I can’t help but notice all this victimization is in relation to topics where it’s impossible to come up with any objective counterarguments or evidence. Religion. Bush. The Star Wars prequels. All completely indefensible on any level other than “well I believe it” or “well I liked him/them”. People don’t seem to mind so much if their debate opponents are a little disrespectful if they have some actual counterarguments to come up with instead.
BTW, the Star Wars thing was a joke.
To enlighten you heathens.
This is an important point. If a topic is not an invitation for debate, or for debate of a narrowly specified aspect, those with agendas should probably try to resist the urge to steer the discussion their way.
Really? is that all he said? Nothing about how he thought the guy’s religion was bullshit but that the guy was a good advocate for it, or a good debater?
Saying the deceased was an excellent advocate is stronger in the context of the speaker being having opposing views.
Oddly enough, the percentage of Jeopardy contestants in the SDMB is about 64 times that of the population at large. (I did a study - you can look it up.) Coincidence? I think not.
ROFLMAO
And every third or fourth post by Der Trihs.
Somebody tell Alex Trebek he’s going to burn in Hell!!!
And just who in this thread has brought up “Jesus horses”, Catholic bashing and pedophilia? Why are you trying to hijack this thread with strawman issues?
It is a fact that there is no evidence for the supernatural. Why is it an attack to point that out to people?
Again, if you believe something that has no evidence to support it, someone who points that out isn’t responsible for the humiliation you feel. Your rational brain is responsible. And the smart thing to do would be to change your beliefs, not to whine about persecution.
Please show me where Bricker or Tom or Polycarp or even Liberal has been called a nutter by anyone. Saying that their beliefs are non-rational is something totally different. It is common for a theist (and I’ve never seen any of them do this) respond to a statement that their belief is non-rational with the accusation that someone is calling them crazy.
Look, you are praying to an entity which you admit you have no reason to believe exists. It makes you feel better, which is great, but it is okay to admit that this action is non-rational. There is nothing wrong with that - sex at my age is non-rational also. Admitting this doesn’t mean you have to stop praying or going to church.
So you equate unsubstantiated ghost stories with religious beliefs? In that thread he was giving rational explanations for “spooky” events, not bashing deeply held religious beliefs.
Even episode 3?
This thread has nothing to do with what I asked for.
and I think the point some are making is that is often not the case.Some athiests seem compelled to jump in and derail the discussion. I’ve never had that problem but I’ve seen the posts, and I’m not easily discouraged by that.
This is what he said, to paraphrase:
‘‘John was very religious. As everyone knows, I’m a staunch atheist, and I think it’s all nonsense. We had quite the rivalry between us. One day in the heat of argument he stood up, looked me in the eye, and said, ‘‘I am the only person in this entire department who believes I have a soul.’’ I told him he was delusional. But now, standing in this room, I think maybe he was right. His soul is right here.’’ (gestures to everyone in the room, becomes too choked up to continue.)
That professor was a notoriously aggressive atheist who made several derogatory comments about religion on a routine basis. I don’t imagine he could have expressed his grief any other way, and I don’t think anyone would accuse him of deliberately being insensitive. But considering that about ten people had stood up before that, including the deceased’s partner of 8 years, to express the fervent belief that they would one day be reunited in heaven, it was really not the most tactful speech in the world.
I’d like to point out that it’s not only theists making the claim that Dopers in general aren’t particularly welcoming to religious folk. I’m an atheist. I do not believe in God, occasionally I find the idea of God almost hysterically funny, and yet I still think the Dope is not a particularly welcome place for believers. The difference between 9-11 conspiracy theories and cherished religious beliefs is pretty obvious to me, maybe because I’ve actually been religious and know what it’s like.
But I would also add I’m not really the kind to address people who make dubious claims with sarcasm and mockery. I try to treat people on the internet in roughly the same way I would treat people in real life. The same rules apply for debate. So, ‘‘We treat everyone with stupid claims like shit’’ is not really a winning argument for me. Not everyone agrees that being nice is important, whatever, but I know I’m not alone in that approach.
To those who are Christian and living in heavily Christian environments – this shitty feeling you experience having your beliefs put down on the Dope? That’s basically what it’s like to live in real life as an atheist. Only instead of being treated as stupid and irrational, you’re treated as evil and immoral.
And it’s never the religionists that attempt to derail the thread? I could point out a couple attempts in this thread alone.
We don’t call them nutters, we lump their beliefs in with the nutters. Its all “non-rational” or delusional. Its all over this very thread. We all respect Tom and Poly and Bricker and Liberal (or most of us do), but honestly, many of us do not bother to show the same respect for their beliefs. And when its someone who hasn’t fought for years to earn a place in the SDMB “well, they are a believer, but other than that they are a good guy club” we are even harsher.
well those guys yeah, but folks like kanicbird never do
I’m not claiming anything other than what I noted.
Didn’t think you were. I just wanted to point out that hijacking is done on both sides.