There was a time very early on when atheists informed us that treating them as though they were missing out on something or unable to perceive something obvious was terribly condescending. I think most theists have made excellent progress in their consideration of the feelings of atheists in that regard, and generally steer discussions as far as possible away from that direction despite attacks of the sort quoted above. I do not know of a theist who has ever communicated to atheists on a parallel with “googly eyed cannibal zombies for jebus”. Not even in the Pit. If you can’t summon even a modicum or respect for an opposing view which you personally consider to be unreasonable, then I think restraint is a concept you don’t quite yet grasp.
Did you miss the thread by mswas that was referenced above, in which he suggested that being or becoming an atheist would render one an amoral psychopath? If so, I’ll find a link for you.
I’m just saying that painting all other religious/spiritual discussion fora in the scathing light **Czarcasm **used is neither entirely accurate, nor all that admirable. It’s not that I don’t agree with his position that this board is different than boards that aren’t as open to debate, it’s just that his comment was ugly and detracted from his position. Lots of other posters were successful in expressing their dissent of the OP without pandering to perceived superiority.
I realize this is the pit and all bets are off, but the license to ridicule is a temptation that more eloquent posts often choose to ignore.
Incidentally, I didn’t post my original reply because I have a specific beef with the Czarcasm. I was just a bit disappointed to see that he would take a dig where one was wholly unnecessary to get his point across.
Czarcasm, correct me if I’m wrong, but my perception of your posts is that you are so fed up with the lekatt style of debate (and I use the term *very *loosely) has so got your knickers in a bunch that allowing your disgust to color your arguments is something about which you’re not all that concerned.
I’m not looking for points here. For all I know, I’m the only one that gets that impression from your posts. For all I know, I’m wrong. I simply felt compelled to point it out for whatever reason; perhaps, I thought it might cause you to look at your posts more critically and decide whether that’s the impression you really are striving for.
On preview, it bothers me too, Really Not All That Bright. Again, I just don’t think that characterizing those boards in such a manner is all that persuasive or reasoned position.
You should go to those websites then. It’s interesting being called ‘a degenerate waste of life’ or ‘not really a human being’ or that I ‘should be disposed of the way any other garbage is disposed of’ by people who supposedly worship and try to follow a loving god.
Not all views, opposing or not, are worthy of respect. When someone tells me in one breath that god is love and in the very next that I should executed for not being a real America because I don’t believe in god, then I think some profanity is in order.
But it’s still ok to stick my fingers in your ears and go “la la la you can’t hear me!” right?
Right?
That’s horrible. Absolutely horrible. I’m sorry you were subjected to that.
Next time, come get me. I’ll go in and fight beside you. Love isn’t necessarily squishy. Sometimes love is the water that puts out a fire. No one should dehumanize you. And you’re right — there’s no greater contradiction than condemnation coming from a Christian.
Actually, I took it rather easy on those “feel-good” boards(I am not talking about all religious/mystical boards, mind you). I have been kicked off so many boards for daring to actually ask questions that it almost isn’t worth the bother any more. No small percentage of these boards actually have a small forum, usually at the bottom of the page, for the “unenlightened” to talk amongst themselves without bothering the true believers. Criticism of outsiders is often allowed, but if you try to explain or defend it’s called “bashing”. I remember a remote-viewing board based in Hawaii where I dared to ask for studies verifying their beliefs. I was banned by the admin for being a “troll” and my posts were removed, but the avalanche of posts vilifying me not only stayed put, but continued after I was sent to the cornfield. There was another board based on a popular series of Christian fiction where it was required to actually treat the two authors as prophets!
Again, I am not saying this is true of all religious/mystical forums-just the ones where no-one is allowed to dare question the Mystery, and everyone is praising everyone else in hope that they in turn will receive equal praise. You can tell wanderers from these boards from the way they post, and the utter dismay they have for those who dare question(or even worse, disagree with!) their “truth”.
Fair enough, Czarcasm. Would you characterize those boards that treated your views as unwelcome like this?
In all fairness, the phrase I left out was “You can usually recognize them by the…” Obviously, you have managed to qualify the demeaning characterization so as not to imply that they are all like this. But you effectually succeeded in lumping them together with every other board that isn’t like this one in terms of openness to debate.
It came across (to me) as sort of pouty and mean-spirited. Maybe they deserved it; I don’t doubt you believe they deserve worse. It was just an unbecoming statement from my pov and I’ve seen your posts and think you can do better.
Not that this really matters. We all have opinions and I’m not a bastion of civility at times, either. It struck me, I commented. Take it as you will.
Because if a Fundamentalist and a liberal Christian get into a discussion about the appropriate place of proselytizing in the Third World (the Great Mission) contrasted against a respect for the beliefs and cultures of other peoples, the most that Der Trihs can do is wander in and express his absolutist declaration about the evils of religion, get ignored, and wander out again. lekatt continues to interrupt discussions on a range of topics with declarations that he purports are fact, then hijacks the thread. (He has also begun, in recent months, to add insulting little comments to other posters in his posts, ratcheting up the heat.)
In one sense, that really is a failure of the Teeming Millions (who cannot seem to simply ignore his nonsense), but since lekatt is disruptive while Der Trihs is simply irritating, lekatt (after six long years) has finally pulled down some sanctions on his posts.
Thank you, but I think I’ll stick to boards like this one. Even with people like lekatt, mswas, and even though I agree with him most of the time I’ll say Der Tris too, this is still a much more open minded board.
Maybe I’m just reading too much into it (and I’m sure my motives will be questioned or assumed for me), but it just seems to me that the current state of the GD thread is one where lekatt is being subtly corralled/coerced into either shutting up, or doing something that will get him banned.
We all know the conclusion, so why not just ban the guy now?
In my observation, Der Trihs does not just make declarations. He substantiates his positions well within his own rigorously consistent framework, and responds calmly and cogently to those who constantly attack him instead of his arguments. The frequent characterization of DT as being like a sort of Wile E. Coyote who rushes headlong off the edges of threads waving signs that read “RELIGION SUX” and “GOD IS HATE” is inaccurate. lekatt is clearly much more disengaged from discourse.
No. More likely is that if the current questioning continues in its present form, I will have to conclude that it is harrassment and order that line of inquiry to stop.
::: sigh :::
I don’t want him banned-I just want clarification on several statements of “fact” that he has made over the years.
Sure, although I reserve the right to muster further disgust depending on what you do with your fingers afterwards.
Honestly, I haven’t spent much time visiting the sort of boards he’s talking about.
I do know several people who frequent them, though, and hotflungwok’s examples are very much representative of the feelings (or at least the public declarations) of those people.
To be perfectly honest, I think a few of us treat the SDMB, in its unquestioned liberal slantiness, a bit like the Pilgrim colonies - not a chance to exercise tolerance so much as a chance to exercise one’s own brand of repression.
In other words, since atheist (or any non-Christian, often enough) viewpoints are drowned out or even greeted with open hostility elsewhere, a few posters here like to pile scorn on the theists knowing that the majority of others will agree with their arguments if not their tone.
I’ve probably been guilty of it at least once.
I was going to argue with this, and I caught myself (but what I caught myself doing is interesting and possibly relevant, so I’m going to confess it here).
There exists a category of debate where some detail of religious doctrine is being discussed - a good example of this would be a religious debate on the nature of the Trinity, as defined in mainstream Christian doctrine.
It is not at all uncommon, in such a debate, for an atheist to contribute a brief post to the effect “I don’t know why you’re even discussing it - it’s fiction, guys!”
I think what I was almost about to do was indulge in a fallacy of composition:
-acts of threadshitting are committed by vociferous atheists
-DT is a vociferous atheist
-Therefore…
EXCEPT… that I’m not even sure, without searching, if DT is even a frequent, or anytime offender in this regard - yet I was about to just blurt out an assertion that he is.
Heh. That will just set up a feedback & terminate loop. Everyone demands lekatt answer a question, lekatt doesn’t answer the question, you step in and tell people to stop harrassing lekatt so they can’t ask the question again, everyone asks lekatt another question, etc. Repeat until we can’t ask lekatt any more questions.
I’d love to see “there is a god: true or false?”, “atheism/religion is the root of all evil/goodness”, and “religion is no more than belief in pink unicorns” confined to two or three threads, and otherwise ignored as questions/positions.
I’d really like on occasion to engage in debates about the anthropology of religion, the effect of religion on history, and the differences and similarities of religions. But it can’t easily be done, because sure as the sun rises, the usual suspects will hijack the thread into one of the above issues, where the same old arguments everyone has heard before get trotted out and go on for a dozen pages.
I’d like to see that, too. I’m very interested in religion from an anthropological standpoint. Give it a shot, Malthus!
And thank you, RNATB, for your insight.
No, actually, that’s not what it says.
To be accurate the statement is:
What that means is that if you absolutely feel that you must give testimony, Great Debates is the forum you would do it in and nowhere else on the board.
Religion is one of those hot topics that people will debate endlessly. I agree with you that chances are no one will be convinced by such rhetoric and I have little interest in engaging in such rhetoric myself – on any side of any religious issue – but I must fight to the death for anyone else’s right to do so in Great Debates if that’s what they want to do.
It could be said it’s the Greatest Debate of all. 