Wait, so the insult is that their beliefs are compared to beliefs that they think are delusional?
I sure hope “enlighten” is not a euphemism for “set on fire”, here.
I don’t think there should be an expectation of respect for someone’s belief or faith. Faith is a mental and, most times, personal construct. If I believe a rock can walk and talk, I don’t expect you to respect that belief without proof. In fact, I probably would expect ridicule, although I’d fear it would be expressed too harshly, and would therefore probably keep my belief to myself. People can argue that theism shouldn’t be viewed through the same prism as a belief in ambulatory, speaking rocks, but it really should be. An unprovable hypothesis or assertion is just as valid or invalid as any other, regardless of its support or the intricacy of its mythology.
Having said the above, there are ways to communicate lack of respect for a concept while maintaining respectful to those who hold the concept to heart, which I try to do, especially with those who desire to debate the broad topic of religion.
Well, other than the 9-11 theories, if not probable, could be at least possible, I’m not sure what the difference is. Enlighten us (not by setting us on fire, either).
You can be as hostile as you want, there is no rule against it and in fact its kind of encouraged but if the question is “why aren there so many athiests” I think at least part of the answer is because it is a hostile environment for religoous folks.
To a greater extent than most high-IQ people believe, debates have a lot in common with monkey politics, especially when there is little room for objective argument. Which means it’s not about who’s right but about who can gain higher status by making themselves look better than the other person (this is why rhetoric works). And this also means that numbers matter hugely, and dominance displays (think aggressive language) are rewarded, especially on the internet where there’s no physical presence to worry about.
Why would you enter a dominance contest when you’re massively outnumbered and the monkeys on the other side of the river are extremely aggressive? And from the other point of view, why would you hold back from a dominance contest when you know that the challengers are few and relatively weak? It’s no surprise that
a) Believers tend not to visit the site and/or talk about their beliefs, and
b) Nonbelievers are drawn to a site where they can “win” repeatedly, and attempt to create debates (dominance contests) whenever possible. See for example how creative Der Trihs is in making everything about religion, when he’s not doing the antifeminist thing.
Show me a context where believers CAN win rational debates. Believers lose debates because they don’t have any ammunition, not because of any unfairness in the medium.
Well, there is definitely some mystical thinking in Buddhism. Nirvana, reincarnation, a multiverse, stuff like that.
That was hostile? I’m not saying you’ve set the bar low, but a caterpillar just sprained his back trying to do the limbo.
What makes this site, in particular, more hostile towards believers than other internet communities?
Read past the first page. I queried whether or not Jesus fits in that category and the regilion debate ensued. God was referred to as or compared to everything from an invisible dragon to an extradimensional pink unicorn.
Invisible dragon? Extradimensional unicorn? Why would anyone be offended by that, that sounds awesome.
Driver does a rolling stop at a stop sign. Cop pulls him over and gives him a ticket for running a stop sign. The drivers says, “whats the problem? I slowed down!” Cops says “there’s a difference between sto and slow down” Driver sys “whats the difference?” Cop pulls driver out of the car and starts beating him with a stick. After 30 seconds of savage beating, the cops asks the driver, “Now, would you like me to stop or can i just slow down?”
Can we all join hands and bow our heads in prayer… God please don’t let Gustav burn for too long in the fires of hell, he is likely to get some brisket and a smoker and have a BBQ, please bring him up to heaven when the brisket is ready (well at least send up the brisket). Either that or he going to offend the demons by making fun of their horns.
How dare you blaspheme the Ineffable Unicorn!
Is my anger at the thought of your slighting the Unicorn, more or less silly than a theists anger at someone slighting the Christian God?
And why? There is as much evidence for my Most Holy and Spiny Equidae.
That’s what happens when descriptions aren’t forthcoming-people, using what little information is given them, will try to fill in the blanks.
That makes a lot more sense. The guy was clearly saying that no matter if there is a traditional soul or not, he would live on in the memories of all who knew him. Very nice. Would it have been better for the speaker to have lied and pretended that they always agreed? To say “okay, he was right, I’m getting baptized tomorrow?”
I’ve been on the Net for a long time. Back in the early days the people on it were in computer science departments and research institutions. In either place if you made dubious claims you got met with (subtle) sarcasm and mockery. it taught you to make your claims bullet-proof, and to think them out before saying anything. If you noticed my first response to dangerosa explicitly laid out all the assumptions I was making - that comes from my training in these areas. This same attitude carried over the the net, intensified by the lack of visual feedback and from not having to work with the people you are “insulting.” The people in the research group I was in at a top university would cut someone coming and pushing religion apart worse than seen here.
This attitude is so ingrained that Intel has (or had when I worked there) a class called “Creative Confrontation” which everyone has to take, and which teaches you exactly how far to go in arguing.
It is not for everyone, I know, but it goes back to the earliest Usenet groups and before that to PLATO.
Funny thing is, wouldn’t pedophilia actually qualify you for annulment under the definition: “An annulment process is aimed at establishing that the marriage bond was invalid from the very beginning. Something was missing from the marriage commitment, something was lacking with the consent or one or both of the parties lacked capability for unconditional commitment to a community of love.”
Marry someone who is underage (consent), or marry someone while secretly more interested in children (commitment)… and it’s grounds for annulment.
…just saying 
I think I’ve mentioned this before. I see religionists pulling away from “the God of the Gaps” model, and gravitating towards the “God of the Vague”. This makes it even more difficult to have an honest debate about any of the aspects of a deity when no specific aspects are described.
I don’t think we should go along with Dangerosa’s attempt to hijack this thread.