I started posting in this group).

First, most people who post here are thoughtful, tolerant, open-minded and more interested in finding ares of commonalities than they are in focusing on differences. Peacetrain's and pokerfan's threads are wonderful testaments to that.

Second, as with any group, there is always a subgroup that is focused on divisiveness and creating discord and chaos. They focus solely on the differences. This is their reason for being here and they are highly unlikely to change.

Third, people that feed trolls are destined to live with them.

Despite this, the religion group remains vibrant, full of interesting and civil conversation and my favorite place on DU.

attacking others, dividing them in to groups, declaring them "trolls," etc., would get off their self-righteous soapboxes and drop this ridiculous tut-tutting.

People ARE different. They think differently. And thank goodness - I can't imagine anyone (except you, apparently) would want to live in a world where everyone agreed and the only response you could give someone is validation.

Jesus talk about intellectual dishonesty.

Bryant

So who's against diversity?

You are on record as agreeing with the proposition that believers are either dishonest or thoughtless, and I'm pretty sure you defended the delusional argument as well.

You set up a rhetorical trap where there are there are three options.
1. Don't examine your beliefs - Thoughtless
2. Explain your beliefs and how you set them in action - Dishonest
3. Examine your beliefs and find them wanting - Atheist.

Those are the only three options based on your set up - examining your beliefs and being satisfied they are correct isn't one of them.

I don't declare all atheists anything and I've listened to them again and again.

Bryant

Nor do I really care where you end up. Just trying to make you think. But because religious beliefs are special and privileged, we aren't allowed to criticize them or point out when people have put themselves into corners. When that happens, then atheists are mean and intolerant and evil and trolls and whatever other horrible epithets you want to throw at them.

So very, very sorry to push your religious buttons. You may hate and spit at me now.

Being insulted isn't a religious trigger - it's being insulted. Again I'm not the one who characterizes a group of people as being all the same; that's you.

You comfortable up there on your high horse?

Bryant

Very sorry to have said something other than validation of your religious beliefs. I won't ever make that mistake again.

Funny - I've seen you do it in the past - but I guess you really are hitching your wagon to Warren Stupidity's star.

Bryant

"dishonest" != "intellectually dishonest"

Not that it matters - you've already made up your mind that what is really meant is that you are being called "stupid or a liar," so there's nothing I can do about that, but just stating how I interpret the phrase you've locked on to (as Warren clarified).

How does that work?

I was willing to give you that its not the same as calling me a liar but I don't see how intellectual dishonesty isn't a form of dishonesty.

Bryant

I think that when someone is just outright dishonest, they are doing so intentionally.

Intellectual dishonesty isn't always intentional. (Or even consciously done.)

At any rate, when you point out the dishonesty and I refuse to acknowledge it (by, for example, saying I'm a better judge of the Mormon Commandments than you are), doesn't that move it from unintentional to intentional?

Bryant

By the way where do sinners end up in your theology?

It's more complicated than that, but not sure how far you are interested in this (and of course anything I say you'd have to look up given that you believe me to be essentially dishonest).

I'm guessing this is more in relation to hell? I don't believe in infinite punishment for finite sins.

Bryant

So is that a thoughtless or dishonest answer?

Bryant

you seem to be avoiding the obvious implication that you believe in a god that tortures people for being gay.

In fairness I think he'll torture me for being an asshole (assuming I don't repent), so there's that. And for not being married, and for the many other sins I've committed. Swearing. Cooking with wine (apparently). Not attending church as regularly as I should. Not attending to other religious duties.

Bryant

There's something seriously fucked up with someone believing they'll be tortured for saying a naughty word, while at the same time swearing fealty to the weak beast that would torture them for their non-misdeeds. And then, to top it off, to claim that this "god" is benevolent.

You do know that you have the choice to be a good person without a god? That one's not required for the other? I think you'd find that the nonbeliever community is more forgiving than your vaunted "god".

hasn't lead me to assume that. They don't seem like the forgiving sort - but then again I've never tried giving up my faith.

But I used the word Torture because that's the word Warren Stupidity used. It's not the right word, but the concept of dealing with your sins is more complicated than I bothered to get into with him.

Bryant

I grew up LDS and eventually confronted the contradictions. When there weren't good answers for those contradictions, I left. The fact that a simple word can be considered a "sin" doesn't sit right with me. Not to mention the racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc.

Saying you'll be "tortured", then playing it off as something else is, IMO, a severe contradiction. It's like an abused wife saying "he's really a nice guy, but I just make him angry because of my own weaknesses, so it's really my fault."

How do you know?

I don't claim to be perfect but I have tried to deal with my sins and failings, and to imply that I haven't . . .

At any rate repentance is a multi stage process - you recognize that you have sinned and done wrong, you feel remorse for what you have done and a desire to change it, you make amends as best as you can to those you have aggrieved, you change your ways and do your best not to commit the same crime again. This is a painful process - more painful if put off after you die, because at that point you see things clearly - you don't have the fog of self rationalizations that we have in this reality.

Bryant

Okey dokey then. Sorry for asking.

And torture/repentance there. I asked how you could know.

I believe what I stated above. I certainly can't prove it.

Bryant

that doesn't teach an innate part of who you are is a sin.

Where do they end up in yours?

equally dead.

You might just not be capable of acknowledging it. Thus the unintentional part.

Think of it this way: What if I said "Everyone who wants to make abortion illegal is either thoughtless or intellectually dishonest."

Would you agree or disagree?

When I look at the people who want to ban abortion, they're typically all men. I think that when they claim to care about the fetus, what they actually want is control over women - whether they realize it or not.

I think anti-choice women tend to fall more into the "thoughtless" category. As does everyone who simply claims that a fertilized egg is a living human being.

Any other anti-choice folks you might put into another category?

Homosexuality. I don't really want to wade into the other issue that will almost certainly get me banned from DU.

While I oppose any Governmental Restrictions on Abortion, and think it should be more readily available, I grew up in a pro-life family and I still know a lot of pro-life people. I wouldn't characterize them all as thoughtless or dishonest.

Bryant

She holds the same position as you.

She's also on record saying that atheists, if we didn't have believers to hate, would just "go back" to hating minorities, LGBTers, etc.

Such shameful behavior from your buddy.

This bit --> "She's also on record saying that atheists, if we didn't have believers to hate, would just "go back" to hating minorities, LGBTers, etc. "

Bryant

I didn't mean "also" in the sense that you have said the same thing.

I meant it as "She agrees with you on this issue, and by the way she also said this other thing."

Since as near as I can figure, to you "buddies" are two people who happen to agree on one thing, I just wanted to see if I can call okasha your buddy.

You just agree that believers are thoughtless and/or dishonest. I think you disagree with how offensive that is - I don't think Warren minds believers being insulted when he calls them thoughtless and/or dishonest, while you seem to believe that believers shouldn't be offended when you call them thoughtless and/or dishonest.

Hey is it offensive for a believer to say to an atheist - "So you believe there's no God right?"

Bryant

Incorrect, but not offensive. What comes next would determine whether I'd start to get offended.

Which is why I've learned not to say it. Because I hold atheists in general (although not all of them individually) worth respecting, like I would respect anybody, I try and use the terminology they find most comfortable.

You are right - it might well be an innocent mistake because it's not obvious until you meet an atheist and take the time to see things from their point of view. But a person should take the time to learn how to treat others with respect.

On the other hand realizing people might be offended if you call them thoughtless and/or dishonest - it doesn't take a lot of effort to figure out that shows a lack of respect.

Bryant

If you think atheists are either thoughtless or dishonest, say so. But then follow it up with your reasoning as to why. Then I will be able to see if you are simply mistaken, or correct, or just a mean asshole.

As a fellow anonymous person on the Internet, I do not require your respect.

But you know - we just have different ways of looking at the world that go beyond the whole atheist/believer dichotomy.

Bryant

The worst ones, I ignore. So far, I've had a pretty good track record - they tend to eventually expose themselves as being homophobic bigots and get booted from DU.

There are groups and forums all over DU that focus on issues where people tend to agree, or tend to disagree. Only in this group, in which people are allowed to disagree, do some take such offense at being told someone else thinks they're wrong. Only in this group do certain individuals appoint themselves "civility police" and view anything but cordial (but condescending) validation of everything someone says as unacceptable.

I think this illustrates the biggest problem with religious beliefs: the special status and privilege they are given, which in turn helps empower the religious right.

But what do I know - even though I'm not the atheist who compared same-sex marriage to marrying one's bicycle, or grandmother - I'm one of the evil "anti-theist" troll atheists who deserve scorn and attacks.

Even if you put intellectual in front of it. That doesn't actually make it any better. If it was just a matter of you telling me I was wrong that'd be one thing, but you trot out each of my religious beliefs, make me answer your questions on them, and then declare me dishonest anyway.

Here's the Google definition of Intellectual Dishonest --> Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. Those bolded bits are why I don't see intellectual dishonest as different from regular old dishonesty.

Bryant

And as some have made painstakingly clear, we are not bound by definitions. We can all use words however we want to.

"Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or clearly misleading, [font size=+2]or[/font] is the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to insure the truthfulness of the position."

Since no one "knows" gods exist, to assert one does would be, according to that definition, intellectually dishonest.

The atheist isn't necessarily asserting no gods exist, just that evidence supporting them is lacking.

Last edited Tue May 6, 2014, 10:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Never.

Nor do I think homosexuality is a sin, since I'm lesbian myself.

I would be happy to be your buddy, though. And as your buddy, I would advise you not to allow yourself to be baited.

Don't feed the trolls.

You said it in this thread. The article was about a single individual. You generalized it to the plural - "they" - as shown here:


You confirmed your commitment to that belief in bashing another DUer:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=126479

It was a quite narrow brush applied to a small group of posters at DU.

And I'll reiterate here: anyone with such a deep need to look down on another group to bolster their self-esteem will find such a group. If deprived of one, they will seek another.

Haters hate. The rest of us avoid them as best we can.

Memories of the playground. Such delightful lads.

Which leads me to conclude that your stated positions here are not completely honest.

There are exceptions. You were the one who expressed concern that you would be banned for expressing your actual beliefs.

Don't you think Skinner should know that?

Bryant

beliefs regarding homosexuality, women's rights, etc. It could be a way to remove some of those sins your angry god is going to torture you for.

That might be healthier too.

Bryant

he's just being what he is. Take cbayer's advice and keep your car windows rolled up.

is that when we stop feeding the trolls, they slink away, beat their chests and start eating their own.

Funny, ya know?

I was being thoroughly entertained watching the cannibals in the basement. Brought back such wonderful memories. Nice to see you popping your head up though. It's always so refreshing.

We post anywhere on du and try to get us banned.

that might be seen as a call out of believers and get the post hidden.

there are a few users who repeatedly ask you to clarify something. They aren't doing that because they are dense or obtuse but so that they can get another shot at a jury since the first one didn't go their way. Don't give them another shot. Just refer them to your original answer.

I mean why should DU allow people who are thoughtless and dishonest, let alone delusional.

Bryant

to the number of posts in A/A that have been alerted on and hid.

And from your comments at times, it seems like you are one that reads through A/A. You aren't one of our nannies are you?

I don't like that tactic unless someone is purposefully being abusive, and even them I'm more likely to just take it.

I've said this before - but I assume you believe I'm lying here?

Bryant

I've never gone back on my statement that I have no problems with you.

Just trying to give you some context to the statement you replied to. The nannying that is going on in A/A is ridiculous and frustrating.

It's not kosher. I think that Atheists should be allowed to discuss things in a safe forum without being hassled. Particularly since when they come here they have to deal with us Dishonest, Thoughtless, and Delusional believers.

Bryant

I think it has been made overly clear that while those terms carry negative weight the way they are being used is very detached. It is not talking about a specific person but a train of thought.

And for what it's worth, I am dishonest, thoughtless and delusional on many occasions myself. Aren't you?

or delusional" that's something else isn't it? It's one thing to admit that I individually have flaws, but its another to ascribe those flaws to a whole class of people.

Bryant

That's why in all of those threads on here, there have been discussions about what the words meant and the context of the meaning.

And if someone sees religious beliefs as delusions (which isn't a slam but a belief in something not true), then saying all people with religious beliefs are delusions is not a bigoted, broad-brush smear.

Same goes for dishonest and thoughtless?

Aren't you pretty close to arguing that "We atheists should be allowed to call you religionists whatever names we want to."

Bryant

Are we only to respect the thought process of believers in here?

Where have I (or anyone) ever said anything remotely like the straw man you give me at the end?

At any rate - Dishonest and Thoughtless - do you buy those as acceptable ways to depict theists here?

I don't know what you mean by only respecting the though processes of theists - when have they been respected at all, let alone exclusively?

Bryant

I think a lot of theists here are intellectually dishonest. I don't need to get into that with you as you have been having the extended discussion with trotsky.

Many people here, theists, talk about wanting respect for their beliefs. I would put you as one of them. Perhaps I'm wrong. But there are others. A lot of those same people don't want to respect the thought process (read: beliefs if you wish) that theists have regarding the veracity of theist beliefs. And, on an intellectually dishonest vein, those theists disregard off-hand the beliefs of MANY other religions and don't give it a second thought. Yet balk when atheists dare to do the same thing to their religion.

is a wonderful thing to use at times.

Obviously the worst of the toxic crew have replied in this thread as it shows 20 replies in total.

I am fortunately only seeing 5, and they are more thoughtful and reasonable.

These individuals need an audience. Deprive them of the narcissistic strokes and they will eventually move on or go back to a safe place to find it.

Broad brush condemnations of an entire group or class of people speaks a great deal about them. Perhaps their distrust, rage, hurt, etc. is valid, however, the way they express, handle, and communicate it often is not.

Just can't help myself, I guess. They are definitely a study in cyber bullying and manipulation. I seriously question their motives for being here, besides honing their skills.

You took one person's description of a small group of people (those who he has on ignore) and imputed that he was using that as a description of a large group of people (presumably anybody who disagrees with him).

That's clever of you.

Is there anybody outside of the eighth grade who falls for it?

an entire group or class of people?

Have you and I even ever communicated in the past? Obviously you are an atheist as you seem to have gotten a bit defensive. Guess what? I would be considered one too by most people.

But hey nice try.

always assume that your little clique is the only audience that matters, that responses to your posts are only meant for you, and that if you just ignore those responses, you can pretend that the nonsense they expose is still valid in everyone's eyes.

Tell you what….you go right on thinking that.

That nationalreport.net is a satire site.

Beyond that...

This has happened to me and it's rather embarrassing.

Good on onager for recognizing it quickly, deleting it and issuing an explanation.

Looks pretty funny.

I once posted an article from a site that is a 100% satirical site mocking fundamentalist churches.

That group is a safe haven for atheists to discuss things you will find offensive.

I'll admit I did read that post, but Warren Stupidity has said the same things in this forum.

Bryant

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message



On Wed May 7, 2014, 07:54 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

It's been discussed here as well.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=128914

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Admits to nanny trolling a safe haven groups and calls out one of the group's members.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed May 7, 2014, 08:04 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why was this even alerted on?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think it's fine and Warren had a nice comeback. If someone is trolling then alert on the troll post. Leave.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: warren stupidity is like a brother to me (if she is a girl, she's like a sister to me). Don't call him or her out. Hide
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Looks like mutual mudslinging

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Imagine that.

But then I checked the guy's name, and it turns out that that's actually what he calls himself.

I'm with Juror #2. It's a real head-scratcher.

Skinner must be in a corner getting drunk about now.

Guess there's no point in speculating.

Bryant

to never having your beliefs challenged. I can understand completely.

how much some non-religious people (at least here) care so much about my
religious beliefs. The fact that my views of the Bible do not fit some particular
pattern seems to cause them genuine consternation, which I would
never have guessed. And this is nothing to do with my trying to embed my
religious beliefs into the government - it is my beliefs themselves. Am I
being cruel having these beliefs?

I've not seen this in atheists in the real world. But I do have a friend who
is really bothered by people who think iPhones are by far the best smart
phone. This might be a similar thing.

The religious beliefs commonly criticized here, inform what becomes political belief in the person that holds it. Horrendous shit, like opposing family planning, same sex marriage, gender equality, and a host of other entirely political views.

Nobody gives a shit that you believe, or what you believe. Not at the base level.
We give a shit about the content of that belief and what you and others do with it.

You, personally, may not color your political views with your religious precepts/morals, but hundreds of millions of americans do, and it's a FUCKING PROBLEM.

Non-religious people are clearly bothered by inconsistencies in the Bible, and scientific inaccuracies in the Bible, things that have nothing to do with politics. They are bothered by DUers who don't believe "bad" things in the Bible. So people who believe the Bible is all fiction want to tell Christians which parts they should believe in? Now that's messed up.

Have you noticed that left-wing Christians have different political views from right-wing Christians? You'd think that since their minds are under control of the Bible and their religion, that they political views would have to the same. Quite a puzzler, isn't it?

pointing out that the RCC (not necessarily DU members that are catholic) holds bigoted beliefs, or regressive, conservative doctrine garners an apologist response from some members here.

Fascinating.

1. Consider homosexuality a sin, even though I'm lesbian;

2. Believe abortion to be wrong, even though I've been consciously a feminist since around the age of five (being born into a matrilineal, matriarchal Native American Nation will do that);

3. Am a Bible-believing Christian, even though I have been exclusively Traditional in my spiritual practice for the last 25 years; and

4. Haven't read said Bible at all, despite having taught it in World Lit surveys for donkey's years.

It's just amazing, the things I didn't know about myself!

and are too absorbed in what they think/wish you've said. I've actually been accused of lying about being a pagan, even though I was using a pentagram as my avatar at the time.