R/T is not an Ecumenical Council

Where we all put asides our religious differences to join hands in prayer and talk about "community"
It's a no holds barred debate about the very nature of God and religion.
Sorry if it's a little to spirited for some, but we aren't here to play nice.

Do you think that the "spirited" attitude you are championing promotes or hinders discussion?

I do not mean the times when posts use insults.(yeah it happens) But when a question is asked and not answered I see nothing wrong with calling bullshit.
For instance; When some one's thoughts are questions and the answer is "what happened to you to hate religion" that is a bullshit response that deflects from the real question posed.

Being thin skinned, ignoring logic, wanting people to accept things without proof, expecting special treatment, being the poster child for fallacies, etc. hinders discussions.

> but we aren't here to play nice.

Guns, Israel/Palestine, Religion/Theology, ...


> It's a no holds barred debate about the very nature of God and religion.

Occasionally that's true. Most of the time it's just a big pissing match
between the regular contributors on both sides of the "debate".

:shrug:

What topics would be allowed? Which viewpoints could someone express? Which could they not express?

I don't think the poster is advocating for prohibiting topics or viewpoints. At least not in the post in question.

It certainly appears that there is more bickering than real debate and ad hominem attacks seem to come at a quick pace around here.

What kind of statements of opinion should be allowed?

...why you are asking what I prefer regarding debates and what statements of opinions should be allowed.

I am merely stating something that I would be really surprised if you did not agree with me.

Again, it is not about having an ideal R&T and I am not saying that I wish to see more debates of a certain kind or only allow certain opinions.

I am just saying that there is a lot of bickering in this forum and things get personal pretty damn quick. At least that is my perception.

You say there should be debates. Great! What kind of debates? What statements would be allowed, and what wouldn't?

I am just trying to identify the source of the "bickering" - what causes it? What might prevent it?

Perhaps the bickering is caused by mistrust and posters not knowing intentions of the other poster so assumptions are made. Especially when the other poster is (or appear to be) part of the "other clan." Paranoia can also be a factor with one side thinking the other is out to get them. At times ego is a factor with posters getting silly.

I had my own battles here in the past when I had more time to post. They happen and I can't claim to be a saint.

About the kind of debates... Obviously anything regarding religion and theology is fair game. I'm not sure how many times I have stated in this forum that people should feel free to post their opinion (respecting DU rules, of course) and how many time I have expressed my disagreement with the censorship advocated by those who claim to be offended.

I agree. However, a lot of people in here don't. They take criticism of pedophile priests and the church that supports and protects them as an attack on their personal faith, for example.

Knee-jerk reaction seems to be the source of a lot of the fighting around here.

> It certainly appears that there is more bickering than real debate and ad hominem
> attacks seem to come at a quick pace around here.

... but apparently didn't do so very well.


> I don't think the poster is advocating for prohibiting topics or viewpoints.
> At least not in the post in question.

Correct. That wasn't my intention in that post or any other that I can recall.

:shrug:

Like I said, most of the time it's just a big pissing match
with occasional dog-piles and condescending repeats of previous
threads liberally laced with ad-homs and third-rate snark.

No, it isn't just "one side" being the bad guys and "the other"
being victims but - with rare exceptions - it is anything but
the "no holds barred debate about the very nature of God and
religion" that the OP suggested.

My "ideal R/T forum" would simply be politer, more tolerant
and with a higher signal to noise ratio.

:shrug:

My "ideal R/T forum" would simply be politer, more tolerant and with a higher signal to noise ratio.

Couldn't that apply to ALL of DU? Why must beliefs in R/T be treated differently?

>> My "ideal R/T forum" would simply be politer, more tolerant and with
>> a higher signal to noise ratio.
>
> Couldn't that apply to ALL of DU?

In an ideal world, yes. It would certainly make reading DU a more enjoyable
experience (IMO) but I'm not sufficiently optimistic as to expect any such
progress across many of the fora that are not already that way.


> Why must beliefs in R/T be treated differently?

Like I say, in an ideal world, every forum would be that way (politer, more
tolerant, higher SNR) and so no, R/T would not - and should not - be treated
differently at all.

Absent a magic wand to make it so, comments like "we aren't here to play nice"
just support the impression that I get with regard to some other people's
reasons for posting on R/T: not so much debating "the very nature of God and
religion" as a desire for a(nother) pointless macho pissing match.

I rarely stray into Guns or I/P as I get no enjoyment from reading one
"extreme X" vs "extreme Y" thread after another: the subject line may
vary from post to post but the content after the first couple of replies
tends to be much the same.

I'm finding a similar situation more & more on R/T these days as threads seem
to rapidly devolve into slanging matches between the usual suspects on both
sides of the religion/atheism divide and that saddens me as I have truly
learned a lot from this forum over the years.

:-(

Obviously, personal attacks including intentional insults are not allowed under the DU rules. Likewise, I would not want to paint with a broad brush without noting it. I would not say that Christians or Muslims or whoever are such and such since we are all individuals and such claims are usually wrong in one way or another. When discussing the specific claims of believers, however, most of them are either factually right or wrong (even if in some cases we do not know which it is). How can we be expected to be tolerant of beliefs we regard as wrong? Yes, I respect every person's right to have beliefs. I rather think that is always implicit. But if I do not agree with what those beliefs hold to be true, what is the point of sugar coating that disagreement? I realize I can be pretty blunt and that some may read it as arrogant. My own view is that personal feelings do not affect objective facts and that candy-coating factual disagreements would only serve to muddy the waters assuming I am good at candy-coating disagreements, which I am not.

Soft-pedaling disagreements by pretending every opinion or purported fact is of equal validity when they are not is a liberal religious value. (Just like the we're-right-and-you're-going-to-hell view is a conservative religious value.) As someone who is non-religious, I simply do not share that value. Insisting that I act respectfully toward beliefs (not the believers themselves, mind you, just the beliefs) that I think are just plain wrong is a kind of religious bigotry. I don't believe what you believe and it is unreasonable for you to insist that I comply with your rules of decorum when discussing religious matters. Likewise, I do not usually agree on ideas that are necessarily opinions either. I have no reverence for Jesus and, therefore, have no reason not to be critical of his ethical and moral standards. While some of his teachings are admirable, I find others to be simply appalling. (And yes, I'm talking about the canonical gospels and not the epistles, for those of you you draw a distinction.) Why should I pretend I don't find them so?

So unless we are talking about fundamentalists who no one here has any use for, I will always do my best to be tolerant of other people. Still, we generally talk about ideas here, not people, and if I think and idea is wrong, I am not going to hesitate to say so and to explain why. Frankly, the only real personal attacks I have seen on this forum are from those complaining about the lack of respect for their religious beliefs.

> How can we be expected to be tolerant of beliefs we regard as wrong?

My thoughts on tolerance upthread were more to do with the way posters
interact rather than the content of the beliefs themselves. There is a
fair spectrum between "candy-coating" and "inflammatory" but too many
threads go straight to the latter end of the range without even attempting
any form of polite interaction.


> Soft-pedaling disagreements by pretending every opinion or purported fact
> is of equal validity when they are not is a liberal religious value. (...)
> As someone who is non-religious, I simply do not share that value.

Good point.

I wasn't intending to sound like I was asking all the athiests to blindly accept
something that is totally against their nature but that appears to be the way
that it has come across. I obviously need to look to my own rhetoric in turn.

It would be ridiculous to think that the regulars here aren't going to remember what a certain person said in 15 different threads.

"Politer" is in the eyes of the beholder. Bowing to the religious is often what most of us non-religious feel is the only thing that would be seen as being polite. Someone talks about their belief in god. An atheist says that it is the same as believing in the tooth fairy. The believer says the atheist is rude. If stating what you think about the topic is rude, then why isn't the believer rude for saying they believe?

> "Politer" is in the eyes of the beholder.

Agreed. Specifically, it is often time-variant as the beholder (being human)
will have different moods/feelings/reactions depending on what else is going
on in their life at the time (e.g., being more sensitive at times and more
argumentative at others).


> Bowing to the religious is often what most of us non-religious feel
> is the only thing that would be seen as being polite.

I can understand how you'd get that feeling at times.


> Someone talks about their belief in god.
> An atheist says that it is the same as believing in the tooth fairy.

That's not a "debate about the very nature of God and religion", it's a
simple deliberate insult that is on a par with a believer opening with
"You are going to burn in Hell because (whatever)" - a pointless piece
of pure flamebait that arises from dismissive contempt rather than any
genuine desire to "debate" anything.

It is possible to discuss - even to completely oppose - the belief
without being a twat.

That doesn't make any sense.

Comparing "God" to "Zeus" or whatever other mythical deity
is not (to my mind) an insult.

Comparing "God" to "Ilúvatar" or a similar fictional deity
is not (to my mind) an insult either.

The deliberate choice of a child's fantasy character is done
(time after time) for the sole purpose of belittling the believer.

There are a whole load of mythical characters that would satisfy
the desire to make the comparison yet some are more inflammatory
than others. Intentionally choosing one of the more snarky options
signals an intent to denigrate rather than debate.

That's what I meant by "the manner in which the discussion is conducted".

I don't think you can fairly differentiate between mythical characters as a class. If you want to make the point, pick a myth at random and go for it. Just make sure that the person you're talking to understands your reference.

No one believes in Zeus or Ilúvatar. Some people might not even know the first thing about them. But people today still teach their children about Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny, so using them as examples illustrates what is meant by persistent myth.

And frankly, telling others that they can't compare a mythical God to a mythical X is just special pleading.

...the basis what believers accept as true has no better basis in fact that the tooth fairy, Santa Claus or the stereotypical old bearded man in the sky.

I appreciate that religious people take their beliefs very seriously and with great reverence. I, however, don't and that reverence has no bearing on the veracity of their beliefs. Once again, this is an attempt to get skeptics to shut up and not point out legitimate criticisms that believers find uncomfortable to hear. Rather than blaming the messenger, maybe someone might try to explain how believing in any divine being is more defensible in fact than a belief in the tooth fairy. These are apt comparisons for another reason too. The mythical comparisons that get believers worked-up are beliefs held by children. Religion treats everyone like children and expects us to think and behave with stunted emotional and intellectual growth. The examples here from the topics of sex to inquiries into the nature of the universe are too numerous to list here. The every language of religion puts the believer in the position of a child supplicant before a parent. Child of God. God the Father. The mother church. Our father who art in heaven. I think one reason the comparison between religious belief and childhood mythology rankles so much is because it underscores the juvenile mindset necessary to take such ideas seriously.

> Someone talks about their belief in god. An atheist says that it is the same as believing in the tooth fairy.

That's not a "debate about the very nature of God and religion", it's a simple deliberate insult that is on a par with a believer opening with "You are going to burn in Hell because (whatever)" - a pointless piece of pure flamebait that arises from dismissive contempt rather than any genuine desire to "debate" anything.

And yet there are some Democrats (and I do not doubt they are Democrats) on this board who believe, for instance, that returning to the gold standard would solve certain financial problems. Let's say in response to them stating such, another DUer tells them, "You might as write to Santa asking for help."

There is fundamentally no difference between that example and the one with comparing gods and the tooth fairy. None. I challenge you to explain otherwise. Someone makes a statement, someone else compares that statement to wishful thinking. It's a completely valid and legitimate rhetorical tool. Why must it be put back in the toolbox once someone steps foot in this forum? You are basically saying you want religious opinions held to a special standard. Why?

And why can't you yourself post without using an offensive four-letter word?

The poster is from England. The four letter word does not carry the same weight over there as it does here.

I use offensive, four letter words, and I have no problem with others who do. I believe that language, regardless of its perceived "vulgarity", is not to be feared, but used.

Also, I'm pretty sure that "twat" isn't nearly so taboo across the pond...

Just thought I would point out that when someone is calling for politeness and courtesy, it might not be the most appropriate thing to use them - especially words that are personally insulting and sexist.

> Someone makes a statement, someone else compares that statement to wishful thinking.
> It's a completely valid and legitimate rhetorical tool. Why must it be put back in
> the toolbox once someone steps foot in this forum?

Why are you putting words into my mouth?

I have no problem with your "completely valid and legitimate rhetorical tool",
just the deliberate choice of a childish comparison rather than an adult one.
To repeatedly use the same childish comparison suggests that the user is doing
so for the petty reason of distraction rather than any honest attempt to debate
the belief in an adult manner.


> You are basically saying you want religious opinions held to a special standard. Why?

I am basically saying that I would like to read discussions not flame-bait
and bickering. That applies across the board, not just in R/T, but in this
particular forum the usual pointless insults tend to start with terms like
"fundamentalist athiest" & "tooth-fairy".


> And why can't you yourself post without using an offensive four-letter word?

I can and do. Or was that sarcasm?

ETA: Having read the other posts in reply to you, I understand and apologise
for the earlier reply. No, it was not intended in a serious or deliberately
offensive way and I hadn't realised that the word in question had the extra
overtones over there. Sorry.

Sometimes we are trying to point out that belief in God is no difference than the belief of children.
Often we have a list of mythological creatures we compare to God. We might say;
"Why is God different than Zeus or Odin or The Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Tooth Fairy."
It is a legitimate point, and 9 times out of 10 we don not get an intelligent reply, just an attack on our
"materialistic world view." Which we then defend with logic and reason, rather than say "How dare you attack us all."

> Often we have a list of mythological creatures we compare to God.
> We might say: "Why is God different than Zeus or Odin or The Flying Spaghetti
> Monster or the Tooth Fairy?"

In the above context, I wouldn't view "the Tooth Fairy" as an insult as
it is part of a reasonable question but surely you can see that there
is a difference in the context between the above and the original comment
that spawned this sub-thread:
>>> An atheist says that it is the same as believing in the tooth fairy.

:shrug:


It obviously depends on the specifics of the topic (and the people) concerned
but, from a purely personal point, I *don't* see "God" as different from "Zeus"
or "Odin" or "the Tooth Fairy" in certain situations - namely those wherein
the deity is being used to "explain" an unknown (to the "believer") event or
phenomenon (e.g., thunder, lightning, the transformation of an old tooth into
a coin). Yes, under those conditions, to maintain a belief in such a deity when
the phenomena has been explained is irrational. A "god of the gaps" is only
relevant when there is still a "gap".

The FSM is a good one though: it was specifically created as a means of parodying
the irrationality of certain religious beliefs but has always been viewed as
an "adult" image rather than a "childish" one. I see the FSM as significantly
less offensive (despite its history) than one that is only ever used in the
context of small children. To my mind - and please remember that I am always
only speaking for one person's opinion here - I see the FSM as the more sensible
(hah!) equivalent of the Santa/Tooth Fairy/whatever substitution as it is
presenting the Russell's Teapot argument in a single word/phrase but without
the deliberately negative overtones of the childish equivalents.


> Sometimes the childishness is the point
> Sometimes we are trying to point out that belief in God is no difference
> than the belief of children.

Sometimes you are right. Sometimes you are just being deliberately inflammatory.
The over-riding tendency of such usage in R/T is to treat the opposing poster
with contempt, with derision and without any attempt to "debate" or "discuss".
And that is something I find sad. Just MHO.

is somehow going to be seen as less offensive. I personally have made comparisons to Zeus and other so-called "adult" comparisons and have not noticed ANY less offense taken. The mere suggestion that a person's particular god MAY be as fictional as all the other ones they don't believe in seems to be the root problem, not the comparison one happens to pick.

> I dispute your claim that using an "adult" comparison rather than
> a "childish" one...
> is somehow going to be seen as less offensive. I personally have made
> comparisons to Zeus and other so-called "adult" comparisons and have
> not noticed ANY less offense taken.

Fair enough. I personally don't take any offence from the sort of comparison
to Zeus or where other past/present/fictional deities are used as an alternative
to the overused (and overloaded) word "God" but others may well do so.
With regard to the more childish comparisons that I mentioned previously,
I just get the impression that such a poster has no intention of being
serious or genuine, just deliberately trying to wind-up the other person.

Maybe it's just a simple difference of opinion after all but it has become
so prevalent here on R/T lately that - as I said in .23 - I find it a shame
as the noise is drowning out the signal.


> The mere suggestion that a person's particular god MAY be as fictional
> as all the other ones they don't believe in seems to be the root problem,
> not the comparison one happens to pick.

YMMV. I find it different but there again, although I'm a deist of sorts,
I'm not particularly religious per se (not holding to any established religion
or creed) so maybe I'm just not seeing an intent to offend with any of the
other mythological/fictional alternatives where I do perceive an intent to
ridicule with those mentioned earlier.

Thanks for the peaceful & rational discussion (to all of you btw). :hi:

A lot of believers are not bothered at all by criticism of their beliefs. You can tell them they worship a cosmic leprechaun who grants wishes and had a zombie son, and it's like water off a duck's back.

But then there are those for whom even a mention of Christianity being a "myth" constitutes a direct, personal, and vicious attack on their religion and them personally. We see this in Islam a lot more - with fatwas issued against those who draw a cartoon or write a book. But it really disturbs me when the same kinds of demands for "respect" (i.e., censorship) are issued by Christians on this board.

There are some believers who won't mind when other believers question beliefs and point out myths. However, the same people will get annoyed when atheists do the same questioning and/or point out myths.

So the problem is not even what is acceptable to post here in R/T. The problem sometimes seems to be who is allowed to say what.

Very true. And considering the number of posts I've seen here from believers who question why non-believers should even be IN this forum to begin with, it might be prudent to ask who is allowed to say anything at all.

I know it was meant as a sleight, but I don't get it.

its not supposed to be a congregation of bullies either.

Maybe.

In HS detention, people have a strict decorum forced on them and they are not allowed to say what is on their minds. So that analogy cuts against the STFU crowd.

:wtf:

:rofl:

Are you "playing for keeps?" What do you mean you're "not playing nice?" That's dumb. These are your fellow DUers and this isn't a competition.

"These are your fellow DUers", what on earth does that have to do with anything? we're here to exchange ideas, not to win popularity contests. This isn't Facebook.

I don't get your point or the point of the OP. It's chest thumping bullshit.

you missed the point of the OP, otherwise you wouldn't have written #39.

I believe the OP's intention was to clear up the misconception that has become prevalent (as of late at least) that R/T is a place to make nice. It is not. It is a place to discuss theology. Given the nature of the subject, it requires a thick skin to participate. If you think this place isn't "friendly" enough simply because people don't agree with you, the shortcoming is solely yours.

As for thinking its "chest thumping bullshit", you are projecting your own issues onto the OP. I can't help you with that.

"I believe the OP's intention was to clear up the misconception that has become prevalent (as of late at least) that R/T is a place to make nice. It is not. It is a place to discuss theology."

Can't you discuss theology and make nice at the same time? What do you think goes on in places where people seriously "discuss" theology? Do you think they call each other "superstitious worshipers of the skydaddy" or "godless and hellbound?" Ummm, no. It seems that some people here are more interested in "proving each other wrong" rather than "discussing theology."

The OP posted this:
"It's a no holds barred debate about the very nature of God and religion. Sorry if it's a little to spirited for some, but we aren't here to play nice." It's chest thumping.

The idea of "discussing theology" does not necessarily encompass the idea of "making nice", and vice versa. Stating that R/T is a place for discussing theology after stating that it is not a place to make nice is not contradictory.

I do agree with you that the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. However, what one person considers "making nice" is not the same for another.

Take for example your issue with using "superstitious worshipers of the skydaddy". Why is that not a perfectly civil thing to say? there is as much evidence for this skydaddy as there is for the toothfairy or god. Why shouldn't we use the terms interchangeably? because traditionally one set of fictional characters sit at the main table and the other set sits at the kids table on holidays?

Either show proof to differentiate god from fairy tales, or grow a thicker skin.

Where do you think a discussion that dismisses other people with overt insults is going to go? It's going to hell! (:evilgrin: I couldn't resist).

Seriously though. Is the "skydaddy" thing meant to be anything but an insult?

The discussion about the existence of God doesn't need to take place in every single discussion about religion.

Aside from that, though, tell me the last time you saw someone post the word "skydaddy".

I think your tone argument is weaker than most.

after reading his post here. I think it is ridiculous to try and stop the use of "skydaddy" for more "respectable" comparisons to god. And lets face it, there is no respectable enough comparison to god according to theists. This isn't about respect or being civil, this is a veiled attempt at getting special treatment towards religion.

It doesn't just pop up here and there like a fuckin' whackamole.

This is for a search in this forum only for "skydaddy." I didn't search for it with a space in between or in the rest of DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=274761#274815

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=271803#272140

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=241063

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=239066

Then there's a DUer with that name.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=237434

It's not a word that I particularly take notice of, and so I don't remember it as vividly as you do.

However, I agree with ninjaneer that it's an accurate term, and I also think that focusing on that term to the exclusion of any other point posted alongside it is nothing but a tone argument used to derail. As I said in the other thread you posted on this same idea, I get insulted all the time, but I continue the discussion and answer the points at hand. You can do the same, if you choose to do so rather than plead for the special treatment of your views.

for god. Show me how they differ, and I will stop using the words interchangeably.

Can't you say the same thing in a different way?

God knows (pun intended) thats happened more than once.

The difference is though I can make a logical argument for the similarity between skydaddy and god. What logical proof is there that I'm hellbound? this also touches on your other point, that not everything has to be about the existence of god. I agree that it does not, but when discussing religion its hard to get away from the single pin holding the whole picture to the wall.

R/T stands for road and track, meaning ready for either. Later on Dodge did have some kind of advertising campaign where they used the initials as "rapid transit" or some shit.

IIRC the R/T first showed up on the 66' Coronet

No True Scotsman being the biggie. Others are argument from authority, argument from numbers, argument from antiquity etc.

When I criticize Christians, I am criticizing their beliefs and actions as being illogical and even laughable, in their attempts to gloss over their contradictions. I am not saying they are bad people per se, I am saying that their thinking processes are not logical.

:rofl:

LOL