But when it comes to religion, a lot of people mistake disagreement for being attacked.

It's odd to me that DU provides "safe spaces" for multiple religious groups where disagreement ISN'T allowed. The people who are offended by disagreement can post all they want there if they care to. But they don't. They get upset that there's this ONE forum where people can disagree with them. Just very strange.

If we all agreed, there wouldn't be much to discuss

As a practicing Catholic, I think that it's important that we discuss (and challenge) our own beliefs - and I know that I have done so when reading some of the posts presented here.

Wishing you well and peace!

Tim

Here are people who rack up thousands of posts in this group, without having any of their posts hidden, without being blocked from the group, without being banned from DU, without being threatened with any action against them whatsoever. Then these same people pretend they're not allowed to post their opinions in this group. Not only is it a lie, it is a stupid lie, because it is so obviously untrue.

But not illegal.

The reason religionists have so much problem with that concept is they can’t understand why they shouldn’t be allowed to perpetuate their social privilege just as they always have.

Times were much simpler when heretics were burned at the stake.

Since you included no argument weak or otherwise for your allegation.

Based on your post.

I just find it rather ironic you’d call another argument weak without even presenting one of your own, and I’m not convinced you know what “straw” really means.

But your question is a fair one, so in the interest of dialogue, you said:

That’s probably where your problem started.

It’s about anyone who makes a half-fast claim of persecution anytime they feel they aren’t being allowed to perpetuate their privilege without challenge. It’s about the so-called “War on Christmas” and the “freedom” to use public funds to promote religious dogma. It’s about using public education to teach alternative “theories” about talking snakes. It’s about all the butthurt that goes on when anyone calls bullshit on these things and dozens of others hiding behind the banner of tolerance while simultaneously having none for anyone else. Whether or not any of this includes you, I have no idea and haven’t spent much time wondering.

When discussions happen, atheists talk about religion, and theists hear believers. When someone says "Catholicism has a LGBTQIA problem ingrained in it's dogma" the response is "Why do you hate catholics? there are many Catholics who are for gay marriage" and then something about hamsters and bicycles.

As has been brought up, it's a reframing technique, the discussion is made personal, and then it's about individual practitioners rather than inherent flaws in the religion. As stated above, it's silly, but not illegal.

Condemnation of the policies of Israel is labeled as anti-Semitism. If you point out the Catholic Church has bigoted policies and protects child rapists you hate Catholics. If you point to some Islamic countries’ treatment of LGBT people you are an anti-Muslim bigot.

It’s as if religion is so ingrained into who they are they can’t differentiate between condemnation of a belief or actions of that belief’s authorities from condemnation of a person who may subscribe to that belief.

but then get broadbrushed. within the last 24 hours the old canards about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and, this one hasn't reared it's head for a while, Ayn Rand have all been brought up. Of course the defense is that it's not saying they're atheists, just irreligious, not Christian or what have you.

Gaslighting is what it's known as.

Gil has told us that he receives numerous personal messages complaining about the "toxicity" in this group, asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts to "present balance" here. So, by his own admission, he is not here to discuss religion at all. He is here to "present balance" (whatever the fuck that means) and he is also performing for an audience.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218270285#post159

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218263189#post20

Are white atheists who earn above average wages privileged?

In my view, the overuse of the word privilege renders it an obstacle to dialogue.

I shouldn’t also have to remind you this is the religion group, so if you want to discuss white privilege or economic privilege there’s better forums for it. Meanwhile you are in a poor position to understand religious privilege because you lack the experience of not having it. So rather than being so dismissive of the subject you’d probably benefit from listening more and preaching less.

Just saying.

Do you have any privilege?

Pointing that obvious fact when someone else is talking about a specific type is frequently used as a dismissive tactic and simply provides more proof that we have a long way to go on the road to enlightenment.

Does this state of being privileged give you yourself no right to comment about things?

While some remain apathetic and/or have no empathy to anyone on the other side of a particular social divide. Which one you choose speaks volumes about your character.

You are.

I see this is what inspired you to make another OP about a subject you don't understand, as is your MO.

It's sad that after all these years the theists here haven't learned a thing about religious privilege.

Who has privilege?

You have just proved you lack even a rudimentary understanding of what the term means.

Welcome to the world of privilege.

both the same color making the same amount but one an atheist and the other a christian, the christian has more privilege.

Not a damned thing.

They are convinced their opinion is all that's needed but insist the facts bear them out. Yet those particular facts never get shared.

and, when it's a religious leader, their followers believe it, too.

Intellectual dishonesty is rather necessary to maintain belief in the unbelievable.

and closes his eyes, and clicks his heels together, and wishes real, real hard, won't it magically come into existence?

No, I guess not. Oh well.

Many such are posted here.

C'est pour rire...

Jean Giraudoux.

Mais c'est necessaire de la realizer pour le vaincre. En parlent, bien sur, de la condition.

Sounded kinda like a turkey, iirc

It must be somewhere or this post would have no reason to exist.

If only you could tell us where that is...

Now you know where to look.

in hell, that is your choice.

Me, I am gonna hedge my bets and I am signing up with "Phil"

it is the 11th Commandment.

Latest attempt to stifle any discussion. All must agree or be silenced.

It'll pass when the next fad comes along.

Just more of the examples they've asked for ton demonstrate why discussions don't happen here.

Possibly to the third power.

Adding irony to the list of words you have a special definition for.

Perhaps I should have said unintentional irony, but the irony is massive whether intended or not.

I'm not pushing the "11th" commandment" meme, using it to avoid discussion.

And what some of the replies revealed about the aptness of the observation.

I found it interesting how "religion", "religious beliefs", and "theists" were all lumped together. It's as if the devaluation of any one of those things is no different than the other too. Very telling that.