. It doesn't take any more faith than believing I can climb stairs that thousands of people have climbed before me.
That would be the "Stairway to Heaven" I presume.

The problem for you would be finding examples of societies progress that was not connected to religion in some way. I'm not talking about scientific advances. I'm speaking of more subjective progress.