If you're taking a view in OPPOSITION, you're also constructing a world-view, a thesis, a "religion"--with rules and guidelines--in opposition to the thing you're calling a pile of crap.

I think, though, that people should believe as they like, even if they believe in no deity, so long as they don't try to shove their beliefs down the throats of others!

In short:

One believes in a deity, who guides their life, the other does not believe in a deity, and does not believe that any otherworld being guides their life.

There ya go--taaa daaa!

But will that make you happy? Why do I think not?

Its even inaccurate in defining atheism, its too long and too restrictive. Some atheists do believe an otherword being or beings guide or influence their life, could be ghosts, ancestor worship, animists, etc. They simply don't call such beings gods.

Will you bother supplying them? All your post above does is make a statement of what an atheist does not believe. And I think you realise how much of a non-answer your post was.

lives!

Sometimes, what people do or don't believe is all they need to "guide" them.

Or not. The atheists as well as the religious are more than welcome to expound if they'd like--they have tongues, and fingers for typing, after all.

but you are still unable to name them. It was your claim, and it seems not a single other person agrees.

Rule One--No deity.

Rule Two--See rule one.

Happy?

You think there must be broad consensus for a thing to be so? How borg-like!

in the 'religion' that you claim it is. I can see you weren't serious when you started posting in this thread, and have no intention of starting.

Neither is anyone else here. There's an Atheist's Bible you can reference, if you'd like, too.

American Atheists has a more defined mission:

"American Atheists, Inc., is organized

to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices;
to collect and disseminate information, data, and literature on all religions and promote a more thorough understanding of them, their origins, and their histories;
to advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways the complete and absolute separation of state and church;
to advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways the establishment and maintenance of a thoroughly secular system of education available to all;
to encourage the development and public acceptance of a humane ethical system stressing the mutual sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each individual in relation to society;
to develop and propagate a social philosophy in which humankind is central and must itself be the source of strength, progress, and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity;
to promote the study of the arts and sciences and of all problems affecting the maintenance, perpetuation, and enrichment of human (and other) life;
to engage in such social, educational, legal, and cultural activity as will be useful and beneficial to the members of American Atheists and to society as a whole.
Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds."

this seems irrelevant.

Seems quite pertinent and relevant to me. However, I am aware that they do not speak for all atheists.

Provide them for my atheist religion, please.

Does the following constitute the entirety of the rules and guidelines you mention?:

"Do not believe any otherworld being guides your life."

A few CAPS and .... ellipses, too...JUST to make your day!

You're free to interpret what I said as you please. Getting personal is YOUR "tell." Sign of a weak argument, that.

you will stop evading and answer the question.

You're in a snit because you don't care for my answer.

Oh well. Like I said, don't get a blister.

Those who rally against Scientology and see it as dangerous are therefore also a Cult. Those who rally against Creationism are also pseudoscientist.
etc. Atheist do not believe in God, period. Some decide to become social activist and speak publicly about what they see as the harm religion does. That makes them activist, not church goers.

Activism can be regarded as a form of religion, too. You just worship a different thing.

Enjoy!

that it becomes meaningless.

Supporting single payer health care is a religion?
Environmentalism is religion?

And if you actually consistently applied the word "religion" this way in the rest of your life (which I sincerely doubt), not just for suspect convenience in this thread, would you do it with the same sneer as when you accuse atheists of having a religion?

You aren't championing a useful or coherent meaning for the word "religion", you're trying to foist off a ludicrously broad definition to use as a bludgeon. When anyone else points this out, you just get petulant about it rather than addressing the problem.

So anything, pretty much, is possible--even if it doesn't make sense to you or me.

Examples: http://listverse.com/2009/09/10/10-extremely-weird-religions/

I'm sorry, but I don't see "the problem" you are seeing. And I'm not sneering. That's your perception, your issue, your problem. Don't characterize me because you're just wrong.


Here's a fun essay with one perspective for you to peruse: http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Why-Atheism-is-a-religion-20120312

And to convince me you aren't sneering on top of that?

If you claim that "religion is likely very individual to and for many people" who is it individual for? Individual for the atheist who doesn't consider atheism a religion at all, or individual for you when you're passing judging on atheists?

And I am not "sneering." I think you want to keep repeating that because you don't care for the points I am making, but that false assertion doesn't become any more true with repetition.

YOU are the one making some very amusing and untrue assumptions, here.

Should I interpret your comments to be that you speak decisively for all atheists? You're the atheist pope, and you can declare, decisively, how every atheist thinks and feels? You make the atheist rules? That they all march in lockstep to YOUR pronouncements?

That is how you're coming across--like you have all the answers.

I'd say you speak for yourself, not all atheists. In my view, everyone speaks for themself--not for a group. Their perceptions are theirs, alone. They may or may not be shared by others, but it's up to those others to willingly associate themselves with the comments--not for you or me or anyone to tell people what they think.

And I am not "passing judgment" on anyone--atheist, religious, or don't-give-a-shit. You should not falsely ascribe qualities to me. It's not a nice thing to do.

Last edited Mon Mar 12, 2012, 10:28 PM - Edit history (1)

...that's passing judgment. I don't have to "speak for... all atheists" to know that very few (I'm sure there a few exceptions out there somewhere) consider atheism a religion.

If sticking an unwanted label on a person isn't a form of judgment, what else would you call it?

Of course, maybe your judgment is fair and deserved. But you'd have to accept that it's a judgment before you called it a fair judgment, and you seem loathe to do that.

And of course, you'd need to present a cogent definition of religion, not just make it whatever you need it to be at the moment, or blandly and vaguely call it "personal", before the fairness of your assessment could be determined.

If you're such a champion of words being endlessly malleable and personal, and if you really stood by your "Their perceptions are theirs, alone." statement, you should have no trouble accepting that I perceive your posts as accusatory and sneering.

That's my oh-so-personal feeling about your posts. You wouldn't dare trample on that sacred ground by voicing unwelcome disagreement, would you?

own positions would be swayed or bothered by the opinion of one other person, having a discussion about a subject. No one can make you feel bad or sad without your permission. If you are giving that permission, that's on YOU.

You can call me a fig newton if you'd like--that doesn't make me one. I know what I am.

You're free to think what you like--my point is, just because YOU think it, does not make it so. If my disagreement is "unwelcome," that's because you choose to make it so, and allow my views to cause you agita.

...atheism isn't a religion. I'm sure you can dance around the words and claim that it doesn't really "bother" you, despite the snippy tone of your "only stating an opinion", but I'm not buying it.

And this whole bit when people are rude and offensive and they try to shove it off on the people who react to their offensiveness with nonsense like "If you are giving that permission, that's on YOU" -- when the person who is being offensive offers advice like that it's not helpful advice, it's snide passive aggression.

Basically, "Nyah, nyah! I can say anything I like, anyway I like, and if you let it bother you in the slightest, it's all YOUR problem!"

This is always your schtick. You drip with venom and blame anyone else who points it out.

Yeah, yeah, I know... if I think that, it's my problem!

You aren't bothered when you sound bothered.
You aren't snippy when you sound snippy.
You aren't accusing when you sound accusatory.
You aren't judging when you sound judgmental.

All of these other people who would ever think otherwise (it's hardly me alone) are the ones with the problem, not dear sweet kindly you. Obviously anyone who would think ill of your words doesn't understand you!

Right.

Look, this is how adults discuss things in my world. One makes a point, the other rebuts. The other considers, either agrees or doesn't, and maybe makes a point in contravention. Number one either takes it onboard, or refutes, or dismisses. There may be consensus, or there may not, but no one has a fit over it. You shake hands, part as friends.

No one uses words like bothered, snippy, accusing and judgmental.

When people do start using that sort of language as a technique to make their point (or change the focus of the conversation from the points made to the people making the points), they aren't arguing, or discussing, or even debating-- they are name calling. And that's precisely what you are doing.

So tell ya what--you have one of those real nice days, eh? Because yes--it IS your problem!

Wow! Talk about projection! That's obviously YOUR problem. I'm just discussing things, just like you!

that a "…world-view, a thesis…" naturally and inevitably yields "a religion" — with or without rules and guidelines — is wholly unsubstantiated.

There is no inevitability to having a world-view that makes it an essential and obligatory precursor to religion. Please don't try to entrap anti-theist thought in the (mostly imaginary) rules for theological discourse. There is no legitimate correlation.

You don't have to agree with me. I will say, though, that if you resort to an argument that rules for theological discourse are imaginary, then you're already out the door!

That's going to impose silence in every seminary from Tukwilla to Thonotosassa.

There are rules for all sorts of discourse. Doesn't mean everyone follows them!

In providing a pointless, fatuous response to every question, and consistently adhering to one theme: "language doesn't matter; just make it up as you go along."

In a previous time they'd be examining your palms to see if you're growing hair.

everyone is an Atheist about all the other gods except theirs. Or about all gods. Just a difference by a small percent of gods.

...or anything else more complicated.

Sometimes it looks like babies laying flat on their back who can't move yet and babies laying flat on their back who can kick arguing about whether the hope of walking is better than the risk of hurting someone by kicking them. Someone who can walk looks like a superhuman, a fraud, a god, a monster. And after you can walk? Hell, you're only two years old. What does a two-year-old know about human development?

When we got enough language to create societies, we didn't magically get 'just enough', nor did we gradually evolve up to enough - if either were the case we wouldn't have poetry. We got a big chunk of "linguistic" ability when something shifted genetically, and although that got slightly optimized, mostly it gave us far more ability than we needed for human survival. You can be pretty limited linguistically compared to the most capable, and still be a completely passable member of society. But there is a minimum - a fairly large chunk of linguistic capacity that you have to have to be a functioning social human.

I tend to define "spiritual" stuff neurologically, so keep that in mind. Spiritual capacities (whatever the "God spot" actually DOES do for us, and what it might be capable of doing if we consciously developed its various capacities the way we educate ourselves in other areas) seem to be much less necessary for survival - perhaps some minimum is necessary to keep us from drifting too far into self-destructive Darwinian competition or psychopathy. If it isn't necessary, then it can drift towards nonexistence. If it's necessary as a component of some personalities but not others, the evolutionary picture gets hairy, especially as people don't go out of their way to choose gametes for competitive advantage.

So if people start DEVELOPING these capacities, to the extent where a group of people can develop a common set of experiences and language, you have the possibility of a really wide variety of experiences, which we mostly ignore and otherwise let some of the craziest religious people play with unsupervised. I've had a load of wonderful experiences with others, a hellacious collection of really weird ones myself, and I've heard of more bizarre shit than anywhere else but the Internet.

I don't think that religion is the only activity that uses these capacities by any means, but capitalism has pretty much displaced people doing group mind for fun anywhere else.

as far as what kind of spiritual experience is available out there, there's mostly fast food, a few nicer restaurants in odd parts of town, but not very many of these:

The evolutionary viewpoint of religion is always interesting.

You, of all people, should know better. If you want a civil environment in the Religion, you have to fulfill your half of the contract.

This post is not a good example of civility.

This group is full of highly contentious pieces from all points of view.

And you choose this one to call flamebait?

But you know that already.

He just sounds burned from the crap everyone gets on the internet. His description of why atheism is a religion could just as easily be applied to people arguing about Chelsea vs Man. United.

because you've been a strong proponent of "civility" and have called for an end to contentious debate. If you're going to join the poo-flinging contest, go ahead, but don't expect me to take you seriously the next time you call for civility.

This is a legitimate article about a legitimate topic that is recently in the news cycle.

Oh, and I don't think you ever took me seriously to begin with, but that's a different subject.

Maybe I'm not parsing your sentence correctly, but those seem like the same things.

FWIW, you specifically asked me to point out to you when a post of yours is uncivil. I did so.

as rude and personal.

I fully believe it is possible to have a very heated debate and for it to be entirely civil. In fact, I have these debates with my atheist partner all the time (not just about religion, but about a whole host of things).

I think you are engaging me in a civil manner and I appreciate that. I see where you are coming from on this, as it is a highly provocative piece. OTOH, the debate (so far) has been pretty civil, imo, and I hope it remains so.

For example, I consider the phrase "militant atheist" to be a vile slur, but there are many believers here who don't agree with my opinion and use it in the normal discourse on DU. So, while some may say that the use of "militant atheist" in debate is just a way of it being "heated", others would consider it rude or offensive or disruptive. (The same applies to phrases like "sky daddy" or "fundie atheist", etc.)

What I'm trying to say, I guess, is that there are a lot of us who might find this article highly offensive and others who don't. That's what makes it flamebait, and while I expect it from many posters in the group, I don't from you because you've made it clear that you want to hold yourself to a higher standard. (I can respect that, even if I think it's futile.

Despite your desire for this debate to remain civil, I don't have high hopes for this thread. But maybe I'm just too cynical.

In that thread, I personally came to understand why it is offensive and agreed to stop using it. I do not think I was the only one who reached that decision.

As I noted to Muriel in another post here, I recognize that I did not do my homework well before posting this and am agreeable to having it locked. It's from a bad website (which I honestly thought was primarily a secularist based site) and written by a libertarian (which I also did not fully recognize). That was sloppy on my part.

It's a libertarian (and yes, you should know that makes it flamebait on DU), saying atheism is a religion, because she says so. It's a mishmash of half-thought-through arguments which she abandons when they're not going her way. She goes to Newberg - but then finds he says atheism isn't a religion, she falls back on the crap argument that "atheism means you believe God is dead or disengaged, but you admit God exists".

Then she moves on to assert that atheists are just like theists, so so therefore atheism is a religion.

How can you think this is 'well written'? This is the centre of her article:

what she said and thought it raised some interesting points, made some reasonable arguments and was able to be humorous in doing so at points.

I also felt that she was aiming her critique at a particular group of atheists and not broadbrushing.

But I do have a mea culpa to offer. Although she says something about libertarianism in her piece, I thought it was sarcastic and did not recognize that she is in fact in that camp. I also did not recognize this website as what it truly is. I incorrectly thought that it was a site for primarily for secularists based on the name and by-line and thought I had seen it linked to before. That was a mistake and I did not do my homework before posting this.

I would not object in any way to your locking it if you feel that is best.

do you have anything else to say about this being flamebait.

This is disappointing from you given they way you have called out atheists for what they post and that you are a host. I hope an apology comes soon, but I'm not holding my breath.

It never has, even back in DU2. There is no place for religious people to talk without fear of attack -- each religion has their own separate place, but no Big Room for the religious to meet without getting a load of shit from the atheists. The "atheists and agnostics" have a big tent, but the religious just have separate ghettos that do not facilitate interfaith discussions. One religion has to go to the other one's "house" in order to have a chat. It's just not conducive to an exchange of views between say, a Christian, a Jew and a Buddhist.

There should be an Ecumenical Group that is a safe haven.

lead on establishing such a group, and it isn't going to be me.

OTOH, I think things have gotten much more civil here and that participation has increased. While there is still a substantial amount of snarking back and forth, which is pointless, it seems generally improved (I am sure that some will disagree with me, though).

Perhaps foolish, but I remain optimistic that this can be a place where a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist and an atheist can exchange views. What I have seen recently is an increase in the diversity of both theists and atheists who participate.

I wonder if a name change for the Liberal Christian group or a combining of several of the theist groups would address your idea. Most of those groups have very limited participation.

topic, and an atheist will come along with a great big handful of shit and fling it with great force. This is the place where those kinds of discussions happen. They never end well. The atheists "view" is always that the religious people are wankers and assholes for believing what they believe. There is frequently a lot of "blaming" on the religious because some wingnuts like to put religion in government, and stuff of that nature. That's always the "atheist view." They won't be moved. That's fine, but they won't be convinced to shove off and leave the discussion be, either...they've just got to "participate" by letting those religious know how wrong they are.

I simply think that if you ever want to see a Jew talking to a Muslim, or a Christian talking to a Wiccan, it's not gonna happen here without the thread being disrupted with tremendous purpose and glee. If not sooner, then later. There needs to be a safe-haven group, like the atheists already have, if you want to see that come about.

Either that, or take it to DU mail. In all the years I've observed this group, it's always been like this.

Really, you're telling us to go away?

Why do it, then?

The religious are not allowed to participate in the "Atheists and Agnostics" group, but the religious have NO ecumenical forum in which to meet. None.

How is that fair?

Answer--it's not.

I'm not telling you to do anything--I know you won't, so why bother trying? I do know, though, that no matter what the topic of the religious discussion, an atheist will likely as not come along and fling shit and make fun.

I really think the religious people "get it"--you don't think much of their beliefs. It's no surprise when one of your number turns up to finger wag and point it out yet again. And again. And again. And again.

I just think way too many of the atheists behave like condescending snarkmeisters when they repeatedly make their "HA HA--you're stupid because you believe in a deity! HA HA!" point. It comes off as rude. Some religious discussions deserve to be allowed to run their course without the usual "You're stupid because you believe what I don't believe" or "I don't like your source" arguments. A safe-haven group for the religious of all flavors would stop that sort of thread derailment that happens in this forum. You could still have your little wrestling matches here, but there'd just be a place for the religious to go where they wouldn't have to put up with that inevitable shit.

1) leave or 2) keep our opinions to ourselves?

For the record, if someone calls you stupid or attacks you, you can send an alert and a jury will lock it. Just remember that attacking a belief structure is NOT the same as attacking a person. There's a rather marked distinction to be made between the two, and I think you may have a problem with conflating those ideas and assigning similar motives to the poster of either.

I ask a question, I offer a suggestion, and you turn it into a request with DIRE, invented-by-you binary consequences. Then you follow up with a "stern lecture" that I find both didactic and very boring, indeed.

If someone wants to discuss the magical qualities of the Virgin Mary, or a religious theory introduced by Saint Whooseewhatsis, how does it "hurt" you to butt the fuck out and leave them to their amusements every once in a while?

I don't do the "I don't agree with you, so I'm gonna alert on you" schtick. That's for losers. If I think you're behaving badly, I'll say so.

Eh, you guys like a fight, I guess. Makes you feel alive, does it? Don't wanna be forgotten, I suppose! Have to let people know that you don't agree with them at every opportunity!

Whatever happened to politeness? Whatever happened to just letting people have a bit of space every now and again?

Don't feel like you have to respond--I don't need another lecture about your "rights." I get it--you've got 'em, and you'll assert them even when you don't really need to so do! So there!

Those are YOUR words. How is that not telling us to either leave or shut the hell up?

But see, you aren't proving your point, because others who know how to read a subthread will see exactly what you did. No one gave you an ORDER. No one is FORCING you to do anything. Why are you desperately trying to behave like a poor widdle put upon victim? Awwwwww....someone's being MEAN to you by suggesting you not involve yourself in EVERY discussion! Waaah!

See--what you are actually doing is demonstrating the unremitting capacity for argument found in this forum. And you're doing it in a very "able" way--I don't really MEAN able, I'm thinking of another word, that's closer to mean, nasty, snarky... but never mind that.

You don't read contextually, you take a phrase and twist the intent of the speaker, and then you act all huffy.

You are doing a great job of showing why the religious deserve an ecumenical safe-haven group, so they don't have to deal with this kind of shit.

If ya'll want another rarely used group, go for it. Just don't try to force out opinions you don't like from this group, because both sides are allowed a voice here.

"Out of context"? I think everyone can see the context in which the phrase was written, and I suspect that there are many who would agree with me that you're making an implicit request for non-believers to leave or shut the hell up. I mean "butt the fuck out" is pretty indicative of your opinion on the matter. What you're asking for is a system in the Religion group whereby believers are allowed to make posts that are off-limits to non-believers, but not the other way around. You don't see a problem with that?

And don't 'Ya'll' me, there, pal--I am not part of the group you like to fuck with--I'm simply a person who notes blatantly uncivil and unfair conduct when I see it.

Yep, everyone CAN see that context--and if you think I'm making "implicit requests" than you need to go back to school, or recognize that guilty justification often is the result of poor behavior.

No one is trying to "force" or "demand" anything from you. When someone asks you, repeatedly why you have a need to behave like you do, and all you can do is insist that you have a "right" to behave as you do, well, all I can take from that is that you LIKE being disruptive for its own sake.

You can't stop, though, can you? Why do you persist in making shit up?

But I'm not sure why you feel it necessary take it out on me. You're attributing behavior to me based on your interactions or experiences with other non-believers instead of using the context of this particular interaction. I asked a simple question: do you or do you not want atheists to leave the Religion group to the believers?

Here's what I know:

1. In post #42, you said: "they (atheists) won't be convinced to shove off and leave the discussions be"

2. In post #45, you made unsupported assertions about the behavior of atheists. The quotes you attributed to atheists are:
- "HA HA--you're stupid because you believe in a deity! HA HA!"
- "You're stupid because you believe what I don't believe."

3. Please direct me to the posts where an atheist made either of the statements from #2. As soon as you do, I'll alert on it myself. Contrary to your presupposed notions about my intentions, I'm vehemently opposed to personal attacks.

4. In post #48, you said: "If someone wants to discuss the magical qualities of the Virgin Mary, or a religious theory introduced by Saint Whooseewhatsis, how does it "hurt" you to butt the fuck out and leave them to their amusements every once in a while? "

5. In post #57, you make another unsupported assertion: "I am not part of the group you like to fuck with..." You haven't even established that I "fuck with" anyone, let alone "fucking with" whatever group it is you belong to. And frankly it's pretty insulting that you ascribe traits to me based upon your feelings about what is a large and varied group. That's called bigotry.

6. The SoP of the Religion group is:

I am suggesting you think about being a polite person every now and again--but I guess that's impossible, because you have a "right" to fuck with someone's esoteric little religious conversation with snark and rudeness.

source" are the atheists.

Tell me, where do the religious people go to talk about stuff, without atheists derailing the thread so much that the OP deletes the thing? Where?

Don't tell them to go off to their own little faith-based corners. The Muslim isn't going to pop in to the Jewish section, routinely.

Where does the Atheist go to talk over his or her Atheist - based stuff, without having the religious people questioning them? Why, the Atheists and Agnostics forum, where believers are not allowed.

What I notice about this place, every time I stick my head in here, is that it is the ATHEISTS who act like uncivil assholes. Every damn time. I certainly don't agree with much of this religious conversation, but it doesn't bother me to let them make their points. I don't feel the need to jump in and say "You--you're stupid! There is no God! Snark snark snark!"

When I ask questions about these things, like "how does it hurt" for you to just eschew participation every once in a while (i.e., restrain yourself from crapping on the thread), your answer is "It's my RIGHT!!!" Step back, that's what it looks like.

"Everyone is welcome" is a fine element of an SOP--but some take that to mean "Everyone is welcome to act like fucking assholes and shit on any and every thread." That is why I think the religious people should have an Ecumenical forum, similar to "Atheists and Agnostics" where there won't be any crapping on threads that are started to discuss a religious particularity. If one of you thread crappers really wants to discuss the issue, you can copy it and discuss it here, where skewering one another and not coming to any conclusions save who comes off as the biggest asshole is the norm.

I would suggest that you learn the definintion of a personal attack. You plainly are unclear as to the concept. Making note of someone's behavior is not a personal attack. You don't like the description? Don't behave that way.

As for fucking with people, as if you're unclear on the concept, the acts of goading and baiting, dismissing and teasing, AS MANY HERE DO, fits the bill. That's not "bigotry"--that's observing and reporting. Again, don't like the characterization? Stop doing it. There's thread after thread here in this end of the DU world that illustrate the behavior--go looking, you'll find.

I will repeat the assertion I have made, many times in the past. The religious people need a safe-haven ecumenical group if they are ever to enjoy meaningful discussions outside of their own faith ghettos. So long as the only place a Christian can talk to Jews, Muslims, etc., in "mixed company" is here, they will be targets of dismissive and rude thread derailments, and there will be no discussion.

As this thread brilliantly illustrates.

You don't seem to "get" what I am am saying, apparently, because you're so wrapped up in your "rights" to participate in every fucking thread started by a religious person to discuss an interfaith matter. I say leave this sewer up and running--just give the religious an Ecumenical safe-haven so threads like this one don't have to be deleted owing to swarms.

Do you or do you not think that non-believers should stay away from the Religion group, particularly those threads started by believers?

(BTW, calling an entire group "fucking assholes" is an attack, even if used when referring to dirty atheists)

I made my point clear in this thread, if you'd only read instead of get huffy.

I didn't attack anyone. If you aren't a fucking asshole, you have nothing to feel guilty about, and no reason to feel put upon, now, do you?

I'm not associating YOU with that group, nowhere did I ascribe that phrase to you--if you're volunteering for membership, why, that's on YOU.

Further, since you have no idea of my beliefs or lack of same, do stop putting false characterizations like "dirty atheists" in my mouth. That's what people do when they have no argument, are trying to smear another, and are desperately trying to change the subject.

You clearly have a little evolving yet to do, if that's how you discuss an issue.

I assume you mean facts and logic and requests for people to actually support the claims they make. Yeah, those whacky atheists just have to focus on reality.

One of the central issues of your posts, the point YOU apparently thought important enough to lead with. And no "nitpicking" is involved. You clearly chose the word "shit" and its context specifically and deliberately, to smear. It was not a case of one badly chosen word in a context where you could claim to have meant something else.

And your points have been further addressed (and not answered by you in any adequate way) in other posts by me and others here.

But thanks for playing. And please try thought before you waste everyone's time again.

Go to the admins and push as hard as you can for a room just like what you describe (here's a hint, though..don't use any part of your post #69 as part of the sales pitch).

People of all stripes here are dying to see a room like that take off and to watch it grow and flourish. Almost as much as we're dying to see a country run by strict Libertarian principles try to make a go of it.

So go for it...you'd have almost universal support.

about the need for such a room on this thread, not me. I've stated quite clearly (as anyone honest would acknowledge) that I see no need for such a room on top of what's already available based on the reasons you've alleged. I'd just really love to see the people who DO think there's a need for it (and you're not the first, by any means) try to make a go of it, following their stated principles. And I'm guessing quite a few others would also support your effort wholeheartedly.

So have at it. Be the change you advocate. No excuse not to.

"ranting and raving." I am doing the former, you're doing the latter.

You are quite free to have a different view than I do--I am quite unperturbed that you don't share my perspective--the thing is, here, though, you're not having any success in bullying me, and that is causing you distress.

You say there's no need, I say there is. Tomato, to-mah-to, potato, po-tah-to...

You were the one doing the "please please please" pleading, not me. I was simply expressing an opinion, not a call to arms. I will leave it to the hosts to run with, if they are so inclined, as I don't come here frequently enough for it to matter to me.

This whiny complaint has been made over and over and over here, and it's just simply a blatant falsehood. There have always been rooms (on DU2, also) where religious people ("people of faith&quot could discuss anything they wished to, and when dissenting posts from the mean ol' atheists weren't allowed. The problem is, they're hardly ever used, and "people of faith" don't create the kind of discussions they SAY they want, even when they have the chance.

As far as it not being a Big Room, it's as big and as inclusive as YOU want to make it, so please stop blaming atheists because you can't get together or because you have nothing useful or productive to say to one another when you do.

If there was an Ecumenical room, that would ruin the "fun" of some, I suspect.

Stop making this conversation personal. It's not about "me" and my beliefs or lack of same (and you are way off base--not that it matters because "I" am not the topic, here) --it's about FAIRNESS.

Your first sentence is telling--This whiny complaint has been made over and over and over here...gee, and STILL you think it's fiction? Even though it has been raised OVER and OVER and OVER? If it wasn't a problem, why would the complaint keep rearing its head? For shits-n-giggles?

Atheists have a safe haven group. It's called Atheists and Agnostics, and the religious are not allowed. Atheists of all persuasions ( http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487 lists 17 of them) can meet there and discuss perspectives without having some religious person jump into the thread and say "Nyah, nyah--there IS a God, so there!." The religious have no similar place. They only have faith based ghettos which are not routinely visited by those outside their own faith group.

Religious people do not have an Ecumenical, "unity" group where those of different perspectives can meet without having the atheists come in and crap on the thread. They deserve one, and then maybe threads like this one would not be derailed via a swarm of mockers to the point where the thread starter just gives up and deletes the thing. But I can see where people who enjoy delivering a good beat-down for the pure amusement of it might not want that to happen.

Christian Liberals AND Progressive People of Faith is not an exclusionary place. "Progressive People of Faith" includes all religious or spiritual folk, except to people who are deliberately trying to paint themselves as victims. Have you (or has ANYONE) ever been barred from posting there or told to leave for raising religious topics that weren't specifically Christian? Didn't think so. The word "ghettos" is just another smear by you, and as I said, atheists are not to blame if religionists can't generate worthwhile threads when they're alone together. Look to yourself for the solution to your "problem". You want an "Ecumenical" room? Knock yourself out. I wouldn't mind at all if religionists kept their nonsense to themselves, but no one forces them to post it here (a public discussion forum, where nothing is entitled to be free of criticism).

And yes, I still think the complaint is pure baloney. Nonsense repeated doesn't become truth. Nonsense believed by lots of people doesn't become truth. If creationism weren't true, why would so many people keep trying to ram it into public school science classrooms?

Why do the Christians get to be "lead dog?" Might as well call it "Christians and all you other less important religious assholes." That's how it comes across.

Why not just call the thing "Progressive people of faith?"

If you can't see how the very title of the group is de-facto exclusionary, I can't help you figure it out. It reads like the Christians are the bosses, and the other "Progressive people of faith" are the supplicants. Horrible name choice. Unwelcoming. How would you like it if your safe haven group was called "Agnostics and those other bozos who are not religious?"

Get out your dictionary--ghetto has more than one meaning. My meaning was deliberately evocative of where the European Jews got jammed when they were being discriminated against. It's not a smear--it's descriptive of a place where everyone of the same religion resides.

You're whining about your hurt feelings, while you call religious people's beliefs "nonsense" without any sense of irony and then try to change the subject to your poutrage over some idiots wanting to teach creationism in the schools (which is NOT the subject under discussion, but I see that desperate times call for pathetically desperate measures). I guess the only one allowed to be in a snit here is YOU. Thin skinned, you are, I see!

aren't you? Get out your own dictionary, and confirm that the word "and" is INclusive. Duh. Christian Liberals AND
Progressive People of Faith. Meaning any of those are welcome to post. Are your feewings hurt because you didn't get to be first, or because Christians are far more numerous here?

"Christians and all you other less important religious assholes." ? And being discriminated against like the Jews in the ghettos?? Serious, serious inferiority complex there, not to mention other issues.

If you don't like the name of the room, complain to the admins, not me..and don't pretend that anything but your own hissy fit keeps you from posting anything you want there and being welcome to do so.

And nowhere did I claim "hurt feelings", so you can toss that falsehood in the dumpster with the rest of yours, along with you lame understanding of why I used the example of creationism to illustrate your rather transparent fallacies.

There's your substance..the last you're worth.

And tell me, what kind of "victim" am I, hmmmm?

Go on--put me in a box. Do try.

So "and" is inclusive, really? As in "Agnostics AND Any Less Important Others Who Claim To Not Be A Believer." Feel welcomed? Included? Validated?


I can't help you if you lack skill with language, the meaning of words, and European history. The comparison to ghettos is an entirely valid metaphor. I won't even go into the rather obvious irony that, if atheism is not a religion, why would atheists even want to post in a group entitled "RELIGION?" Perhaps the new group ought to be one that has a name that includes those atheists in the mix? Truth in advertising, and all that?

If your feelings aren't hurt, why are you behaving in such a "hissy" fashion and rambling on about "victims" and "inferiority complexes" when you don't even know my personal perspective on issues of this sort? Look at your words! You're frothing at the mouth and flinging it with abandon. I haven't said anything false, so there's nothing to toss into the dumpster. My understanding is not lame--it's simply that you don't like it so that is how you characterize it.

I believe in fair play, and I don't see it in this forum. I do think the religious people deserve an ecumenical safe-haven meeting place that isn't Christian-centric. That seems to piss you off (Waaah, complain to the admins, like it or lump it! You have "transparent fallacies!!!&quot --why, I don't know. I should think you'd support something like that if you were a reasonable person--but it might take a few targets off the old range, and ruin the fun...?

Because atheism is a stance on religion

I'm new around here so I guess I should ask...

Would I be unwlecome in the Vegetarian and animal rights group because I am not a vegetarian?
Would I be shunned from the Women's right group due to me posession of testicles?
Would I be questioned for posting in the gun forums despite not owning one?
Would the sports group attempt to splinter off into a group that could specifically exclude me if I started posting, because I do not play sports?

I could go on for some time.
I hope this answers your question...

The pictures you paint tell me a lot about where you're coming from.

The world seems to be a much more hostile and scary place through your eyes.

Thanks for treating me to your perspective on things around here. You truely seem to believe that everyone is just as hostile and angry as yourself.

The world, to me, is full of mostly good people.

Most people mean well and are reasonably kind. Many misunderstandings are a consequence of lack of knowledge.

I've traveled in places that some might deem very hostile and have been welcomed and aided by friendly and interesting fellow beings.

The assholes of the world, unfortunately, get most of the attention. They are the minority, though, in my experience. They can make trouble, sadly.

Perhaps you're looking inward if you're seeing a "hostile and scary" world? You certainly aren't expressing my perspective at all.

You are the most hateful and insulting person I have ever met on DU, so far. I'll be excusing myself now to avoid catching whatever social rabies you seem to have.

If you want to enjoy yourself here, you shouldn't be so sensitive and look for offense where absolutely none is offered. My opinion differs from yours--big deal. What, are you so thin-skinned that you need a Hallelujah chorus to feel secure in your person?

You should also, for someone who likes to fling invective about people you don't even know, look in your mirror--maybe you caught that "hateful, insulting...social rabies" from .... yourself?

yeah, you're actually a nice person once I get to know you. No thanks. I need only read this single thread to see the one and only thing you're about and that projection. Any criticism of ANY kind leveled at you or the vile garbage you're spewing into this forum is IMMEDIATELY directed back at whoever said it. This childish "I'm rubber, you're glue" approach to human interaction has removed you from any real discourse with me.

You are my first and only IGNORE.

As I said, you are the least intelligent, friendly, and worthy individual I have unhappily encountered on DU, your every post is offensive flamebait and it's beneath me.

thank you,

Yesterday I shamed myself. I succumbed to a bully and walked away from something I should be prepared to fight for. Yesterday I let childish tactics and passive aggressive attacks bully me into silence. I'm here because fighting for the right to speak up, and have a civil debate/discussion is something I believe theist and atheist can and should be doing. Standing up to this kind of bullshit is what I do; I see bigotry = I fight bigotry, I see ignorance = I fight ignorance. I was not happy yesterday, and as you said I shouldn’t settle for it.

Putting you, and others like you on ignore would be giving you what you want, a nice quiet echo-chamber free of challenges or dissent. I'm taking you off ignore and apologizing for failing my principles.

I'd also like to thank you, because only now do I realize how complacent I had become, how lax in believing that enlightenment and decency were becoming prevalent, these things have to be struggled for, and that's why I'm here. I guess it takes people like you to make people like me.

Really. You are the captain of your own ship. No one can make you feel bad without your permission.

And I'm hardly a bully--unless the definition of "bully" is anyone who doesn't agree with you.

It sure seems like that's how you define it, but that's on you.

Cheers!

Not sure who you're talking to here honestly, you're so far off topic.

your opinions that differ from mine regard the dangers and hostility of the groups around here, something (and I can only speak from experience) I've encountered relatively little of until you came along. Are you saying that your behavior is what I should expect more of on DU, because frankly I expect far better.

I have a lot of fun around here, and I intend to keep doing so while ignoring your suggestions on what it takes to do so.

Looking for offense? No offense offered?
"it is ATHEISTS who act like uncivil assholes. Every damn time."

I didn't have to LOOK far, and it WAS offered.

Maybe you should look in a mirror... maybe the one acting like an asshole... is you?

You have one of those nice days, now.

I'm the captain of my own ship, too--and I don't need to listen to that kind of talk--particularly from someone who takes a phrase out of the context in which it was seated to try to get a little "gotcha" going. Doesn't work, ya know.

I thought it was because you came in here cussing and crying about the behavior of a group and how they be excluded, which I guess you're right I don't agree with.

You have a much nicer day than me now.

No one put a gun to your head. You have options.

My days are full of sunshine and happiness. Try to be of good cheer for a change.