# The end of religious discussion in GD **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 21, 2008, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240 "2008-04-21T15:41:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/221 "2008-04-23T16:34:08Z")
[QUOTE=Ensign Edison] I don’t go to Cafe Society much (if ever) anymore, in part because I find the way many discussions there end up to be less than fun for me. But I don’t blame anyone else for my lack of interest. [/QUOTE] Suppose you liked talking about the NFL and every time you went into a football thread you could count on a handful of people posting “The NFL sucks! Football sucks! Anyone who watches football might as well be watching Sesame Street, it’s on their intellectual level! Bill Parcells is Satan!\*” Can you see how that might decrease the amount of fun you would get from reading and participating in threads on that topic? \*-I might be inclined to agree with that last one. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/222 "2008-04-23T16:34:13Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] Eh, I don’t do the ignore function…if I want to ignore someone, I just, you know, ignore them. But truth be told, the reason it’s not fun is because I tend to read the theological discussions rather than participate, as most of those here who are interested in the topic know far more than I. I personally don’t have the theological chops to really get one of those debates going, although I would put in a comment or question here and there if the subject interested me. I’m a tad worn out on the circular “does God exist” conversations, and those folks who could really get a good theological debate going don’t seem to want to do it anymore. I stopped learning much in those threads probably over a year ago, so it’s not worth it to me. [/QUOTE] Ah, see, that does make more sense to me, thank you. I suppose if enough theists are driven away for any reason, the quality of the debate from the perspective of an outsider is going to be necessarily reduced, yes. I just wish perhaps the theists would be more tenacious in that case, rather than blaming it on the goofballs and goons. ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/223 "2008-04-23T16:35:19Z")
Whenever someone brings up the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny or the Invisible Pink Unicorn in a theological discussion then you know someone will claim it’s an ad hominem attack because they don’t have a rational response to the argument. ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/224 "2008-04-23T16:35:54Z")
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar] Suppose you liked talking about the NFL and every time you went into a football thread you could count on a handful of people posting “The NFL sucks! Football sucks! Anyone who watches football might as well be watching Sesame Street, it’s on their intellectual level! Bill Parcells is Satan!\*” Can you see how that might decrease the amount of fun you would get from reading and participating in threads on that topic? \*-I might be inclined to agree with that last one. [/QUOTE] Personally no, it just doesn’t bother me – if anything, I come here to see how people who disagree with me think, and if it’s just noise I’m good at scanning past it – but I can see how it would reduce the fun for a hypothetical person, sure. I just don’t see how it’s not solved by ignoring the disruptive parties. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/225 "2008-04-23T16:36:06Z")
[QUOTE=Ensign Edison] But that is a different statement from “other people make it so that discussing some topics cannot be fun”. I don’t go to Cafe Society much (if ever) anymore, in part because I find the way many discussions there end up to be less than fun for me. But I don’t blame anyone else for my lack of interest. [/quote] Because that isn’t the case. There used to be more in the way of interesting debate here, there _still_ is intersting debate elsewhere … so, if asked, the truthful response is not “I am no longer interested in the topic” but rather “the topic has become less interesting, here, on this discussion board”. You need not agree, that’s your prerogative - but it isn’t like I’m the only person saying it. > [@](#): > > Third part first, I explained to mswas above how to use the ignore function. You might enjoy the board more if you tried it. I read it and edited accordingly. I do not think this is the solution. > [@](#): > > If you and Sarahfeena and Liberal wish to discuss the finer points of various doctrines of salvation, why can’t you have that conversation around any other conversations that spring up? You say you could if “desperate” enough. I guess I’m not seeing the trouble you’re talking about. Unless it bothers you emotionally – and I’m not saying that would be invalid, but you all keep insisting that it’s definitely not that it hurts your feelings, so I have to exclude it – what’s the hard part about looking for the posters you know are contributing to the discussion you want to have and disregarding the rest? … and **tomndebb**. I wonder if he was “bothered emotionally” when he noted the very same issue: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9720195&postcount=163](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9720195&postcount=163) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/226 "2008-04-23T16:36:17Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] One that doesn’t assume it’s “imaginary”. Do you honestly not see why that alone is insulting? It would be like asking you what’s a polite way of talking about your deficiency. [/QUOTE] So we can compare the God of the Israelites to… Zeus? Odin? Ahriman? Brahma? Whatever the Bahai’i call their god? Diego Maradona? Please select all that apply. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/227 "2008-04-23T16:39:19Z")
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar] Suppose you liked talking about the NFL and every time you went into a football thread you could count on a handful of people posting “The NFL sucks! Football sucks! Anyone who watches football might as well be watching Sesame Street, it’s on their intellectual level! Bill Parcells is Satan!\*” Can you see how that might decrease the amount of fun you would get from reading and participating in threads on that topic? \*-I might be inclined to agree with that last one. [/QUOTE] That wouls be horrible! Perhaps you can show us an example of this sort of abuse happening regarding religion threads in Great Debates? ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/228 "2008-04-23T16:43:56Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] … and **tomndebb**. I wonder if he was “bothered emotionally” when he noted the very same issue: [/QUOTE] I’m specifically excluding the possibility that it’s emotional because you all say it’s not. Why are you even bringing that up? Are you calling me a liar? What evidence do you have that I’m lying? I asked the question in that way because I was looking for an answer other than the one which I’m told is incorrect. If I thought it was actually correct, why would I be bothering to ask anything, especially if I knew you’d never agree? Anyway sure, add tom to the list. I’d be happy to ask him some questions about his statement too, like what he thinks, given that he acknowledges that much of the opposition was reasonable and intelligent, would be a way to reduce the “hostile environment”? Did he choose that term intending to imply that there’s something wrong with making what he admits were points worthy of consideration in any discussion on the board? Did he mean to say that if the trollishness weren’t there, the reasonable atheists wouldn’t chase off the theists? I think there’s a lot to be clarified in the statement you linked to before it can be fully understood. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/229 "2008-04-23T16:44:12Z")
[QUOTE=Ensign Edison] Personally no, it just doesn’t bother me – if anything, I come here to see how people who disagree with me think, and if it’s just noise I’m good at scanning past it – but I can see how it would reduce the fun for a hypothetical person, sure. I just don’t see how it’s not solved by ignoring the disruptive parties. [/QUOTE] Because the thing is, you are put in the position of defending the premises that the thread rests on. For instance, your example of the doctrines of salvation…that’s a good one. We have people from many different theological points of view who could weigh in on that. However, if someone challenges the premise that there is a god and an afterlife and a need for salvation in the first place, then you are put in the position of going back to defend those premises, rather than discussing the topic. Essentially, all the participants have to accept those premises in order to have a robust conversation about it. If half the participants want to go backwards, it’s like dragging dead weight, trying to move the conversation forwards. It’s much harder to ignore those kinds of questions and challenges than you might think, because it’s not so obvious that they are being “disruptive.” After all, they are more or less on-topic. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/230 "2008-04-23T16:48:26Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] That wouls be horrible! Perhaps you can show us an example of this sort of abuse happening regarding religion threads in Great Debates? [/QUOTE] Do you think that you’ll ever have anything to contribute to these discussions other than “OMG CITE!”? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/231 "2008-04-23T16:50:45Z")
[QUOTE=Maureen] I’m sorry, how is this not engaging in the very activity you say drags down the level of discourse? [/quote] Yes, this is the Pit. > [@](#): > > Here is my issue, and I hope you see it as a request it’s honestly meant to be, not an attack. If you don’t want to engage in a debate with people who sneeringly compare your belief in god to belief in an invisible pink unicorn or a teapot in orbit, that’s fine and I empathize and agree completely. However. Do not then lump all atheists into the same group, condemn them for actions they have not yet taken, and then turn around and [do the exact same thing](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=463257) that you’re condemning. Because what it looks like is an invitation to the very sort of argument you say you want to avoid. I don’t lump all atheists. I make efforts regularly to separate atheists and have even taken to an atheist rating system that I believe **LilShieste** devised, based on Eddie Izzard’s ‘Executive Transvestite’ sketch. **Sentient Meat** for instance is an executive atheist. **Der Trihs** is a gutter atheist. As far as that thread. It wasn’t about all atheists. I said that over and over again. The fact that people keep saying that it is shows me that there is a major point of cognitive dissonance on the atheist side where you are not even allowed to clarify your point. It doesn’t matter that I clarified my point dozens of times in that thread and others, I am still responsible for the perception of others who sought to reinforce the meme. What happened there was that _I_ was the one being pigeonholed. People thought my argument resembled an argument they’d heard before, so I was responsible for that argument, when the accusation is that is what I was doing. It wasn’t what I was doing. I was talking about the relationship of cultural organizations to moral pedagogy. Many of the executive atheists understood that. I cannot be responsible for people who willfully ignore my clarifications. That thread is very useful for me now. It definitely separated the wheat from the chaff amongst atheists. Though a lot of the chaff now follows me around from thread to thread harassing me. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/232 "2008-04-23T16:51:53Z")
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar] Do you think that you’ll ever have anything to contribute to these discussions other than “OMG CITE!”? [/QUOTE] Yeah, he generally covers up his inability to debate with that. ] ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/233 "2008-04-23T17:04:31Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] Yes, this is the Pit. [/quote] And yet, you did it in Great Debates when you started that thread. > [@](#): > > I don’t lump all atheists. I make efforts regularly to separate atheists and have even taken to an atheist rating system that I believe **LilShieste** devised, based on Eddie Izzard’s ‘Executive Transvestite’ sketch. **Sentient Meat** for instance is an executive atheist. **Der Trihs** is a gutter atheist. Huh. I wonder what would happen if someone categorized all theists in that manner. Ohhh, wait… > [@](#): > > As far as that thread. It wasn’t about all atheists. I said that over and over again. The fact that people keep saying that it is shows me that there is a major point of cognitive dissonance on the atheist side where you are not even allowed to clarify your point. It doesn’t matter that I clarified my point dozens of times in that thread and others, I am still responsible for the perception of others who sought to reinforce the meme. What happened there was that _I_ was the one being pigeonholed. People thought my argument resembled an argument they’d heard before, so I was responsible for that argument, when the accusation is that is what I was doing. It wasn’t what I was doing. I was talking about the relationship of cultural organizations to moral pedagogy. Many of the executive atheists understood that. I cannot be responsible for people who willfully ignore my clarifications. Well that’s a lovely justification wrapped up in a philosophical argument after the fact. And quite honestly, I would’ve been more than happy to participate in the thread had you actually made that clear from the outset. It’d be nice to have more philosophy in Great Debates. But you didn’t. The entire reason you had to spend half the thread defending yourself was because your OP was so inflammatory. You’re intelligent enough (from what I can tell) to know that it would be viewed the way it was. If you are going to insist that atheists be thick skinned enough to look beyond the condescending tone to the underlying questions of morality in an agnostic/atheistic society, then why must atheists be so careful as to not step on theistic toes when making their arguments? > [@](#): > > That thread is very useful for me now. It definitely separated the wheat from the chaff amongst atheists. Though a lot of the chaff now follows me around from thread to thread harassing me. Well, considering I didn’t even participate in the thread, I’m not sure where this comes from, but I’ll take you at your word that you’re being harassed. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/234 "2008-04-23T17:06:53Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] Yeah, he generally covers up his inability to debate with that. ] [/QUOTE] So if somebody claims that some atheists are dragging down religion threads, it is improper to say “Where is this happening?”-I must take said poster at his word? Why don’t you just give me the whole list of things that atheists are not allowed to question? ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/235 "2008-04-23T17:07:01Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] Because the thing is, you are put in the position of defending the premises that the thread rests on. For instance, your example of the doctrines of salvation…that’s a good one. We have people from many different theological points of view who could weigh in on that. However, if someone challenges the premise that there is a god and an afterlife and a need for salvation in the first place, then you are put in the position of going back to defend those premises, rather than discussing the topic. Essentially, all the participants have to accept those premises in order to have a robust conversation about it. If half the participants want to go backwards, it’s like dragging dead weight, trying to move the conversation forwards. It’s much harder to ignore those kinds of questions and challenges than you might think, because it’s not so obvious that they are being “disruptive.” After all, they are more or less on-topic. [/QUOTE] That does sound frustrating, but it also doesn’t sound like those people are doing anything wrong or against the spirit of this board, which seems to be what you’re claiming. If it’s not an obvious disruption, then either it’s trolling, so you should report it, or it’s a legit post and the problem is simply that this isn’t the right board for those unbeliever-exclusive discussions, not that it should be but something broken is preventing it. All that said, is there any reason, under the rules, that a thread can’t exclude certain classes of posters? Is a thread in which only women are asked to post allowed, for example, and could mods intervene if a man posted? By the way, maybe it’s that my atheism is a very recent development after years of faith, but I do find serious theological discussions about any religion interesting; my questions shouldn’t be taken to mean that I don’t agree it would be nice if such discussions could occur, whatever the reason they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/236 "2008-04-23T17:11:26Z")
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright] So we can compare the God of the Israelites to… Zeus? Odin? Ahriman? Brahma? Whatever the Bahai’i call their god? Diego Maradona? Please select all that apply. [/QUOTE] Can we compare your deficiency to that of a widow? An orphan? A feral kitten? A person who’s never been to Spain? Care to select all that apply? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/237 "2008-04-23T17:11:26Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] I don’t lump all atheists. I make efforts regularly to separate atheists and have even taken to an atheist rating system that I believe **LilShieste** devised, based on Eddie Izzard’s ‘Executive Transvestite’ sketch. **Sentient Meat** for instance is an executive atheist. **Der Trihs** is a gutter atheist. [/QUOTE] I anxiously look forward to the end-of-year Atheist Poster Awards Ceremony. Perhaps we could have little statuette trophies based on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, with God reaching down to Adam and Adam giving him the finger. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/238 "2008-04-23T17:16:46Z")
[QUOTE=Ensign Edison] That does sound frustrating, but it also doesn’t sound like those people are doing anything wrong or against the spirit of this board, which seems to be what you’re claiming. If it’s not an obvious disruption, then either it’s trolling, so you should report it, or it’s a legit post and the problem is simply that this isn’t the right board for those unbeliever-exclusive discussions, not that it should be but something broken is preventing it. [/QUOTE] Well, I never said that people were doing something wrong, I was just trying to explain why religious debates aren’t fun for me. I personally think it’s a leap to consider it trolling, but I also think that it’s perhaps bad manners for people to come into a thread that clearly has these underlying premises and start challenging them. If someone wants to start a separate thread challenging them, that’s fine, but why not let the silly little theists have their fun? As far as it being against the spirit of the board, I don’t think I’d take that leap, either. As a matter of fact, IMO, the challenging and antagonistic nature of these conversations are very much within the spirit of the SDMB. > [@](#): > > All that said, is there any reason, under the rules, that a thread can’t exclude certain classes of posters? Is a thread in which only women are asked to post allowed, for example, and could mods intervene if a man posted? I don’t know, but I’m not usually in favor of more such rules. > [@](#): > > By the way, maybe it’s that my atheism is a very recent development after years of faith, but I do find serious theological discussions about any religion interesting; my questions shouldn’t be taken to mean that I don’t agree it would be nice if such discussions could occur, whatever the reason they don’t. I appreciate that, and I know there are atheists around her who make very valuable contributions to these kinds of threads. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/239 "2008-04-23T17:16:58Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] Though a lot of the chaff now follows me around from thread to thread harassing me. [/QUOTE] Can you see your house from up on that cross? This claim was bullshit the last time you brought it up (when you were so successfully Whoooshed), and it’s bullshit now. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2008, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240/240 "2008-04-23T17:17:50Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] Can you see your house from up on that cross? This claim was bullshit the last time you brought it up (when you were so successfully Whoooshed), and it’s bullshit now. [/QUOTE] Well Bryan Ekers may not follow me around crushing, but you certainly do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-end-of-religious-discussion-in-gd/446240.md?page=13)