[quote] PRR: Even if I accomplish nothing for the believers on this website today, I’m helping to set a tone in which advocating atheism isn’t perceived as anything exceptional, and someday kids will grow up in a climate where people just assume that a random person may or may not believe in God, exactly as he chooses, instead of assuming that random person is a weirdo.
Looking at a segment of that lsentence:
…Someday kids will grow up in a climate where people…assume that a random person may or may not believe in God, exactly as he chooses instead of assuming that random person is a weirdo.
And you believe that you are helping to set a tone in which that can develop?
Liberal, so great to see you again! Merry Christmas!
pseud – I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing it. Your thread title is “How is it hurting me,” and you provide a four-point OP listing some of your beefs with Christianity – but not one of them removes an iota of skin from your nose.
I understand that you don’t like listening to nutjobs on the subway – but even if you managed to destroy Christianity, they’d be blathering on about something else, or finding some other way to annoy you.
Other than that – nope, sorry, you’re left with wanting people to be more like you. Given your level of anger, I’m not sure that would be a step in the right direction.
Pretty good “poisoning the well” fallacy. No, I don’t need to “arrogantly preach” to anyone, but thanks for giving me the opportunity to defend arrogance. Or preaching. :rolleyes:
What I am doing, as if you care, is asking a simple (and impossible) question of the SD itself on its basic mission: Why is religion, specifically western religion, and more specifically Xianity, given a free pass on this website? By “free pass,” I’m just trying to point out the obvious: that other sects, systems of belief, etc. are held to a fairly high standard of proof, and Xianity is not.
I’m an admirer of that standard of proof, and I love the idea of a website that asks people for evidence for claims, and busts their chops (in a pleasant but persistent manner, which is what I’m shooting for here–not always succeeding, but I am a flawed vessal) about assuming the burden of proof, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, etc. My question is: Why does Xianity get held to a less rigorous standard here?
I don’t think that’s an arrogant question at all, but YMMV. I think it’s a fairly reasonable question, as these things go, although the answer that suggests itself to me may not be acceptable to you, and you might therefore feel the urge to invent some personal attacks, send me some vicious e-mail, express disappointment in my character or integrity, etc. I wish you wouldn’t, but you are also flawed vessals.
I think this exemption exists because this website, for reasons of its own, has decided unofficially but clearly to allow Xianity to remain exempt. Now, why is this? That, I cannot say, but it certainly is off-putting to make most of your subscription base feel the need to defend its core values, or the core values of those they are personally fond of.
We can hold Scientolgists’ feet in the fire as long as we like around here, call them batshit insane, and get a good chuckle out of their loopy and contradictory, illogical, anti-scientific beliefs, not so much because they’re totally full of shit (which they are) or evil (which they are) but because mocking them carries no association with most of our own personal beliefs. Scientologists and Baal -worshippers get poked with all sorts of sticks, sometimes quite cruelly and rudely, and their intellectual capacities get called into question with nary an eyebrow being raised.
If someone started an “Ask the Baal Worshipper” thread (I’m surprised someone hasn’t), I somehow doubt that Tom would declare that poor deluded slob to be exempt from actually, you know, answering any questions about Baal-worship, as he’s done with the OP in the “Ask the Mormon” thread. Why? Again, I can’t say definitively, but there’s got to be a threatening parallel between LDS and mainstream Xianity, some overlapping set of beliefs, some debased standard of evidence in both sets of holy books’s authenticity, etc., that make Tom think “Uh, uh, too scary to go there, must not allow.”
So I can understand, sort of, in a practical sense why the SDMB is not going to priortize any time soon authorizing a policy that many of its members would read (wrongly, in my book) as an attack on their core beliefs. But in theory, I just don’t see what’s so threatening about holding one’s core beliefs up to the light for close examination.
I’m not seeking to convert Xians to atheism here. That’s your lookout. But I think the more questions we ask about core beliefs, yours and mine, the more answers we’ll get and I’m in favor of answers. Bottom line, is that I think (and some Xians agree) that finally the answer comes down to “I like holding these beliefs, they please me, they soothe me, they give my life meaning, but there is not any objective evidence that what I believe in is true, and that certain other belief systems like Baal-worship may well be as valid and as pleasing to their adherents as mine is. Call me primitive, call me superstitious, even call me simple-minded, if you like, I can’t really deny much of your descriptions, because even if I am being primitive, superstitous, simple-minded and all the rest here on Gilligan’s Isle, it’s still pleasing to me to be that way. Peace be with you, my troubled and needlessly thought-provoking friend.”
Instead, I get hate mail. Speaking of which, is there some kind of rule around here that Dopers are prohibited from sending each other anonymous hate mail via the e-mail account listed in the profile? If not there really ought to be. Hate mail sucks. And if there is such a rule, are atheists eligible to file a complaint?
Actually, I should have clarified-I have encountered it, just not in the people I’ve known PERSONALLY. I’ve seen many examples, on the Dope (not the posters noted) and in the media and the like. Just no one has personally preached to me, outside of the Internet.
So the people you’ve KNOWN (I’ll dispense with the name-calling for now) are a fine upstanding group of citizens, not a hateful one in the bunch, moral exemplars really, but the mass of humans are basically a pretty good mix of shitty and decent characters? How many people have you known, btw? Twelve? Fifteen?
Now, these folks who have been sending me hate e-mail–you realize they’re Dopers, right? Do you KNOW them? You know, like you KNOW Poly and Tom? Or do you only KNOW Dopers if they’re well behaved and the others, well, they’re just dumbasses whom you do not know?
Beginning of post #8. I was responding to his statement that he’d claimed four types of injury from Christianity. I disageed with his enumeration first, and then went on to disagree with his claims. (I’m hoping he decides to follow some analytical process when reading others’ posts soon. I don’t think cherry picking words and phrases is helping him much, and I worry about America’s soft bigotry of low expectations as applied to college professors.) ( )
IOW, Scotkris was inventing utter bullshit in accusing me of making up or twisting out of context the matter I quoted from you. Just pointing that out, since it might be difficult to glean from your nice friendly response to his malicious accusation. Not that you’re not being biased in defending those who incorrectly support your arguments.
My OP was never intended to be an definitive enumeration. I’m just getting started here–HOOO-WAH!! so it’s more than a little silly to start in nitpicking. And of course you realize that everything that’s every been quoted has been quoted out of context. Ive made almost 3,000 posts here on the SD, and your reference above hasn’t accounted for every single one of them: are you then quoting me out of context? The only thing that matters re: context is if the sample selected is distorted with intention of misleading, as mine is not. But it’s a free accusation to toss off when you’ve got nothing else remotely relevant. it’s just kind of sad and weak that that’s all you’ve got so far.
I dunno about that… I might have been missing something but in my experience here, the main religious-belief segments that have faced challenge, question and even derision for their theology (not just their actions) have been:
Scientology
Jack Chick/Pat Robertson -style Christian fundamentalism
LDS/Mormonism (a branch of Christianity whether or not the small-o-orthodox like it)
Not nearly as frequent, but often quite strongly and vocally:
Catholicism
Not so much these days, but more so closer to 2001, “72-virgins-in-paradise-for-suicide-bombers” -style Islamic fundamentalism
Liberal Christianity
Edwards/Brown -style “paranormal spiritualism”
And of course:
The social construct known as Religion, in general
Oh, there were some posts back at the time of the Amish School shooting about how those sects should not have a right to separate themselves from society; or when some Israeli Dopers loudly complained about the intrusion of the Ultraorthodox in how life in a nominally secular state is run, there was some debate as to whether being secular and unobservant right in the face of the Ultraorthodox is some sort of disrespect or provocation, but those are rare. FWIW we haven’t seen many threads aggressively deriding anyone for believing that an Eightfold Path was revealed to Gautama Buddha under a tree, either. But then again, that may be a sampling phenomenon: the overwhelming majority of the members of these forums will be exposed primarily to the cultural referents of Western Christianity and the groups it interacts with directly.
So, both the atheists and theists and radical believers alike function within an atmosphere of JudeoChristian cultural referents and current-events anecdote. Sometimes what may look like bias in that direction may be just a matter of that baseline. And yes, there is a certain, um, lemme dig a phrase from back in college days, “set of bourgeois cultural mores” in the predominant culture of the board that does tend to look askance at an overly aggressive, in-your-face, no-quarter, even hostile attitude on these types of issues.
Still, I’d be surprised if derisive and hostile comments about Fundamentalist Christianity on this Board did not outnumber those against Atheism. It does seem to go by cycles, though. Wait 'till the next time a School Board tries to teach ID or Pat Robertson claims Jesus is aiming an asteroid at Disney World on Gay Weekend, the stones will be getting cast.
OTOH, of course, attacking a particular religion for specific ACTIONS it promotes, condones or tries to sweep under the rug is a different thing: “Honor Killings”, Priestly Pedophilia, Junk-science anti-condom campaigns, political influence-peddling, fatwas on authors, persecution of gays, harassment of critics, crusades, jihads, inquisitions, etc., all are worthy of asking the followers to question themselves as to whether this is something that shoud be promoted, tolerated or swept under the rug.
“Thought provoking” is never “needless”.
And that’s a fine and dandy statement, I like it a lot. Except that it looks an awful lot like an election-night concession speech, along the lines of “You’re right, prr, but I’ll appreciate not making me use the actual words “you’re right” before I concede.” And I notice there’s no note where you make any gracious concession on your side. …I know, I know, the side that’s objectively right has nothing to be diplomatic about; but still.
Oh it does. And I would be surprised if there weren’t such rules, though enforceability would be a bitch.
I deal with hate mail a lot in my regular line of work. I try to look at it this way: when I get hate mail, I can be certain that’s someone who KNOWS he lost the actual argument and now lost his continence, too.
You see, here you’re being all reasonable and shit and then can’t resist climbing up on the damn cross again. That this board may be more tolerant of theists’ folly than you like does NOT mean it persecutes atheists.
Cherry picking words and phrases to respond to instead of addressing the substance of remarks addressed to you is, in fact, distortion with the intent to mislead. It is an attempt to present the appearance of earnest effort at honest discourse while avoiding any meaningful defense of your own argument.
Actually, isn’t that two separate ways of saying the same thing?
If theists are allowed, nay, even encouraged to behave like fools, while atheists are slapped down when they indulge in any foolishness (like climbing up on a cross just for the exercise), isn’t that de facto persecution of atheists?
It might not feel that way to Xians, but it kinda IS that way, by your own admission, to those actually experiencing the persecution.
Not that being mocked on an internet forum is the same kind of persecution that, oh, being hung on a cross to die is persecution or anything. Some of us actually invite mockery on the SD, opening threads where they understand they will come under attack, while to others any questioning of their beliefs is perceived and portrayed as insufferably impertinent and rude and will not be tolerated.
If you think Christianity is handled with kid gloves around here, just try starting a thread in GD wherein you claim to have scientific proof of Jesus’ resurrection or that he turned water into wine. Try starting a thread wherein you prove that praying to saints helped cure the AIDS epidenic in Africa. That thread will turn into a multi-page pile on like any you’ve ever seen on this message board.
If Christianity (or any religion) gets praised around here, it’s because of how the philosophy of that religion helps peopel live their own lives.
John, merely pointing out how this is far from the world’s single most extreme example of religious nutjobbery is hardly speaking to my point. Even Tom’s religion-promotong agenda is fairly subtle as these things go. I.e., he displays some knowledge of the real world in several threads, is able to engage in at least the appearance of actual debate at times, etc. and is far from a fundamentalist maniac (which is what makes him so dangerous a Mod–people have reason to regard him with some respect, as I did for years). But see if you (not personally, though you’re welcome to try) can respond to my most basic question here a dozen posts ago:
It’s a pretty good question, I think: Why are Xians on the SD held to a less rigorous standard in discussion than holders of other systems of belief?
Simple, straightforward, respectful, sincere–and no one wants to touch it with a stick.
This is silly. There is a wide open thread in GD at this very minute that is permitting all the LDFS bashing one could hope for. There is a separate thread where posters are free to challenge the LDS theology, as well. The only restirction placed on the second thread is that the arguments be kept to actual theological discussion rather than breinging in all the history and social criticism that generally accompanies LDS bashing.
I’m sorry that it hurts your feelings that we’d like to see some threads not be deliberately hijacked by haters (at least when the haters are on your side), but no one has been “protected” from actual discussion; we’ve simply organized two threads along the subsets of discussion allowed.
"Held to a less rigorous standard … " – By the moderators, I assume? Please correct me if I misunderstand.
The question is sufficiently vague as to allow multiple interpretations. Can we stiplate that discussions in GD are the focus of your question? And that by “systems of belief” you mean “religion?”
I have had some knock-down drag-out discussions in that forum on that topic. In my memory, never has a moderator sided with a Christian simply because that poster is a Christian.
Let me see if I get this right. You think that anybody with beliefs different from yours means that they are dangerous as a Moderator and incapable of putting aside these beliefs in order to do their job? Seems to me that: a) people all over the planet do this every day, and b) the only person around here unable to do that seems to be you.
I don’t think they are held to a different standard. Many if us atheists, of which I am one, just realize that faith (not belief in any particular supernatural act) is outside the realm of science and there is no point in going after anyone simply for their faith. I don’t see criticism of Moslems’ faith, although there may be ciriticism of certain acts or claims made by that faith. Same thing with Christianity. Mainstream Christianity is not accepting of gays, and if anyone tries to use a argument based on religion to deny equal treatment of gays, that person will be ripped apart in GD.
If we had a Baal worshiper and he or she openned an “Ask the Baal worshiper”, thread, that person would be treated no differently than a Christian would. If the poster claimed that Baal gave him lots of money, the poster would be laughed off. If the poster simply claimed that Baal helped him find meaning in life and Baal’s philiosophy helped him cope with the world, then it wouldn’t be much of a problem.
I’m not sure why asking people questions is considered “going after” them. Xians are certainly welcome to ignore threads about Xianity if they choose (though they may well get derided for their absence in certain forums) but you’d think they’d welcome the opportunity to clarify their positions or elucidate some posters’ misconceptions. “But don’t you disbelievers dare speak to me rudely” you know, by asking questions and not accepting “Cuz I say so” as the final word.
Since we haven’t actually had any Baal-worshipers here on SD, AFAIK, let’s explore this as a hypothetical. Problems generally arise, not from expounding on the “philosophy of Baal,” but on textual problems with the book of Baal or actions taken by Baal-worshippers that they deem consistent with Baal-worship. Baal worshippers advocate sacrifices (let’s say–I think that’s right) and advocates of animal rights (or children’s rights) chime in with “How dare you evil and immoral Baal-worshippers slit throats for your evil religion!”
At just about this point I see Baal-worship threads and X-worship threads beginning to diverge. No one will defend sacrifice here, and practitioners will pretty well get their Baals busted. But “How dare you do immoral acts A, or B or C” posters in an X-related thread will be Warned to tone it down, and stop making a personal attack etc. in GD.
Skip a few steps of tedious arguing here, and I think the distinction we’d come to is that Xianity is a reasonable religion and that Baal-worship is inherently offensive in many ways to contemporary life, and so the gates are opened a bit wider for making personal attacks in GD upon Baal-worshippers. Don’t you agree with that, my Xian hearties? Why, of course you do. Have at those stupid Baal-worshipping heathens, and their cruel practices!
Me, I see both forms of worship as approximately equally cruel, and want a precisely equal (or as near as we can get it) standard to be followed. I think that makes the most sense, and is much easier to enforce, hard as it may be for Xians to bear.
)