You said religious ideas are not special. I described why they are, at least in the US. You can argue they should't be, but they are. — T Clark
Segregation is wrong, but if you're going to do it, it's anti-religionists who should be segregated because they are the primary cause of conflict and disruption. I stand by that judgment. — T Clark
The first forum I signed up to was the Dawkins forum. That was an absolutely seething hotbed of 'fear of religion'.
My feeling is, many people believe the whole 'religion' thing has been settled, 'science has shown that God is dead', and they really don't want to re-open the whole can of worms. Either that, or they're just not interested in spiritual and/or religious ideas. But since then, I have gotten over the need to persuade people of my views. I put the arguments, but past a certain point I desist.It's like the little old lady who rings the television station to complain about a risque television show - the advice is 'just don't watch it'. ;-) — Wayfarer
The first forum I signed up to was the Dawkins forum. That was an absolutely seething hotbed of 'fear of religion'.
My feeling is, many people believe the whole 'religion' thing has been settled, 'science has shown that God is dead', and they really don't want to re-open the whole can of worms. Either that, or they're just not interested in spiritual and/or religious ideas. But since then, I have gotten over the need to persuade people of my views. I put the arguments, but past a certain point I desist.It's like the little old lady who rings the television station to complain about a risque television show - the advice is 'just don't watch it'. ;-)
— Wayfarer
Generally I agree. — T Clark
It is a thread to discuss the disruptive and disrespectful behavior of atheists and anti-religious posters on this thread. — T Clark
To summarize - this problem would go away if atheists and anti-religionists would just keep their mouths shut. — T Clark
You could be skeptical, focus on their justification or lack of it. Point out logic flaws or unsupported assumptions. Avoid calling them or their ideas stupid. IOW role model rational thinking for people you think are being irrational about whatever the issue is.↪T Clark As you know, I'm trying my best to be a nice and considerate philosopher. So, perhaps you can help me. If someone has a religious belief which is stupid or ridiculous, what should I do? Should I give them a hug? — S
Why do you find religious intolerance more offensive than say free will intolerance or capitalism intolerance or the various other intolerances pervasive throughout this forum? Why demand special respect for the religious (a group I tend to often actually align with)? — Hanover
Well, those kind of threads where the views of others are respected and cordial manners dominate are few and far between. — ssu
You could be skeptical, focus on their justification or lack of it. Point out logic flaws or unsupported assumptions. Avoid calling them or their ideas stupid. IOW role model rational thinking for people you think are being irrational about whatever the issue is.
If someone is pressuring you to hug people, just ignore them. — Coben
I'm a quasi-god-mongerer. That means I monger God in a quasi way, not that I monger quasi-gods, although maybe I do that as well. Anyway, this forum is way less religion-bashing than the last one (Paul's forum) it seems to me, and I actually miss the rabid attacks a bit, although they did go too far sometimes. I think crappy ideas should be strongly criticised. I miss getting my panpsychism bashed. Apo was the last person to have a go and he seems to have fucked off. Nobody gives a shit that I'm wrong any more. Worse, panpsychism may be becoming popular, which means I may have to adopt another view. — bert1
But if threads on the relation of the fates and the furies and the muses are interrupted by demands for proof and suchlike Apollonian nonsense, then the forum loses interesting debate in favour of tedium and repetition. — unenlightened
If I have understood correctly, this topic is an appeal for the atheists to stop trolling religious threads. I.e. not preventing atheists from posting in these threads, but preventing atheists from trolling these threads, with the express intention of derailing the thread, preventing serious discussion. — Pattern-chaser
I didn't say it was offensive. I said it was annoying and it pisses me off. So, why pick on religious intolerance 1) The main culprits in the anti-religionist brigade are hypocrites. They cause the problem and then vent their spleens about how terrible it all is. 2) Those bozos are so fucking self-righteous 3) Anti-religious arguments tend to be the nastiest on the forum. 4) Most of the anti-religion threads are poorly thought through. Bad philosophy. 5) It's not the only thing that annoys me, it's just the one I'm talking about now. — T Clark
So I am completely in favor of the anti-religious crowd offering their thoughts, even if occasionally they are poorly formed and not terribly logical. — Hanover
If they are trolling, though, that is another matter. — Hanover
Isn't the solution of supporting multiple threads (as this forum currently does) sufficient to task? — JosephS
It's about those who troll such threads, with the intention of preventing the discussion of (what they see as) 'nonsense'. — Pattern-chaser
He actually said that religious ideas aren't special in the sense that a bad idea is a bad idea, and he's right. You just seem to be talking past him rather than arguing against him on that point. — S
I think it is a part of a larger issue. Much of the problematic behavior can be seen, for example, in antinatalist threads or even with metaphysics (admittedly as least considered family to religious threads) and likely with political threads, though I read these less. Basically there is a kind of team play with the goal of winning. On some topics, even people who disagree can be exploratory, together, making clear their areas of disagreement, but generally not trying to score points, not going ad hom, conceding things, etc. IOW having a discussion. But on many topics, and in fact, I would say in general, there is a back to the wall, no more being victimized by Team X, barely held rage that infects many of the posts. I don't think the answer is to eliminate the discussions wehre people disagree. Because with the trends in society, this will likely end up that we can only discuss symbolic logic here, and who knows, perahps even that topic will at the end of the decade bring out the knives. — Coben
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.