Do you think atheists are "ruining" this forum?

So it has been suggested that real theology can't be discussed here because teh evul fundamentalist atheists are "ruining it".
I think its interesting discussing things with believers who definitely have a POV different from mine and of course R/T wouldn't exist without believers. But athiests are affected just as much especially by Chimpy et al who try to shove their beliefs down everyone's throat.
If you don't want your beliefs challenged there are groups to post in. Personally I enjoy this place sometimes, when I get into actual discussions and not slammed with ad hominems like "fundamentalist" when I give my critiques.
Yeah there are assholes on both sides, but ad homs are wrong period. I hate seeing "religion is a mental illness" meme as much as the "fundamentalist atheist" meme.
For better or worse, I and my fellow atheists have a right to post in this forum and saying that we are "ruining" this forum is a form of censorship and very much related to how Bush and Co. treat atheists in real life. Or perhaps people missed Mitt Romney's diss of atheists lately?
Many atheists IRL have no outlet or are afraid to express their opinion in real life, because they can and DO get persecuted.
AFAIK, no Christians have been thrown to the lions in this country.
So yeah, there are some asshole atheists here, but maybe they have good reasons to feel like they do, and they have every right to express their opinions, (although when they start with ad homs I will go at them) as much as any believer.

that are uncalled for. This is probably the forum that calls for the deepest of thinking from both believers and non-believers. Also, comments in response to, for example, things Catholic do not require a mandatory comment about priests and sexual abuse because the poster needs to "let the world know". This should apply to both non-Catholics as well as atheists. Of course the reverse from Catholics is also true. Such discourse only degrades the discussion and adds no intellectual value. But then, those that makes these comments have no intention of adding anything intellectual to the discourse anyway so it's really disruption.

Difficult to discuss with the ad hominem attacks.

...and in so doing completely forget the core principles of the teachings of Christ. The people who truly try to follow the teachings of Christ are generally really decent people. Sadly, it's the fundamentalist nutjobs who completely ruin it for the decent ones, because they're the ones whose hypocrisy and truly evil behavior ends up in the spotlight.

It's no secret that there is a contingent here at DU which really needs to chill out, and that applies to more than just the whole Christianity issue. Another huge one, if you spend any time at the Environment/Energy forum, is the whole nuclear vs. renewables debate. The pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear people are really at each other's throats over there, and I myself have to admit here that I've also been known to get highly upset over there and voice at least some of that anger at times.

Welcome to the intertubes. :shrug:

is basically "I'm right, you're wrong", often put in nastier terms. So I am very careful when I post here, because it often devolves from a discussion to basically an inability to see another's point of view. One premise that is often lacking in discussions here is that God concepts are different, depending upon the individual, and that God concepts evolve. Example: a pantheistic concept of God, the idea that It is the underlying principle by which all things are created and dissolve, is one that many people share, and yet when it is brought up here, it is often either ignored or dismissed as those who wish to rail against a particular God concept go on with their rants.

But I'm hopeful that a bit of education helps with that, you know? Generalizations don't help the conversation much, do they?

I can only speak for myself. I am VERY resistant to proselytizing, sometimes even getting a bit angry. I don't think that I have ever been angry toward any DUer over this though. I know that I would respect this forum by not bringing my views here. I am only posting here now because I ran across this in 'Latest'. Had I not noticed it there I would never have been aware that athiests are being so rude to this forum. That is indeed sad and I hope things work out for you folks. Chase the rude types off politely but firmly would be my suggestion...(likely this has been tried). Sorry I have nothing better to offer.
c

I might not agree with them, but you have every right to contribute here. I get angry sometimes myself. But I've learned ALOT here. I never used to talk theology at all, but posting this forum has gotten me interested in discussing it.:hi:

First, there is a forum called Seekers On Unique Paths. That would be, IMO, the better place to discuss what I have come to call spiritualism. It is NOT a religion but in my case it does supplant my desire or lack of desire to have a religion. The reason I would not be posting here is because I would have little to offer. I do not see myself as having a religion, therefore I would have little to contribute!

For example, what would be the benefit of my posting in the Senator Clinton Forum when I am a Senator Obama supporter? It is unlikely I could have much to offer Senator Clinton's supporters so imo it would be all but a waste of their and my time, perhaps even highly disrespectful on my part! Perhaps an even better example would be for me to post the wonders of my being heterosexual in the GLBT forum! THAT kind of disrespect is just not in my playbook!!!

I hope you can now understand my reluctance to post here, I would have little to offer and I feel it may even be disrespectful of me. (Hence my dismay over the fundie athiests you spoke about stirring up trouble here!) If you like, I'll later post a few links to discussions I have had with fellow DUers regarding my 'spiritualism' over in that Seekers on Unique Paths forum.... but right now I am off to bed. Oh, and I guess I lied about keeping it short...I am rarely known for doing that anyway. Morning-(g'night) turtlensue.

This forum covers many different aspects of religion. We discuss religion and schools, religion and license plates, religion and divorce, religion and government and may other topics that include religion.

This is NOT a forum for religious participation. That is properly left to the SOUP group.

But it is hard to believe that you have no opinion and nothing to offer on the many other topics discussed here.

Stick around and look over the topics in this forum. You might find something that interests you.

Likely will catch hell for it but sure. Tried a post in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x170895

What about people who aren't Seekers, or aren't on a Unique Path?

Sorry if I am being dense, are you requesting info on the S.O.U.P. forum? btw: We are ALL on unique paths. How fun could life be if it were otherwise????

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You have become a bitter caricature of what which you claim to oppose. YOU are the one trying to drive people away. YOU are the one trying to censor. YOU are the one engaging in name-calling and disruption.

That no one is leaping to your defense should be a huge clue.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

take a look at that post and reflect. You complain about others that lash out and yet your post is comprised of "you are dumb." How can you not understand the hypocrisy? You are smarter than that.

It wasn't HR who greeted me with "name-calling" Trotsky...it was you.

My sin?

Suspecting that "Solomon talking to an ant" was better read as metaphor than literal event….thus I was just like the “Bible bangers”.

That you (and so many others) could not/would not explain, justify or defend even your own pov
(let alone hear anothers) "should be a huge clue".

I want you to see how many names however I have been called in this thread. I would be very careful whom you attack here.

"I would be very careful whom you attack here."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Why's that? Somebody gonna leap out and hit me with the Emoticons of Mass Destruction again !!??

(since you don't seem to get it) that you are hitching your wagon to HR and HR is the one tossing around names and being rude in this (and other) thread(s). If that isn't what was meant, it is still a point I am making.

I'm hitching my wagon to my observations of and experience on this board.

Those observations and experiences happened long long before I saw anything from HR.

And frankly my dear...I have seen >nothing< from HR that even begins to compare with the ongoing and entrenched bigoted hostility displayed towards all things of a religious nature.

I can cop some name calling, I can handle some rudeness, I (and no doubt HR and 'all') can dish some out as well....but "you don't seem to get it"....there is a realy realy unhealthy culture of contempt/hatred for religion on a Religion and Theology board.

and you don't see the nastiness expressed towards me and the other atheists here as bigotry of the sort you are complaining about? Please stop with the hypocrisy.

dumb, "dittohead", cliquish, narrow minded, bigoted,nasty,bitter and having MENTAL ISSUES is okay in your book?
Seriously dude, get some perspective.
There is probably only ONE poster who thinks I'm a fundamentalist..and thats cause I don't agree with his bullshit.

see, all THOSE things are TRUE, so they are OK. ANYTHING you save is defacto false, and hence bad.

Plus your denial of being a fundamentalist is just more proof of you being a fundamentalist. QED.

Of all the shifting criteria for fundamentalist atheism, that seems to be the most consistent: those who deny they are fundamentalist atheists are ipso facto fundies.

calling someone "dumb, "dittohead", cliquish, narrow minded, bigoted,nasty,bitter and having MENTAL ISSUES" is insulting, rude and offensive to most people.
(Though I am obliged to inform you that I come from a culture in which hurling obsenity at each other is considered a test and mark of deep friendship.......so mere "insult" means jack shit/nothing at all to me personaly ;-)

But the prevailing anti religion bigotry of which so much has been spoken and so steadfastly ignored is >dangerous<.

Right now it's 3.35 in Oz (looks like I'll miss work tomorrow..oh dear..wouldn't bother doing this if it wasn't important to me).
You (personaly) got insulted? I'll have a good look over the weekend.
For now....I'm sorry...I repeat...

There is a general (impersonal) "cliquish, narrow minded, bigoted,nasty" prevailing culture here
and I don't think it is going to be recognised or adressed through arguement or debate.

In time honoured (religious ;-)tradition I suspect the only way through may be 'story'.

I will return and bother the board with one in a couple of days.

"Seriously dude, get some perspective."

Well....I've got one....and it tells me that if someone shouts at me- "Your a $#%$@^! Ahole"!I'm dealing with 'insulting behaviour'....water off a ducks back.

But if one or more people are shouting- "America is evil, America is corrupt, no good ever came out of America or ever will"...then I am dealing with narrow minded bigots.

Likewise when such is said of religion.

And I certainly didn't call you "dumb" like your friend has been doing on this thread.

As I recall, I merely pointed out that you pick parts of your holy text to be literal, and parts to be figurative, just like "bible bangers."

You even agreed with me that you do, that everyone is free to do the same, yet you have singled me out and harbored a grudge for so long. I am not sure why I continue to be a target for your anger, but I truly believe it is misplaced.

NOT THEN!
NOT NOW!

See if you can work out the rest from >that point< onwards.

Because either it is assumed higher power atheist psychic insight gone faulty....

or it is just wilful "dumb" behaviour.

You appeared to be extolling the fruits of Islam in your original post that started your grudge. I humbly and sincerely and intensely apologize for believing that. Can you stop harboring your grudge now, accept my apology, and grow up and act like an adult?

Or will you continue on the mean & dirty path with personal slurs like your friend?

Your choice.

Do you have >any idea< how frequently such baseless assumptions are made on this board?

Any idea how atheists here will attack, malign and misrepresent on the basis of such assumptions.

"Honestly, I can't even tell what you believe or don't believe".

As if you or any of the others gave a rats arse >what< I believed!
You guys are on hair trigger- he "extolled the fruits of Islam", he must be a Moslem!

IT IS NOT AND NEVER WAS A PERSONAL "GRUDGE".

Hell....I don't know anyone here well enough to dislike them.

IT WAS FROM THE OUTSET AN OBJECTION TO THE CULTURE OF HOSTILE BIGOTRY THAT PREVAILS HERE.

Tried talking nice about it....complete waste of time that was.

"...will you continue on the mean & dirty path with personal slurs like your friend"?

Ahhh yea...My friend HR...the one I've hitched my wagon to...the one I'm in cahoots with...
the one with whom (to the best of my recall) I havn't even had a chance to talk to yet...and yet we have both independently come to the same conclusion.

"continue on the mean & dirty path with personal slurs"????

Oh go right ahead Trotsky...stack em up and show us the "mean & dirty personal slurs" that I have hounded you with in my "angry" "grudge"...or alternatively tell me loud and clear to "F@C% OFF" yet again by ignoring the question and refusing substantiation.

I can easily "accept your apology" Trotsky...there was never a personal/angry/grudge (nor any "mean & dirty personal slurs")...there was however and remains a deep concern regarding the culture and behaviour displayed on this board......................but that issue is going to be avoided at all cost.

Isn't it ;-)

And you defended specific passages. So perhaps you can understand where just a little bit of confusion might arise.

Anyone else reading this thread can feel free to go back and read the original and judge for themselves:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=153076

there was however and remains a deep concern regarding the culture and behaviour displayed on this board

Yes, and you and HamdenRice have done a great deal to intensify, aggravate, accuse, and all-around incite anger lately. Take a good long look in that mirror while you are attempting to berate and bully others. The specific slurs are right in this very thread for all to see.

So what are you doing to help things, ironbark? Where is your example of good behavior you are setting? When are you going to start acting like the person you want to see posting in this forum?

"Anyone else reading this thread can feel free to go back and read the original and judge for themselves"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Hope they do...from beginning to end.

4am

I'm done.

...and enough comon sense to respect other folk's forums. I can pretty much guarantee that I would not be posting very often in the militant, intolerant, hateful, fundie atheists forum! LOL

...can be offended by anything that happens online.

This forum has spelled out specific rules and administer them quite well.

The design allows for conversation, so there is always opportunity to correct any dispute or misunderstanding.

The biggest problem is what you pointed out: the ad hominem, because it prevents conversation by prolonging misunderstanding.

But, that is not the only logical fallacy I've seen on this forum! In fact, someone said they were thinking of starting something to help people understand them. I can't wait for that to happen!

Some may not like us, some may not understand why an atheist has an opinion on religion that s/he wants to talk about, some may just whip out nonsensical oxymorons to attack out of juvenile spite, but the fact remains, we keep things interesting.

And I'd like to point out that when a fundie-leaning believer wanders in, it's generally only the atheists who confront them.

Many of the people who feel this forum has been ruined are ourselves moderate atheists. You seem to feel that the fundamentalist atheists keep this forum alive. You don't. You've killed it for the people of faith, the agnostics, and the moderate atheists.

You know what would be great? Why not go away. Go to the atheist group and keep your vitriol, rage and hatred there, and let us moderate atheists, people of faith, and agnostics have a forum for discussion of "Religion and Theology."

I don't see anyone chiming in to support you - you speak only for yourself. You bring hatred and anger and spitefulness everywhere you go. Dude, get your own house in order before you bash others.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Are you sure you don't have that backwards?

Do you "own" the R/T Forum? No one can post without your permission now?

I would call that stalking.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you need to look up "objective description." "You are dumb" is NOT objective description but vitriolic ad hom.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Truth hurts. Use more smileys to cover up your embarrassment if necessary.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

not to antagonize. And now you call other posters dumb.

You sure have a funny way of avoiding antagonizing.

Perhaps you should look that word up to find out what it means before you use it again.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but everybody else is supposed to behave better than you.

That's really not that hard you know.

Name-calling, being spiteful, attacking, just rotten.

An insulting, overbearing, disruptive, antagonist who prevents reasonable discussion by stalking those with whom he disagrees.

When was he NOT?

Just yesterday HR told us: "My goal is not to antagonize anyone. My goal is to have a forum where relgion(sic) and theology can be discussed..."

So I just assumed that at some point in the distant past he actually worked TOWARD those goals instead of working against them.

I don't know what to believe anymore.

Clearly, his posts do not contribute to his stated goals.

Clearly, his posts create the atmosphere about which he whines so stridently.

Oh well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=172532&mesg_id=172553
He originally labelled Trotsky and I as "dittoheads". Its clear who is the disruptor here.
And I'm NOT putting you on ignore HR, no matter how hard you try to provoke me.

Am I a fudie atheist? I happen to agree with Trotsky on a lot of his points. I've also said MULTIPLE TIMES in this forum that I was raised to respect others beliefs. And I've had plenty of religious friends on and OFF the board.
I posted about not calling religious people mentally ill. Does that make ME hateful and spiteful?
I think Trotsky's post was reasonable..It's you, ONCE again that are starting in with the AD HOMINEMS and name calling.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Am I the leader of the evil atheists or is trotsky? We need to know so that our leadership stays stable.

I think we should expect to hear wildly different viewpoints when people have wildly different beliefs.

So, wanna take back your comment that trotsky is teh evul and has ruined it for moderate atheists?

Or will you say that I'm fundamentalist by association?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"You've killed it for the people of faith, the agnostics, and the moderate atheists."

That is one of your quotes. :)

Everyone but the fundamentalist atheist clique knows this. It has been pointed out over and over again.

There can be no reasoned and reasonable discussion between religious people, agnostics and tolerant atheists here because the self-appointed "dungeon masters" -- the fundie atheists -- bring all their personal, incoherent rage, rooted in their own personal histories and dysfunctions, to bear on anyone who doesn't want to simply condemn all religious people and leave it at that.

This is a stupid question that has been answered over and over and over again, but until it has an effect on the behavior of certain posters, discussing it seems futile at this point.

You remind me a lot of Joeseph McCarthy who saw the communist threat everywhere especially with those who disagreed with him. Just substitute the phrase "fundie athiest" for Red or Commie and it describes your attitude to a tee!

Why is it that YOUR post is the one that got deleted in the other thread and not one of the evil atheists? Is there a DU-wide conspiracy, Joe?

Fundie atheist is an insult, and I know that I've explained that to you more than once, let alone many others here. Not cool.

Also, as a Christian, I've seen good debate here, even of various theological issues. Maybe if you didn't come out swinging you could see it.

Mostly takes an extremely promising technology and turns it into a time-waster.

I hate to see threads that degenerate into name-calling; but, I still find most of the thread in this forum interesting. DU is better that most message boards because it bans the worst of the name-calling, although some still manages to sneak in.

There is no mechanism by which a group can prevent anyone from posting here. That accusation has been made and it is obviously false.

There is no mechanism by which one group can censor the speech of another poster. That accusation has been made and it is obviously false.

No poster here is required to respond or even acknowledge another poster.

I suspect that the real complaint is that religionists have lost the power to dominate this forum and that just pisses them off no end.

Yes, atheism is persecuted, to a degree, in this country. Most that I know, wont come right out and admit it, and for years I considered myself agnostic because I was afraid of the atheism moniker. I am comfortable saying it now because I have become old enough that I dont give a flying fuck what others think of me. They can take it or leave it...doesnt matter to me.

Those are your own words.

This is and attempt at excusing bad behavior. Boo fucking hoo. People in real life treat you badly. That's no reason to be an asshole on this forum.

You admit it: there are asshole atheists here, taking out their rage from RL on everyone else here -- moderate atheists, agnostics and people of faith.

I think such people should go away. There's already a forum for them to bitterly commiserate with each other over their miserable life experiences -- the Atheist Group.

This forum should be for "Religion and Theology."

Awesome dude! Three cheers for censorship.!!!

then you should not participate in this forum. Fortunately there are several forums for severely dysfunctional and bitter people, and your posts are better directed to those areas.

And it's not shut up "atheists." Most atheists, who are moderate and tolerant, can't stand you guys as well.

is following DU rules? Yeah right....
And you seem to think that I shouldn't post in AA either, remember?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=263&topic_id=32828&mesg_id=32828

telling people the are dumb is way out of line and should be stopped.

isn't it?

I'm an atheist.

But the kind of intolerance that some atheists post here to disrupt genuine discussion of "Religion and Theology" is not acceptable.

because somebody is busy using ad homs ALL OVER THE PLACE.
You aren't interested in discussion, frankly. Thats pretty apparant.

Or is that "asshole atheist?" I can't keep it straight.

with relentless ad hominem attacks and disruptive posts.

It seems impossible to have a reasonable discussion without ignoring the ONE disruptor here.

No idea what it means or how it's even possible, but love the term.

:rofl:

I tried to picture the term making sense, but to no avail. "fundie atheists" must believe, fundamentally, that they are atheists. That's all I could come up with. :shrug:

“Yeah there are assholes on both sides,....”

AND THERE IT IS AGAIN !!! >>> "both sides" <<<

It is the set mode and standard setting!
It does not permit a middle!
There is no conception of a middle!
The prevailing culture and cosmology is- ‘You are either for us or against us”…to such a degree that agnostics are “Bible bangers” if they don’t toe the party line.

There is not just ‘disbelief in’ or ‘rejection of’ the God pov around here…there is endless contempt for and hostility towards ‘religion’ even from an historical perspective (contribution to art/music/science).


“ but ad homs are wrong period. I hate seeing "religion is a mental illness" meme as much as the "fundamentalist atheist" meme.”

Then drop the “meme” and start examining the behaviour!

There are four dozen posts from atheists rejecting the grammatical or definitional validity of ‘fundamentalist’ and you’d be dammed lucky to find >two< that are honestly prepared to examine the behaviour that prompts the meme.
If Christ appeared floating above Time Square tomorrow I’m dammed sure there would be a dozen of you going “Yea!?.....>Define< eternal life”!
…..and the rest would be going “Bingo”!...”Gotcha”!


“For better or worse, I and my fellow atheists have a right to post in this forum and saying that we are "ruining" this forum is a form of censorship and very much related to how Bush and Co……”

OOOOOOOh…..Bullshit.
I can’t see anybody questioning or challenging or “censoring” anybodies “right to post in this forum”.
But as a liberal progressive left leaning agnostic from Oz I’ll tell ya straight up sunshine….the prevailing testosterone driven, undergraduate, substance free sarcasm dripping and pointless hostility to >anything< religious makes this a disturbing place to visit.

"ruining it".?

YES!

There is way more bigotry, hostility and disinterest in the others pov from (many) in the atheist camp than any such like behaviour from believers.

There are several posts where me and others are told we have no business posting here, no business talking about theology and should confine our bitter miserable selves to the AA group.
With the exception of ONE disruptor, do you see any atheists caller believers names, like stupid?
Nope.
I think the behavior shown in this post has MORE THAN PROVED my case.
So, does this make me a "fundamentalist" atheist too? Because I refuse to sit quietly and take my medicine like a good atheist?
BTW..You might want to read this thread before jumping to conclusions about me and other mean ol' atheists:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x147102

but rather fob it all off with my need to "read this thread more carefully"?

I've read it.

Why bother making any comment.

Whatever said will simply be ignored or misrepresented....yet again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=172532&mesg_id=172543
Oh also this person seems to think that trolling the MHSG has the right to call me names (yes I've posted there) because I have "anger issues".
Yes, this really proves your point.
Did you even read my thread about not broad brushing believers?

You were told you and certain of your cohorts have no business DISRUPTING LEGITIMATE RELIGIOUS AND THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION by being INTOLERANT OF ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AND TOPICS.

If you can behave like a normal person, then of course you should stay here.

As for insults -- that's another whopper. Count the number of insults and swear words that have been hurled at me. Count the number I have used.

I DARE YOU. You claim to be a scientist -- do the statistical study. Post your results here.

This is about DISRUPTION of a forum. That is not acceptable.

like you did Evoman? Just askin'?

If she could see how the "Too clever by half" folk carry on around here
she'd laugh harder than we all did the day she got her tit caught in the wringer!

but am disappointed at the name calling included in this ("Too clever by half").

But, honestly, don't you think it is kind of odd that HR jumps on someone for one mistake, but says nothing to the person supporting him? I think it shows the true character/intent.

You should try owning one. A joke in one context is not effective in another context.

Nor have I stalked you to other forums to make nasty insinuations..including I believe, reading my posts in MHSG and using that as a reason WHY I should not be listened to.
I'm not sure if you are being dishonest or just lack short term memory. I have not broken any rules here..but you have. Quite a few.

for which I commend you. I have already apologized for what I said about the MHSG and will gladly do so again. And the point wasn't that you shouldn't be listened to, but that from my perspective, it didn't seem productive to engage you in certain topics.

However, you have I think dishonestly characterized my posts as "attacks" on others even while in those immediate subthreads those certain others were throwing around profanity and insults.

So your saying you don't insult is a bit of a slippery characterization.

There have been people here questioning why atheists come to the R/T forum if they are not believers. So I see what turtleandsue is talking about when some people say they have no right to an opinion here. It is a valid complaint.

There is a middle ground here. Chill out and stick around for a while and you will eventually see it. Turtleandsue is aware of the middle ground even when you choose to make assumptions based on her choice of word. If she didn't believe in a middle ground then I think she would have a hard time having relationships with her friends who happen to be believers.

You are basing your claim about "more bigotry, hostility and disinterest in the others pov..." coming from atheist camp based on your own perception. Unless you have analyzed all the posts here in R/T and can share the results with all of us.

And if you want to set the tone in R/T then do it. But you will not get anywhere when you generalize people by attributing bad behavior to them.

My two cents, take it for what it's worth.

It is not about questioning why atheists come here. For chrissake, I'm an atheist.

It is why certain people come here to insult anyone -- religious, agnostic or moderate atheist -- who does not accept their narrow view that the only proper way to engage with the entire topic of religion is ridicule, hatred and intolerance.

You should know better. You've been reading these threads, and for you to mischaracterize what is being argued is unfathomably amoral.

It is not about questioning why atheists come here but about atheists expressing their opinion which might be uncomfortable and offensive to some believers.

Nice try, though!

The majority of the people who are not "regulars" disagree with you.

I'll go with the majority consensus reality on this one.

Where did you get the numbers that the majority of people who are not "regulars" disagree with Mr.Wiggles?

There has been some pretty colorful invective flying around here lately, but that one walks away with a trophy. And not just for showing up.

Dam
Didn’t know I was supposed to base them on some one elses !?!?

“There is a middle ground here”

Your not basing that on your own perception are you? ;-)

“Chill out and stick around for a while and you will eventually see it”.

I was cool when I arrived…the ‘heat’ was applied immediately.
“stick around” and “eventually see”?....I’m an agnostic…I’m not sure I’ve got time or opportunity for the 175th incarnation ;-)

“There have been people here questioning why atheists come to the R/T…”

Sad….haven’t seen/experienced any of that…
” It is a valid complaint”?.....well….not if it’s just based on their “own perception”
…if it is then it has to be ignored and dismissed……no?
And her (allegedly) “valid complaint”…is it based on an analysis of “all the posts here in R/T” ?
Because- “Unless you have analyzed all the posts here in R/T and can share the results with all of us” you are just “basing your claim on your own perception”.

It’s you line of reasoning.
Is it working for you on return?
Or was it perceived as it was on delivery as trite a dismissal of the others “valid complaint”?

"Your not basing that on your own perception are you? "

I am basing on my own experience in this forum where I am able to get along with people from ALL SIDES of the argument.

"I was cool when I arrived…the ‘heat’ was applied immediately."

This might be helpful. There is nothing else I can say. It is your choice whether you want to have a positive participation in R/T or just join the flame wars. Labeling and broad brushing only adds fuel to the fire. But if that is what you want...

"Sad….haven’t seen/experienced any of that…"

Just because you haven't seen or experienced any of that it doesn't mean it never happened. This place is a very complex place where you have people with all sorts of different opinions. Atheists are welcome to express their opinion here and sometimes this opinion might be offensive to some because of how they believe. Thus, believers complaining out of frustration.

How does one reconcile?

You introduce a new cat and you will hear hissing, you will see claws coming out, and you see cat hair flying all over the place. But with time all the cats get used to each other's scent so they either get along or at least learn to coexist in peace.

Obviously, there are a few cats who can only be the only cat in the house so they can never get along with others. They usually stalk the other cats.

We have good people on all sides of the R/T argument. It takes time to realize that since the subject raise a lot of tension and people tend to get defensive. But once you get to know people in R/T (theist or non-theist) you learn to appreciate them.

The people who are ruining this forum are not atheists, agnostics, theists, or whatever label people choose to identify their theological position. The people who are ruining this forum are the people who go around on a mission to attack a person or a group of people whenever there is a window of opportunity.

is merely your opinion. Once again, you confuse "ideas" with "attacks." Some people feel "threatened" or "attacked" by certain ideas -- such as the existence of "fundamentalist atheism."

The Humanism Chaplain of Harvard University, who is an atheist, believes there are "fundamentalist atheists" which he does not count himself one of. That's very, very good authority for me that such a phenomenon exists.

Between the Humanism Chaplain of Harvard and a bunch of anonymous, ill-tempered internet posters, I'll go with the Harvard professor.

That so many people think that this concept is beyond polite discussion suggests that the issue here is an attempt to censor an idea unpopular with a tiny minority of DUers, rather than an attempt to deal with an offensive "attack."

I'm not the only one who disagrees with you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=172532&mesg_id=172590

You found ONE person who agrees with you. Now you can start you OWN clique. I iz teh right because I founds anothers bigot! But all the other people who don't agree with you, they are bitter or mentally ill right? BTW, nice job of violating the sanctity of the MHSG, reading that so you can have blackmail material on posters is the slimest thing I have EVER seen here.

Did you read all the responses in all the threads of the last several days?

Many, many DUers feel that there is an authoritarian, intolerant group of atheists here -- not just me -- and in RL there are many, many people, including reviewers of recent books by Dawkins and Hitches, who also believe that there is such a thing as "fundamentalist atheist."

You have to believe in a counter-factual consensus reality not to accept the existence of this phenomenon -- which itself is an indicator of fundamentalist thinking.

As for my observations of the MHSG, my sincere apologies if I violated a written or unwritten rule about it. My only point was (and I'll shut up about it hereafter) is that by reading that forum, I have realized that there are certain discussion flames not worth participating in, because they may be rooted in rage that originates elsewhere and is being misdirected at me or the topic under discussion. I would make exactly the same observation about the posts in the R/T Forum in which posters talked about their religious background and how they felt abused by their religious upbringing and felt rage about religion that went beyond the simple idea, "I no longer believe in God."

Just because many people believe it does not make it right.

It is not that the majority think it's right; it's that both academic and intellectual authorities and the vast majority of people think it's right.

If all our intellectual discussions could be censored by minorities with bizarre illogical ideas, we wouldn't be allowed to think anything.

Posit any idea, and there is some group that opposes it. Intellectual decision making is based on a combination of deducation, induction, authorities and popular consensus.

By those measures, there are indeed fundamentalist atheists.

It's not just that a lot of people believe there are fundamentalist atheists. It's that a LOT of people believe it.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Authorities and consensus mean nothing. Carl Sagan, the single human being that I respect more than any other in the history of planet earth, was a vehement supporter of the American manned space program, and his forty plus years of work with NASA made him as much an authority as anybody. However, my respect for him has no sway over his argument, nor does his expertise. The argument must stand for itself. And his arguments simply don't stand up in the 21st century. Likewise, two-thirds of Americans supposedly believe in angels, but that doesn't make them any more real.

And you look for opportunities to attack. It's hard for you to get a point across when all you do is name calling. This thread is a window for you to attack people with labels that you use as a pejorative. It doesn't matter how others use the term because your intentions are to create flame wars. That's your game and your posts give that away.

If you and your new buddy want to take the high road then what are you waiting for? You have the power to set the tone in R/T and lead by example so we can all follow your lead for good behavior. i would love to see that!

and using the term "fundamentalist atheist" is not an attack.

Now count the invective, insults and curse words coming from the "other side." It's pretty obvious who "attacks" whom in this forum -- anyone who is not part of the authoritarian consensus of a certain small minority of DUers is subject to attack by that tiny little clique.

But really, who cares?

But that is not your case and it is obvious. Your posts give you away. I am sure there are more effective ways for you to change the tone here in R/T if that is really what you wish to see.

'a person can use "fundamentalist atheist" without the intention to attack'

but

'that is not your case and it is obvious'

So you have reached through your computer monitor, extended your arm down the series of tubes called the internet, reached out through my screen, placed your hand to my forehead, done the Vulcan mind meld, and discerned my intention?

:rofl:

Isn't this yet another case of mind reading on the R/T Forum?

the amount of flame wars you are involved in. No mind reading necessary.

And if you were worried about improving the quality of R/T your attitude would be different.

which opinion is, of course, valid. Unfortunately, there are people here who believe a whole range of opinions -- opinions of faith, opinions of moderate atheism, opinions about the existence of intolerance among atheists -- is NOT a valid opinion and must be howled down.

In my opinion, you are confusing the censors and the censored. When an unpopular opinion is broached to censors, all hell may break lose. But it is not the person who broached the unpopular opinion who "causes" the "flame war."

In this debate, no one can "make" another person angry. You can only make yourself angry based on your own intolerance of others' opinions.

I for one, refuse to cease voicing my opinions, I suppose in the same way that certain militant fundamentalist atheists feel no reason to cease stating their opinions that all relgious people are delusional -- regardless of how those religious people might feel. How many times have the militant fundie atheists stated that they have no obligation to censor themselves because religious people might find their view offensive. Why isn't the same true for opinions they find offensive?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

is inextricably associated with religious belief. And it's often used as a pejorative on this board in relation to those beliefs, including by non-conservative Christians. Using the word repeatedly, even after numerous people explain to you why it offends them, reads to me as an attempt to really "get their goat."
Just putting in my 2 cents.

I don't think I've seen the term "fundamentalist atheist" used except in a pejorative sense or in requests that the term no longer be used. As far as I can tell, there is no academic use of the term. If it came into use in serious discussions, the definition of fundamentalist would de facto be expanded to accommodate this new meaning. So long as it is only used to cast aspersions on people, I don't think that will happen.

Just because he is a Harvard professor doesn't make him right.

Actually, it's a great analogy for most message boards, at least ones with more lenient rules/moderators.

They manipulate and bully anyone they don't agree with and just can't stand to see even one small internet forum that they don't control.

I've never had even the smallest amount of religious faith so it is difficult for me to understand why some "people of faith" are so threatened by other ideas.

Try this one.

1. Poster X knows that the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" is offensive to many other posters. He has been told that many times.

2. Poster X intentionally uses the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" frequently.

3. Conclusion: Poster X intentionally offends people frequently.

Then try this one.

1. Poster X knows that offending people will result in disruption of a thread. He has been told that many times.

2. Poster X intentionally offend people frequently.

3. Conclusion: Poster X knowingly disrupts threads.

The nice thing about syllogisms is that to argue against the conclusion, you must disprove a premise or undermine the logic. So give it your best shot. And lets see if you can refute this without ad hominem attacks.

Edit to change insult to offend.

Is there no one here who will come to Poster X's defense?

Or is intentionally offending people and disrupting threads OK for Poster X but not for others?

Or maybe I just hit the nail on the head and there is no counter argument.

1. Poster X makes a rational argument about the voting behavior of "Latino" census districts based on statistical census data.

2. Out of several thousand forum members two posters, we'll call "Space Junk" and "Stalin", who self-identify as Venezuelan-Americans, object to the label "Latino" because they despise being associated with the Latin language which was the language of the Roman Empire -- a bizarre, counter-factual argument that the thousands of other forum members don't agree with or adopt, because it is so illogical, and don't agree with or adopt because most of the rest of society is perfectly comfortable with the term, "Latino," and because an endowed professor of Harvard, whose article Poster X refers to, who is Latino, refers to the existence of a Latino voting block.

3. Poster X continues to use the term "Latino" as rational, descriptive language.

4. Space Junk and Stalin engage in hysterical fits of vituperation, profanity and on-line convulsions trying to censor Poster X's use of the descriptive, analytic term, "Latino."

5. Conclusion: Space Junk and Stalin have irrational sensitivities to normal, analytic, descriptive language that the rest of the community, in order to have a rational discussion, may use, and neither Poster X nor the community are required to privilege Space Junk's and Stalin's bizarre, counter-factual sensitivities.

You failed.

All you did was change the subject because you were unable to refute my syllogisms.

Changing the subject is evidence of the weakness of your argument.

Did you even read my alternative syllogism, which is a far more accurate explanation of what is going on? Why don't you try to respond to it?

At any rate, here's where, as usual, you went off the rails:

1. Poster X knows that the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" is offensive to many other posters. He has been told that many times.

It is not offensive to "many other posters." It seems to be offensive to three or four out of a community of 60,000. Far more members of the community seemed to have chimed in to say that the descriptive label is accurate. Therefore your sensitivies have to be over-ridden as illogical, not part of consensus reality and censorious of the open, democratic debate.

Some ideas that are offensive to others are allowed in a democratic political board because of free speech concerns. Some are not because they are offensive. For example, saying "Hillary Clinton seems dishonest to me" is offensive to many Hillary supporters, but is allowed. Saying "Latinos are lazy" is not allowed. Saying that there are atheists who are fundamentalists falls into the former category, and the majority of DUers would agree with that statement based on the behavior of certain atheists on this board.

It seems particularly hypocritical that the same crowd that feels they have no need to tailor their own language towards people of faith -- no need for example to restrain themselves from calling all religious people delusional, who need to be locked away in mental institutions, for example -- suddenly are so sensitive to language that the mere mention of the idea of intolerant, militant, fundamentalist atheists, a concept well accepted in the reality based community outside this narrow sub-forum, sends them wilting into puddles of self-pity.

2. Poster X intentionally uses the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" frequently.

I use it frequently because of its analytic value. Moreover, as a result of the argument in (1), it has been demonstrated that your sensitivity to the term is bizarre, hypocritical and not generally accepted in society.

3. Conclusion: Poster X intentionally offends people frequently.

Wrong. I use it as a descriptive, analytic term.

QED


1. Poster X knows that offending people will result in disruption of a thread. He has been told that many times.

If certain censors go into mouth frothing frenzies because of the use of a term that the larger community accepts, that is their private problem. The community accepts the term as a valid description, and therefore the cause of the disruption is the desire of the censors to use faux outrage to censor an idea that is challenging to them, rather than the actual use of the term.

Oh, why bother. These are simply too foolish to continue wasting time disproving.

You say premise 1 is wrong because of the adjective "many" but you do not dispute the that the phrase offends. The use of the word "many" is not necessary for the premise to be correct. If that is the best you've got, you fail. (Blaming others does not invalidate the premise.)

You do not challenge the validity of premise 2, you only rationalize your offending behavior. In fact you seem to concur with premise 2.

So if I omit one word--"many" all your criticism becomes moot.

The issue then, is how many people are you allowed to offend before you see that your behavior is offensive. Many or few? Is it rational to say that you are not offensive because you only offend a few. Thats a contradiction in terms.

And if you found a fallacy in my logic, name it.

And I just love the way you gave up after realizing that you have been bettered.

My syllogisms stand un-refuted.

Thanks for playing.

You have not addressed the central point I made about democratic debate. People get offended all the time by various ideas they disagree with. That's different from insulting people.

Saying, "I think Hillary is dishonest" offends many Hillary supporters. Saying "You are an idiot for supporting Hillary" is an intentional insult.

Saying, "There are atheists who are fundamentalists" may offend some (about 4 or 5) atheists, but the statement is in the former category, an idea you may disagree with and that may make you uncomfortable, but is not an insult. It's a simple truth that you cannot accomodate into your rather limited intellectual structure and world view.

Your syllogims are simply preposterous -- the work of a child's mind. They have already been refuted, even if you cannot grasp that.

The following comments of yours, however, are in the latter category -- the idiotic, childish insults of someone who has lost an argument and has no more logical amunition with which to carry on the debate:

You probably couldn't get laid with $100 bill in a crack house.

more enemies than you have hairs on you ass

He can't get a lap dance at a strip joint

either a bullshitter or an incompetent rube

Bloody Dick Creek as a dirty joke



And on and on.

I realize you have the mind of a child and cannot help yourself, but as a reality check, you might want to compare the use of insults before going on your self-pity meltdown.

bad behavior and nit picked my adjectives, but you haven't disproved any premise or named any logical fallacy in my syllogisms. And then you pretended to give up.

And now you have turned back to the ad hominems. (way to go)

So far every response has been evidence of the weakness of your argument.

Can't you stick to the subject. I challenged you to disprove my syllogisms and you only want to talk about your petty axe grinding.

Name the fallacy.

Disprove the premise.

I'm waiting.

Your arguments are demolished, you are revealed to be stuck with foolish rhetoric and you think you've won by announcing "I win."

There's no reasoning with you is there?

Presenting challenging ideas in a democratic context are not attacks -- unlike the crap you post.

There's nothing left of the rubble of your syllogisms to argue against. They're done. Finished. Finito.

Name the premise that is false--you can't do it.

That's the way you disprove a syllogism and you can't do it.

My syllogism stands un-refuted. And you can't do it!

The fallacies are (1) that "many" people (rather than four or five hypocritical eccentrics) are offended by the use of the term "fundamentalist atheist," (2) that terms that may be challenging to some DUers because of their belief systems are "attacks," (3) that irrational sensitivities to analytic terms -- terms otherwise embraced by the reality based community -- are inappopriate because one or two hypocrites object to them, (4) that democratic political debate is supposed to be structured in a way that no one feels challenged by terms used by other members of the community, (5) that the hypocrisy of certain people who routinely insult religious people and moderate atheists and who then demand that no challenging ideas can be presented to them, be honored ...

What is wrong with your comprehension?

There is something deeply wrong with you if you can't see that your syllogisms were absurd, and have now been utterly demolished.

But you can't name mine.

Is it argument to authority? ad hominem? Post hoc? You can't name the fallacy because there is none.

First you quibble over the exact number it takes to cross the threshold from "few" to "many". That argument hinges on the idea that you know exactly how many people you are offending, and that the number is not high enough to be "many".

You can't possibly know how many people you offend and you can't put an arbitrary value on an adjective like "many".

But even if you remove "many' from the premise, it is still a true premise. Your quibbling is moot. The difference between "few" and "many" does not change the truth of the premise.

Second you deny responsibility for your actions and blame everyone else. You are responsible for the words you use. No one else.

If your words are not your fault, then the people you whine about are not responsible for their words either. You can't have it both ways.

So it still boils down to "name the premise" that is false.

"Name the logical fallacy" you claim that I have committed.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I've handed you your ass on a platter and it was fun.

I look forward to the next time you "don't intend to antagonize" or the next time you try to create a forum for discussion of religion.

But I'll have to get a clean platter.

"Come on then, I'll chew your ankles off!"



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"It's only a flesh wound to my argument, and I've handed you your arse in a platter!!!"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You can't be reasoned with because apparently, you can't or won't read.

and it was fun.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



Riiiiggghhht. Twice in two days ... Keep telling yourself that ...

This whole black knight thing..He's trying to be like you! Where you use comic mockery to get your point accross. Sadly imitation is never as good as the original....You should be flattered yet insulted at the poor quality of said imitation...:rofl:

I've never read enough of this guys ramblings to notice he even has a style. In fact, it wasn't till today that I began to distinguish him from trotsky, an equally logic challenged person of cognitive deficiencies.

So, no, no imitation was intended.

But me, Twice in two days, and it was fun!

Its why I'm no more than slightly irritated. You are making me laugh. BIG TIME.:D

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You may think it's just a "flesh wound" to your argument, but I'm done, sir black knight!

And yet you claim to have disproved my conclusion.

Go ahead, name the premise, name the fallacy.

Would it make a difference to you? Can't you read, Sir Black Knight? What on earth are you babbling about? Go read upthread!

You are now writing the equivalent of "Come on then! I'll chew your ankles off"!



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

and it was fun.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

This....





is not an argument.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:




Especially when the space junk post in question has been thoroughly and indisputably demolished, but he continues to declare victory, like our Black Knight!

And how the two relate?

If you start out a perfectly logical syllogism with the "fact" that George Bush is a Democrat with strong human rights credentials, your deduction will have little real world application.

Same with space junk's.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=172532&mesg_id=172752
:rofl:

Guess what it is.

;)

That's right, it's subjectivity! More value judgments and emotive description, more reason-guessing and daydream-type caricatures, but less in the way of "here is a logical progression"

So, if I take out that kind of bullshit, I find I'm left with:

1) Poster X makes a claim about the voting behaviour of "Latino" census districts.

(Removed: 'daydream argument' or the claim that one of the people is automatically rational and correct as an a priori assumption)

2) Two posters, we'll call "Space Junk" and "Stalin", say that the label "Latino" is offensive (Hey, your example, not mine.)

(Removed: 'several thousand' because it is another daydream caricature, and most of the rest for nearly the same reason. You are setting up one side to win the argument, rather than showing a logical process by which we can conclude something)

3) Poster X continues to use the term "Latino".

4) Space Junk and Stalin somehow don't stop being offended.

5) Conclusion: conclude from this whatever you like.

However, HamdenRice, it can hardly escape my notice that your intent there had little to do with illustrating a logical process and more to do with insulting people when you could. I notice this from the ratio of how much was said by you to how much was left once I removed the insults.

(It was 3.47 insults per argument by word count, actually) :)

:applause: :yourock:

Another mindreader.

No my intent was to show that the factual basis of the syllogism was wrong.

I notice that you did not address my syllogism, even as edited by you, so I'm not sure what logical conclusion I'm supposed to take from this.

You should have pointed out an error, rather than posting your own false syllogism. 'cos it doesn't really help your argument much.

As far as the other syllogism goes, the only error I could see is that the conclusion should be "therefore you care about something else more than offending people" :shrug:

And as for your one, it was nonsensical with and without the insults, so I concluded nothing. It was simply a series of statements, plus a lot of insults.

And as for the "your intent" thing, you claim I'm trying to be a mindreader when I say you are bieng offensive, and deliberately.

"Conclusion: Space Junk and Stalin have irrational sensitivities to normal, analytic, descriptive language that the rest of the community, in order to have a rational discussion, may use, and neither Poster X nor the community are required to privilege Space Junk's and Stalin's bizarre, counter-factual sensitivities."

If I cannot come to the conclusion that you are bieng deliberately offensive, I cannot conclude anything, ever.

That is the second valid criticism of my argument that I have seen.

(It was pointed out that I failed to fit any of the 256 forms for a classical syllogism, so now I call it an argument, not a syllogism.)

That's not a minor point. Syllogisms guarantee that the logic of the argument is correct because they follow one of a specific set of forms. Your arguments do not follow any of these forms. For instance, let's use argument 1, both premises and the conclusion have the same subject. That construct makes no sense in a syllogistic form.

You could try to re-word the arguments so that they are in syllogistic form, but there will still be problems. I'm not sure that your first argument can be properly put into a single syllogism.

and I missed them ALL! :)

Thanks for your critique.

No one group, regardless of faith (or lack of faith as the case may be) ruins the forum (this one or even GDP). That mantle of responsibility lies with individuals (who appear to run the gamut of ultra-orthodox Christian to the non-believer) who simply do not care (or do not know) that many of things said are belittling, minimizing and in rather bad form.

And that applies to all the forums in DU-- each one has its share of individual clowns who mock the beliefs (both religious and secular) of others.

My ex-brother in law and I used to discuss religion quite often-- and we simply did not use such terms as "militant atheist" or "sky fairy" as we each respected, tolerated and yes-- learned from the opinions and views of the other.

So no-- I don't think that atheists are ruining any of the discussions-- but I do think a handful of rather vocal posters can and do just that.

I think you just made the best case for my OP on this thread. Thanks.:)

I think that yes, he did try to ruin this forum. Thankfully that poster's most spiteful and angry and intolerant posts were deleted above. Perhaps he'll learn a lesson in tolerance and understanding.

That's sad. Instead it's just a call for more censorship and exclusion.

and when I posted links to all the groups that meet his criteria, I got insulted again.

there are forums all over the net for that. This is DU. If someone doesn't have thick enough skin to take it, then they should find another sandbox to play in.

and it has been this way for the past 3 years that I have been around. Such is life, and I don't worry about it at all. I also rarely participate for the same reasons Clinton supporters don't participate in GD P. The numbers are 4 to 1 against the believer.

This forum wasn't created to host theological discussions, it was specifically created to have somewhere to put threads related to religion so they wouldn't tie up GD.

To whine and moan that it isn't what one expected it to be is to be ignorant of the origins of the forum itself.

Cool!

Pretty much explains his behavior.

Check recent threads and see if you can figure out who's getting deleted. See who's being insulting, disruptive, rude, and nasty - all the hallmarks of a troll.

With the dustup of the last few days it seems to me that there are really only about 6-8 hardcore atheists who consider it their duty to bash religion rather than engage in religious discussion.

There seems to be a larger number of people who participate from time to time or observe, but like you and I are mostly, most of the time, turned off by the uselessness of the bashing discussions.

Anyway, Hi!

Something seems very wrong here. People who are opposed to the very nature of the material that the forum is supposed to be about are so dominating and some of them verge on the abusive. This tends to inhibit sincere dialogue.

Even if you are an atheist, you cannot escape religion and how it effects ones life (especially in the last SEVEN years) therefore, yeah they are gonna speak up. I object to the ad homs on BOTH sides, but to insinuate that atheists have no right to discuss the issue..thats where I become really mad.

It comes up over and over. Basically the fundamentalist atheists believe that it is their "job" to shut down respectful discussion of religion because religion is shoved at them in real life.

What's going on here is not a forum, per se, but some kind of theraputic experience solely for them, in which they get to replicate their experience in the real world, doing to religious people and moderate atheists what is done to them in that world. It's their chance to feel like "the majority" and "in control."

I suppose it makes them feel better, but you are right, it does not allow for intelligent discussion.

and we are so much trouble to you, why do you keep coming here? That seems completely illogical.

raising the rancor, feeding the negative attitudes, and wonders why it won't go away.

Strange.

He's been avoiding certain people like R_A...I wonder why?:think:

If I say, "I believe Hillary takes too much lobbying money," some Hillary supporters will simply say "I disagree," and other's will say, "You're insulting me."

The latter person is taking an unreasonable position. You can argue whether the term "fundamentalist atheist" is analytically useful or accurate, but your taking it as an insult is entirely a mental process endogenous to you.

That's why all your posts were deleted. Your fundamentalist-like adherence to a nonsensical phrase isn't at issue. Your nasty, rude, insulting, and belligerent behavior is.

You're responding to one of my posts right now.

Did you notice that?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Aka "you are dumb" and "ditto head"

In other words, I've argued in the past that one attribute of fundamentalist thinking is that, in order to make "factual" allegations fit into a rigid set of beliefs, a fundamentalist will often make counter factual statements.

For example, there was a big debate many months ago about whether Bishop Desmon Tutu was responsible for apartheid. Some argued that because all religion is bad, and Bishop Tutu was a religious figure, then Bishop Tutu was responsible for apartheid (don't ask -- it wasn't my logic).

So is this idea that two posts are "all" my posts yet again an example of self-evidently counter factual statements being made by someone trying to fit "facts" into a rigid intellectual (sic) structure?

"you're dumb" is an insult because it's insulting, not because Trotsky and Turtlensue are unreasonable.

isn't insulting. That's an extremely strange position to take. I think most people, knowing your own special definition of "fundamentalist atheist", would think you're being insulting.

"You are simply a disgusting excuse for a human being"

From the same source, in the SOUP group. Disingenuous posts are not a stranger to him at all.

I finally figured out that the SOUP group is not some new cooking group.

Yes, you were arguing that the millions of poor of Africa should be starved to death for reasons of Malthusian Neo-Darwinism.

In that case, I think once again we are talking about a description rather than an insult.

For example would you agree that Pol Pot was "simply a disgusting excuse for a human being," for causing the deliberate starvation of several million Cambodians?

Or would you defend him as carrying out an appropriate Malthusian policy?

Do you have any suggestions about what are, and are not, the appropriate terms to show absolute moral outrage toward a person who advocates the deliberate starvation of millions of the poor?

I'd genuinely like to know what you think the outer limits of written expression are to show outrage at such loathsome policy proposals.

At any rate, it's inappropriate to carry over that argument here.

the actual person, me, you were talking to never advocated such a thing, as explained patiently to you here. For someone who isn't familiar with the SOUP group, you sure did happen to find me in there, didn't you?

This was the campaign you started after your sundry accusations that I'm a government agent, attending a shitty law school, live in a wooden shack, and have been banned from message boards all over the Internet.
None of those ridiculous accusations are true, and they were all launched in lieu of staying on topic, "sharing your ideas", or having civil & productive discussion.

Anyway, feel free to try and explain how "I have no interest in attacking your character, you are simply a disgusting excuse for a human being" makes any logical sense.

but frankly you DID indeed advocate genocide by starvation of Africans, and many "non-aligned" observers agreed.

I could post link after link of the debate in various forums, and outside links that agree with my position.

Of course you will disagree that it is genocide to deliberately starve millions to achieve ecological "balance." So we're back to square one.

That said, given the consensus that you were advocating genocide by starvation of the poor in Africa, what is the outer limit of discourse to express outrage at such a policy proposal?

Your statement, "The straw man in your imagination may be a disgusting excuse for a human," is sufficient of a "yes". In other words, you are saying, if you are indeed advocating genocide by starvation, then the description is accurate and not an insult.

All we now have to acknowledge is that the characterization of your policy is not a strawman, and the result is quite self-condemning of you.

At any rate, I don't think that should be re-litigated here.

There was already a dispute underway. I'm not really bringing up a new one. I'm providing my opinion plus evidence directly related to the current dispute.

"You shouldn't be dragging a dispute from one group to another", just hilarious.

Did the same damn thing to me yesterday...In THREE forums.

He must be getting some kind of reward, but I'm not sure it's happiness.

You brought it up. Then accused me of dodging the issue. I've engaged the issue and now you won't respond.

So once again:

1. Please state why you think genocide is a moral good

2. What are the proper rhetorical limits for expressing distaste for someone who advocates the deliberate starvation of millions of poor people to achieve an imaginary "balance" with the environment?

Why have you not responded to the substance of the topic you were so desperate to re-litigate?

I'm on record advocating the preservation of tribal and indigenous cultures.
I'm on record opposing the arrogant swallowing up of those cultures by our own global culture.
I'm on record trying to explain to people that those cultures deserve our respect and should be revered and seen as a source of important knowledge for how to live sustainably.
I'm on record wanting to save those cultures.

You're on record rationalizing their assimilation into our failing global culture by salvationist religion and corporate greed; in essence, you're on record advocating the end of those cultures.

You're also on record falsely accusing me of being a government agent, attending a shitty law school, living in a wooden shack, and of being banned from message boards all over the Internet. None of those accusations were accompanied by evidence either. Additionally, I've seen you ridicule waiters, cashiers, people with disabilities, and people without a college degree. In those cases you had evidence, but were lacking in compassion and civility, to put it mildly.

There is no moral good in falsely accusing your perceived opponents on a message board like you have.

You did indeed advocate the deliberate starvation of the poor in Africa through the withholding of emergency food aid, as a way of reducing the population -- ie, what the British did in Ireland, and what has caused the modern Irish to conclude that the deliberate withholding of food from Ireland during the potato famine was genocide.

That's what you have many times advocated. You do indeed advocate genocide.

The fact that you make incoherent, contradictory, romantic claims about tribal cultures simply shows that your genocidal ideology is completely incoherent.

It is perfectly consistent with the precedent of Nazi propogandist, Leni Riefenstahl, who directed "Triumph of the Will" and then went on during her later career to make patronizing photographic documentations of African tribes. I see you as being completely in her mold.

Your accusations about my beliefs are just made up fantasies of yours -- par for the course for a person whose desire to murder millions is based on what an imaginary, talking, telepathic gorilla has told you to do, kind of how "Son of Sam" told David Berkowitz to kill the young people of Brooklyn in the summer of 1977.

So the question remains: it having been demonstrated conclusively that you advocate the genocidal extermination of millions of poor people, what are the rhetorical limits that a democratic message board should impose on the community on their expressions of horror and disgust when one member advocates genocide?

That's the only question at issue. Please answer it.

but you are using another nebulous and personalized definition. Not all mass murders are genocides. A genocide is a deliberate attempt to eliminate a religious or ethnic group. Withdrawing food aid in order to cause a Malthusian famine would be mass murder, but unless it was targeted at a specific population because of that group's racial or religious character, it would not be a genocide.

This would be a trivial distinction if it did not reveal a larger problem in your argument: you are using exaggerated pejoratives to demonize your interlocutor. Likening her/him to both Riefenstahl and Berkowitz is an impressive display, but it does little to advance your point.


To recap:
1). Weasel words
2). Ad hominem
3). Godwin's Law

Perhaps cosmik debris will weigh in later and evaluate your post according to his hierarchy.

Edit: spelling

And unlike Poster X, I know when a joke has run its course.

But I'll bet he keeps posting the Monty Python picture anyway!

I would have preferred to save you the embarassment of defending your beliefs.

But that's the substance of your claim. To litigate the issue here, you need to defend your claim that genocide is an ethical good, and that therefore it is beyond the bounds of appropriate rhetoric to say that a proponent of genocide is "a disgusting excuse for a human being."

Go ahead! You have 45 minutes! Good luck!

But you don't have to, it is fun watching you mis-use words.

Of course you will probably tell me that internet message boards are the same as courts of law, but that could only be true in a delusional world.

"Litigate" is commonly used on both coasts as professional and academic "slang" for "argue" and not just to mean "to pursue a lawsuit."

It's hilarious to see that you don't know the full definition of a word and then go about trumpeting your tragic ignorance. Do you have some connection to the professional and academic worlds? No? Maybe that's why you didn't know that.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who laughs at your unwarranted pomposity.

You just go right ahead. :)

absolutely reprehensible and uncalled for. I've known him for over 11 years (IRL) and I know he would never endorse nor condone genocide of any kind.

I would go back and re-read his posts for comprehension.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I look forward to seeing him challenge that record.

:eyes:

We should assume prima facia that all DUers are being truthful until proved untruthful.

But correct me if I'm wrong: you are greyl's friend and partner, and your account was pretty much inactive (maybe 1 exception) from the Kerry debacle of 2004 till February this year -- almost 4 years?

Can you see why this might raise a hypothesis of sock puppetry (which would be a rules infraction)?

Once again, I'll apologize in advance, taking you at face value.

Referring to DU rules? Priceless.