The only problem I have with DT is that it has become almost pointless to try to engage in any serious discussion of religion around here. Once he starts posting, the thread is about over as far as I’m concerned. I enjoy discussing religion, but I don’t bother to read his posts and I think everything gets sidetracked. (For those of you who think he’s making religious people think, note that I, a religious person, don’t read it at all. He’s so far off from understanding anything I’m thinking that there is no point. I already understand him just fine.)
It’s hard to have a nuanced discussion of some small point when someone comes in with a giant can o’ paint and starts painting with a pushbroom.
You might have a point if Mike was on the wall of every locker room and Einstein on the wall of every lab. Or if someone saying they weren’t perfect was grounds for death or exile to the Gulag. Actually, Marx and Lenin are better candidates for godhood than Stalin was. But the point holds.
And no religion every quashed opposing ones? Yeah, not all religions do that, but not all Communist parties did either.
We’ve got our holy books (The Bible and Das Kapital) our prophets (Jesus and Lenin) our historical inevitability (the Second Coming and the inevitable dictatorship of the proletariat(, we’ve got our enemies (heathens and Capitalists) we’ve got our martyrs (St. Stephen and a host of others, Rosa Luxemborg and a host of others) and we’ve got our explanations when predictions in the holy books don’t come to pass (What Jesus really meant when he said he’d return before all here tasted death was …, the Revolution will occur in the West when …, the 5 year plans didn’t work because of 30 consecutive years of unexpected bad weather). We’ve also got our lovely schisms - the Catholics aren’t real Christians because, the Russians weren’t true Communists because … Hey, some sets of both didn’t like evolution.
And if you think one of these things is worse than the other - who would you rather be ruled by: Gorbachev or Jerry Falwell?
I don’t find broad generlizations logical. If you personaly think religion is something you can’t understand or embrace then fine. If you find certain beliefs completely illogical and unreasonable, or even stupid then that’s fine to. To draw the conclusion that because you feel that way these people actually are stupid and delusional and gullible, then it is you who have engaged in some illogic and unreasoning stupidity. That’s a line Der Trihs can’t seem to draw.
Someone from the KKK might honestly say things too, or the religious right extremists might say something nasty about gays. Do we respect them for being honest.
Seriously, I would rather have someone be straightforward about their opinions even if they are bigots. I can respect that more than those who put on one face and then talk shit behind your back. When someone is that blunt and shows a real lack of tact and regard for anyone they are speaking to then they don’t get much consideration. “Here’s my opinion and fuck you” gets old quickly.
Der Trihs, exaggerates wildly. At least I hope that’s what he’s doing. Now, I’m definitely not above indulging in some wretched excess myself. But you know, a little goes a long way. After a while it’s just wretched. And people think (and justifiably so) that you’re a wretch.
So, tone it down a little, OK Der Trihs? It really is possible to disagree, even very strongly disagree, with someone without being an insulting or tantrum-throwing dickhole.
You know, there is no rule saying you have to respond to every post. If you’d like to respond to only reasonable arguments, no matter what your definition of reasonable is, I don’t think anyone would object. Too many of us, from all sides, given the choice between responding to a soundly reasoned post and a rant, will pick the rant every time.
Yeah I agree. I try to resist even commenting on his BS but sometimes I can’t resist. In some threads he seems more rational than in others. My suggestion is to soldier on with whoever you’re talking to and ignore him.
If you think something is a stupid, irrational belief, then you think someone is stupid or irrational for believing it, don’t you? Or perhaps self-serving. If religion is stupid, then the religious are stupid. I’ve heard atheists say that religion is irrational, but people aren’t irrational for believing. What are they, then? I have a tough time with it myself.
Atheists and believers alike give religion special consideration. But only some religions. Others don’t make the cut, though they are no more or less rational. Check out threads here on ESP or psychic powers or near death experiences some time. The religious don’t defend the psychics from the mean skeptics because it isn’t their ox being gored. Skeptics don’t start threads like this and say, “You guys are making skeptics look bad when you mock ET-built-the-pyramids-boy.” Instead, everyone agrees that pyramid-boy is a fool, including religious people–people who are then terribly offended when someone says, “You’re pyramid-boy, but with bigger pyramid. Oh, and a much bigger ET.”
As for broad generalizations being logical, of course they are. Claiming they are absolute is not logical, except where they are self-defined.
I respect them a hell of sight more if they’re honest than if they lie and sneak around trying to get their way by underhanded means. Don’t you?
You’d rather have someone be straightforward but you don’t respect them more for being honest? I do. I might despise them to the tips of their shoes, but I respect Fred Phelps more than I respect those who agree with him but hide it. Er, those theoretical mystery people who agree with him but hide it.
I don’t think I have ever responded to him. But when the entire thread becomes a discussion of DT’s ranting, and there is no more discussion of the actual issue of the thread, it’s pointless to try to keep posting little lone comments. I’ve tried it, and been soundly ignored. And when the signal-to-noise ratio gets too low (or high? I’m no good at ratios), I write off the thread. By now, I’ve reached the point where I just quit pretty soon after DT posts, because my experience tells me that it’s not worth trying to continue.
I miss being able to discuss religious issues civilly with other Dopers–not that it was ever entirely civil of course–but this was one of the best places where I could get all kinds of POVs. The other religion-discussion forums I read tend to be less diverse, and this one was my favorite.
And if the fabric of space and time doesn’t get torn asunder when they shake hands, then I concur with you. As someone who is religious, I can see through the religious/non-religious as just people, but it when it comes down to the display of extremism that is repulsive, then both are just jerks with unacceptable viewpoints.
The only difference worth mentioning is that Phelps has the balls of planets by going public, while Der Trihs balls are shriveled peas while he’s tapping away on an anonymous keyboard.
As for a non-religious political group being called Communist, I think the correct term to be used here is Bolshevikism, not Communism.
Lying is bad. I have a friend who has lied. If you want to be mean and technical, he’s a liar. But he’s also a good person – helps people in need, is hospitable, all that.
We’re all made up of more than just one factor. Our politics and genders and religions and sexualities and hobbies and favorite movies and shoe sizes and hair colors and ethnicities and everything else you can think of, they do not in and of themselves define us. I mean, I’m a female Episcopalian sandal-wearing dark-haired nearsighted slightly bisexual cat-owning gay-friendly gaming writing reading lover of the outdoors, and that’s not even in any sort of order of personal importance. I’ll even agree that religion is irrational, but so is having a favorite color – what makes one color superior to another?
I would expect an atheist to say, if they were being more complete, “Religious people are often otherwise rational.”
One caveat I’d like to make is that I don’t necessarily believe that it’s irrational to “follow the crowd” if, by doing so, a person makes his or her life easier. And I do think that some percentage of religious people are simply going along with tradition and common beliefs because they don’t need anything else. That might be self-serving (I’ve got no problem with self-serving as long as no one else is getting hurt by it), but it’s rational.
We have our share of Dopers I would consider fundamendalists or extreme conservatives.
If he did, they wouldn’t listen. They would chalk him up as a non-believer and ignore him. As it is, though, they pay attention to him because he riles them up. They say, “Hey, that guy’s an asshole and an idiot. He’s way overly extreme.” Maybe, just maybe, one day they’ll look at a Der Trihs post and say “…Wait a minute. This is me. Something’s gotta give.”
A big part of me can’t believe I’m getting behind wild exaggeration as a debate method, but I’ve always wondered how we can get through to the fundamentalists who see religious control as superior to democracy, and maybe this is one way that’s worth a shot, is what I’m saying.
I don’t think he’s right, I just think he’s taking things that need to be said and amping them up to ridiculous proportions…and I think that may be effective for people who would otherwise never listen to anti-religious viewpoints. I’ll gladly have a cup of coffee with you and calmly discuss our opinions, Little Plastic Ninja, and I mean that. I’m not sure where exactly you are from your location–Australia?–but if we’re ever in the same place I will gladly have a calm discussion with you, or any other Doper who’d like to have a brain-picking session without vitriol. I’m just saying that the Falwells of the world (and of the board, and there are a couple) have an equal opposite, and maybe that’s how it’s supposed to be.
Funny–if anything, his posts make me think “And this kind of bullshit is why I hate interacting with Christians.”
Well, I’m pretty sure I’m one of the people you’re referring to, and I feel as though I’ve been misunderstood. I don’t agree with him. I feel that he’s taking things that do need to be said and saying them in ways they don’t need to be said. But nobody else is saying them in a more civil fashion, as far as I see on this board at least–and I don’t spend much time in GD or the Pit so it could be happening under my nose.
Let me put it this way…when Falwell tells us we’re all going to hell because we’ve tolerated homosexuality as a society, maybe you don’t agree with him, but you might (and I’m not saying you do, because I don’t know your views) think, “Er, well, no, but I don’t much like the idea of homosexuality itself…it bothers me a little, but I don’t think God is going to commit acts of vengeance against us because we tolerate them.” Or when someone rails against an imagined War on Christmas, you might say, “Er, no, not exactly, but I do think those few people that do get huffy over ‘Merry Christmas’ probably shouldn’t.” Do you get what I’m saying? I think Der Trihs is a paranoid nut or playing one very well, and I don’t think he’s right per se. Every time I see one of his posts, I think “Er, well, no, but I can see a tiny nugget of truth in there.” And I happen to think that that truth isn’t really being spoken of by a lot of other people. If we didn’t have Falwells and Swaggarts in this world I would be outright disgusted by Der Trihs. As it is, we do, and honestly I can’t help feeling a little relief that they’re eating a little of their own cake. I think anyone who distrusts all atheists as a result of reading DT’s ramblings is committing the same crime as he is.
And FWIW, I don’t think you’re a fool, either. I think you’re maximizing your potential in the best way you see fit. In fact, I think that’s great. I think that the Falwell types and their followers are whackjobs and sometimes someone has to fight fire with fire. Maybe a Falwell type sees Der Trihs and says, “This is ridiculous” and then says, “Wait, my stance is equally ridiculous. Something needs to change.”
That’s all I’m sayin’, and that’s all I been sayin’.
I don’t find a nugget of truth in any Falwell rant.
That’s what I meant by “listen”. You’re listening, by the definition I used. Therefore, my statement, “You’re listening, aren’t you?” is correct in that you’re paying some modicum of attention to a non-religious viewpoint. Would I rather you pay attention to a more rational non-religious viewpoint? Yeah, but you take what you can get.
Roll your eyes right out of your head, but answer me this: Which republic are you referring to wherein Einstein or Jordan oppressed and killed millions of people while convincing them that he was looking out for their well-being? I don’t see one on my map.
That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that if you create a faith-based system whereby you successfully convince millions of people that you need to slaughter them and their neighbors for their betterment and to create a brotherhood of righteous people, you’re a religious leader.
Anyone who discounts the whole argument against religion based on one nut’s ranting is as bad as he is and not worth my time.
If you’d like to discuss my personal abilities and merits, go ahead and Pit me. Otherwise, can we get back to the topic at hand?
I characterize Top 40 radio as bad because I feel it dumbs down its listeners. I can’t fathom a definition of it that would call it a religion, though. You’re just redefining the meaning of religion so that it only fits your holy book in particular.
I read the article, too. I think that Cults of Personality taken to that extreme are religions. YMMV.
All that said, dangermom is reaching me here when she says that DT has ruined SDMB religious discussion. I don’t know GD or the Pit well enough to come down on one side or another of that, but I’m giving that serious consideration.
That is not true at all. I do not hold religion in very high regard but he takes it one step to far. My problem with Der Trihs is that he has complete disregard for the actual forums that he decides to post his rants in. I am relatively new here but very rarely have I seen people start off threads with “Accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior or burn in eternal damnation.” His responses to religious threads would be entirely appropriate and necessary in these situations.
However, when people are discussing why religious doctrine has a hard time accepting something, it is not fighting ignorance to come into the thread and say “because all religous people are idiots.”
I am sorry Nancarrow but I think you missed that fact that Der Trihs has made it quite clear that he does not think religous people are worth talking to. Additionally, I take offense to the statement that a defense of DT’s beliefs is a defense of his character. There is a big difference between defending the character of a bigot who thinks that people should conserve resources and defending his position on the conservation of resources.
I think you’ve just missed it. IME it’s quite common for atheists to express such thoughts here in a more moderate fashion. Loopydude, Lobsang, and Rashak Mani have all done so in the past, IIRC–this is off the top of my head here, so I might be mistaken–and I know others have as well. But they weren’t usually so extreme that the discussion could not continue, and I have been happy to respond to them or keep reading the threads.
IME it’s far more common here for atheists to call religious people delusional or gullible than it is for religious people to announce atheists are all going to hell, or even that they’re all immoral.
I also agree with Frosted Glass’ comment that it’s just disrespectful of the boards.
