I don’t understand. So what if someone says it’s nonsense? How does that prevent you from talking with other believers as if it isn’t? Just ignore the hijacks you perceive. Are you saying they hurt your feelings so much you can’t bear to try? If they’re so disruptive they make conversation impossible, report it to the mods. Otherwise…what is the problem, exactly?
O.K., then-if someone wanted to compare whatever god or gods you might believe in to another well-known imaginary example, what kind of comparison would not be insulting?
I’m mildly religious, and I don’t feel repressed at all, either. For me, it just ain’t fun anymore.
But if there is a “dumbing down”, is it only on one side of the debate?
It’s not about hurt feelings, it’s just that it’s usually not worth the trouble.
For me at least it has nothing whatever to do with hurt feelings, but with a dumbing down of debate leading to conversation on the topic being not very fun.
Not a huge problem I suppose as there are other topics, and not really something that the mods or anyone can do anything about - you can’t force people to debate intelligently, they either do or they don’t.
Just an unfortunate reality, really.
We had a thread on this very topic just a few months ago (if someone else wants to search for it, be my guest). My recollection is that it was nearly impossible to construct any sort of comparison that did not cause offense. My recollection could be faulty, but it seemed to me that the mere suggestion that a christian god was at all like an entity that did not exist was offensive. Comparing god to a complete fiction (unicorns, spaghetti monsters, teapots) was belittling, comparing god to an established fictional character like Santa Claus meant that you considered followers to be like children…
Not at all.
Transforming debate into a conflict between anecdotal personal “witnessing” on the one hand and “spagetti monster/pink unicorns” on the other is dumbed-down, on both sides.
Thing is, those going for a more sophisticated debate on either side will be put off by both. Sort of like Gresham’s law of conversation, “bad” conversation tends to drive out “good”. 
It’s not even really that insulting, it’s just stupid. I don’t mind if people want to debate the existance of various Gods. I generally start talking about how Gods represented primal forces of nature and personified them in an animistic way. That usually doesn’t get very far, because the gutter atheists just want to ‘pwn’ me.
In these arguments I take it as seriously as my opponent generally. If my opponent just wants to have a gutter flamewar, I’ll engage because I think they are fun, but I don’t think they represent anything worthwhile in the long run. Nothing is resolved in the end it’s just lunchroom ‘Yo Mama’ jokes with a bit more erudition.
The trouble of clicking ‘ignore’? I’m not trying to be a jerk, I swear. I truly do not understand what trouble (that doesn’t rise to the level of needing moderation) it could cause. As for the “dumbing down” comment…again, I don’t understand. If there are intelligent discussions to be had on the topic, why can’t they go on even though there are also unintelligent ones going on? As for the “not fun anymore” argument, that one sounds like hurt feelings again, can you explain how it’s not?
There’s an ignore function here?
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.
If this isn’t a whoosh, yes, you can choose to ignore any poster you wish. Go to profile, and across the top there are two options – one to add to buddy list, and one to add to ignore list. You’re just not allowed to tell anyone who is on your ignore list.
PS I don’t have anyone on mine. I hope that doesn’t break the rule to say. 
I would suggest that was out of place in IMHO.
Yes, I honestly don’t see why that alone is insulting, and that’s the crux of this particular division. To you it’s as obvious an insult as saying “yer mother sews socks in hell” is, but to us, it feels like you are the one insisting that your perspective can be the only one to influence discourse. You’re saying ‘How dare you question what I believe; I so thoroughly reject what you believe that I find your mentioning it to be a personal insult’.
What part of “discussing some topics is not fun” is so hard to understand?
The problem is that it is very difficult to put together any sort of intelligent discussion, because those otherwise likely to engage in such discussion are effectively deterred from doing so - so the topic attracts mostly those wishing to flame each other.
Sure, if one was desperate to discuss this topic, one could - assuming others were similarly desperate. You could simply wade through the hijacks, the flames, etc. But why bother? More trouble, generally, than it is worth.
As for clicking “ignore”, I honestly don’t know how to do that here.
Edit: I see the response about “ignore”. Thing is, what if you only wanted to “ignore” someone on this particular topic, but not generally?
I’m sorry, how is this not engaging in the very activity you say drags down the level of discourse?
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 that you’re condemning. Because what it looks like is an invitation to the very sort of argument you say you want to avoid.
So, as an atheist, I must first acknowledge that whatever god we are discussing exists before I am allowed to enter any debates on the subject?
Ummmm-No.
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.
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.
Third part first, I explained to mswas above how to use the ignore function. You might enjoy the board more if you tried it.
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?