The behavior of anti-religious posters

T Clark

I ran this past the moderators before I posted it. Those who responded were generally against it being posted, but I think it’s important. Based on their comments, I have toned it down significantly and I’m running it in Feedback. I suggest you read the next two paragraphs and then skip to the bottom where it says "So... Is there a problem?" if you don't want to wade through the details. I have bolded and underlined a couple of particular passages that set me to thinking.

To be clear – this is not a thread to discuss the existence or non-existence of God or arguments for the existence or non-existence of God. It is a thread to discuss the disruptive and disrespectful behavior of atheists and anti-religious posters on this thread.

I get really frustrated by how much of the forum is taken up with attacks on religion. I know, that’s my problem, not yours. A lot of what gets written in those threads is pretty nasty and disrespectful. Worst – most of it is bad philosophy. Here are some posts from a recent thread.

This forum is also full of illogical theorizing by religious thinkers. — god must be atheist

I haven't found that to be true. There are a lot more vocal atheists here than believers. The atheists also tend to be more rabid. Case in point - Gnostic Christian Bishop. — T Clark

Under this light, maybe you can understand our, the atheists', fervent attacks against ANYTHING that has to do with religions or with gods. It is an outdated, anachronistic, should I say stupid and ignorant, belief system, and deserves no respect. Atheists will leave no stone unturned to show this, and I think the smart thing for people would be to post on segregated forums: atheists where no religious talk is allowed, and the religious, where no atheist talk is allowed. A lot, and I mean a lot, of ill feelings and futile argumenting could be avoided this way. — god must be atheist

find that atheists are primarily responsible for whatever conflict there is. I would not support your plan for segregation, but if it were decided to implement it here on the forum, my vote would be to evict the atheists. — T Clark

According to you, as I understand, it is not the fault of stupid, outdated, unsubstantiated and improbable beliefs and their ensuing dogma that is the cause of stirfe and conflict, but the people who point out that the dogmas are borne from improbable beliefs, from stupid, outdated, and unsubstantiated claims. — god must be atheist

I went back and checked for the last week. During that period, there were 18 active threads that dealt with the existence of God. Based on the opening post, thirteen of them were anti-religion and five of them I classified as neutral. I didn't identify any pro-religion threads, which doesn't mean that there weren't pro-religion posts within some of the threads. Based on that limited survey, if you guys would just keep your mouths shut, there would be very little discussion of religion on the forum. — T Clark

So, is there a problem… Well, it’s not a big problem. What’s the big deal if the forum is cluttered with some, even a lot, of rabid, vitriolic anti-religious posts and threads. We can all just avoid those. But, still, it’s annoying and I think it has negative consequences. 1) It makes the forum less pleasant and collegial 2) It cuts off the possibility of serious religious discussions. 3) It lowers the overall quality of the forum and 4) It pisses me off.

So, how to address this admittedly relatively minor problem? Well, @”god must be atheist” has a suggestion. He thinks we should “post on segregated forums: atheists where no religious talk is allowed, and the religious, where no atheist talk is allowed.” I do not support this position. As far as I’m concerned, even though I’m not one, religious believers are welcome to present their ideas here as long as they follow the guidelines.

I have presented evidence above that indicates that religious discord on the forum is caused almost solely by atheists and anti-religious people. As I said, I don’t support segregation, but if that policy were to be implemented, I think that no anti-religious threads should be allowed here. Atheists and anti-religionists could respond with criticism to pro-religious posts, as long as the responses were consistent with the OP. They would not be able to start their own anti-religion threads.

It seems obvious to me, given the evidence I’ve presented, that would have two effects 1) It would reduce the number of religious discussions dramatically and 2) It would eliminate strife, conflict, and ill-feelings associated with these issues.

To summarize - this problem would go away if atheists and anti-religionists would just keep their mouths shut.

Wah.

But yes, the idea of segregating the forum along those lines is ridiculous.

T Clark

But yes, the idea of segregating the forum along those lines is ridiculous. — S

It wasn't my idea.

It wasn't my idea. — T Clark

I know.

Artemis

↪T Clark

Doesn't this kinda amount to a truism? We'll all disagree a lot less when we only talk to people we agree with?

I think people opposed to those conflicted conversations can just self-segregate themselves from the offending threads.

T Clark

Doesn't this kinda amount to a truism? We'll all disagree a lot less when we only talk to people we agree with? — Artemis

That misses my point a bit - anti-religionists are the sole cause of the problem their diatribes are purported to address. If they would stop, there would be very little religious discussion.

Artemis

↪T Clark

I've been on the receiving end of more than one diatribe by a theist or agnostic here, so "sole" is just plain false.

T Clark

I've been on the receiving end of more than one diatribe by a theist or agnostic here, so "solely" is just plain false. — Artemis

I've presented evidence in my OP. Out of eighteen posts on religion active within the last two weeks, 13 were anti-religion and five were neutral. Odds are you were accosted with a diatribe in an anti-religious post. Hardly seems fair to complain about that. Anyway, I'm not saying that pro-religionists never misbehave, but, generally speaking, they don't start the fights and they aren't the nasty ones once the fights are started.

Artemis

↪T Clark

So because someone else opens a discussion in a way religious people don't like, I am allowed to be railed against, even though all I might have in common with the poster is the lack of belief in deities?

So, I guess, next time there's a radical theist on here I should rail against all theists in the discussion just because... That's your logic, right?

Artemis

↪T Clark

You haven't actually presented evidence, by the bye.

↪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?

Hanover

But, still, it’s annoying and I think it has negative consequences. 1) It makes the forum less pleasant and collegial 2) It cuts off the possibility of serious religious discussions. 3) It lowers the overall quality of the forum and 4) It pisses me off. — T Clark

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)? If I need special protection for my views, then that could mean my views can't stand on their own merit.

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 that is stupid or ridiculous, what should I do? Should I give them a hug? — S

You certainly may give them a hug (after a suitable trigger warning and a check of any applicable harassment policy). If you decide not to hug them, I don't have any particular recommendations. The point of my OP was to point out the hypocrisy of a large group of anti-religious members along with identifying the damage it does to the forum. Did I mention it pisses me off?

T Clark

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)? If I need special protection for my views, then that could mean my views can't stand on their own merit. — Hanover

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.

DingoJones

↪T Clark

I think you are conflating here...calling something ridiculous or stupid isnt always just a rude, hyperaggressive or otherwise dick move. Sometimes, as is often the case with religion, the ideas are actually ridiculous, or stupid, or incoherent. Thats the only way they can describe it. When a religious person hears that it just seems insulting but sometimes the truth hurts.
There are rabid anti-theists who are obnoxious, like that Gnostic guy you just barfs out rants but there are just as many other obnoxious folks, the anti natalist guys, the general personalities of sime folks...singling out the ant- religious folks is making a special plea for religious beliefs to be exempt from discourse. Too bad, its not a special
set of ideas, its just another set of ideas and questioning it isnt rude, nor is pointing out its many illogical, irrational claims/details.
You are acting like its someone elses responsibility that the ideas dont make sense, but its not. Its on the religious people and their goofy ideas. Sorry some people believe in nonsense but they do. Its not rude to point it.

Deleted User

Lol, nothing in this post was anti-religious or an attack on anyone. Calling a fact a fact is not anti-religious.

T Clark

...calling something ridiculous or stupid isnt always just a rude, hyperaggressive or otherwise dick move. — DingoJones

I could argue about this I guess, but it's not what my post was about. As I've said, there wouldn't be any problems in this area except that the anti-religionists step in and cause them. Then they blame it on the believers. It's hypocrisy. It's dishonest. We could talk about whether it is proper to treat believers or their ideas with disrespect. I don't think it is, but I'm not here to preach that sermon.

There are rabid anti-theists who are obnoxious, like that Gnostic guy you just barfs out rants but there are just as many other obnoxious folks, the anti natalist guys, the general personalities of sime folks...singling out the ant- religious folks is making a special plea for religious beliefs to be exempt from discourse. Too bad, its not a special set of ideas, — DingoJones

In my recent post to Hanover, I gave my response to a similar statement. For the record, anti-natalists drive me crazy for some of the same reasons. Free will discussions are annoying too, not because of any misbehavior on the poster's part, but because they regurgitate the same arguments over and over, often on two or three separate threads at the same time.

Oh, and by the way, yes, religious ideas are a special set, whether you think they should be or not. Much of the last two or three century's push for human and civil rights has been fueled by a desire for freedom to worship. There is rabid disrespect for various religious groups and beliefs everywhere in the world. That vitriol leads to conflict and violence. I don't claim that posters on the thread are a danger. I guess I'd turn it around the other way. If I won't stand up to their ugly prejudice here on the nice safe forum, how likely is it I'll do it when it might really make a difference.

You are acting like its someone elses responsibility that the ideas dont make sense, but its not. Its on the religious people and their goofy ideas. Sorry some people believe in nonsense but they do. Its not rude to point it. — DingoJones

You are responsible for your behavior, not anyone else's ideas.

T Clark

Lol, nothing in this post was anti-religious or an attack on anyone. — Swan

Your post is not very helpful. If you want to contribute rather than just snipe, please be more specific.

As I've said, there wouldn't be any problems in this area except that the anti-religionists step in and cause them. — T Clark

That's not true though. It's not causing a problem to be critical of religion. Religion has much to be critical of.

Deleted User

↪T Clark

Your post did not even begin on a helpful note, so it is bizarre you expect people here to follow a more respectful tone.

It is just some passive aggressive complaint about one user and supposedly "anti-religious" people "pissing you off"—posing no helpful guidelines for people to follow nor demonstrating how the user in question is even attacking you personally. So, you're ticked off by people saying things—when it isn't even wrong. What do you want people to do here?

All it says is, TL;DR — "atheists and the anti-religious" should keep their mouths shut. What does this even contribute to the forum?

T Clark

That's not true though. It's not causing a problem to be critical of religion. Religion has much to be critical of. — S

Did you read my posts? 13 out of eighteen threads concerning religion in the past two weeks were anti-religion. None were pro-religion. If anti-religionists would just stop squawking, the whole set of issues as they relate to the forum would shrink almost to nothing.

Did you read my posts? 13 out of eighteen threads concerning religion in the past two weeks were anti-religion. None were pro-religion. If anti-religionists would just stop squawking, the whole set of issues as they relate to the forum would shrink almost to nothing. — T Clark

Yes, I read that part. But like I literally just said to you, it's not a problem for there to be discussions critical of religion. It would actually be more of a problem if discussions critical of religion were a rarity.

T Clark

Your post did not even begin on a helpful note, so it is bizarre you expect people here to follow a more respectful tone.

It is just some passive aggressive complaint about one user and supposedly "anti-religious" people "pissing you off"—posing no helpful guidelines for people to follow.

All it says is, TL;DR — "atheists and the anti-religious" should keep their mouths shut. What does this even contribute to the forum? — Swan

I went back and checked all my posts in this thread. All of them were reasonably civil and respectful, if harsh. I didn't say anti-religionists should keep their mouths shut. I said that, if they did, the problem would go away.

Again - how about some specific examples.

HarryBalsagna

↪T Clark

It is difficult sometimes to be dispassionate about something one feels passionate about. This is my first day here so I cannot really speak to the issue specifically as it pertains to what has happened here in the past, but I have experienced these sentiments before. I have also witnessed atheists complaining about theists incessantly posting bible verse and scripture in an attempt to shut down a philosophical discussion or debate.

These sort of clashes are inevitable in my opinion. There is too much convergence in many topics within the scope of philosophy in general for there to ever be true avoidance or separation.

While I agree with the sentiment that respect is important in furtherance of substantive discourse, I find it difficult to agree with things akin to "the oppression of Judeo-Christian thought". Thick skin is kind of a requisite to entering into a forum such as this. If you're not willing to have your ideas or beliefs challenged, perhaps this is not the right place for you... otherwise, let the moderators be the judge of what crosses the line.

T Clark

Yes, I read that part. But like I literally just said to you, it's not a problem for there to be discussions critical of religion. It would actually be more of a problem if discussions critical of religion were a rarity. — S

In many ways, I classify anti-religious discussions in with anti-natalism and free will/determinism. They're just so fucking tiresome. The same lame, smug, arrogant arguments over and over again, three threads at a time, on and on forever. No one listens to anyone else. I try to avoid them. I regret it when I give in to temptation.

I don't expect anti-religious threads to go away. I don't even want them to. A 6 month voluntary moratorium would be nice, but I'm not sure people would go along with that. How about that - a 6 month vacation from discussions T Clark doesn't want to hear. All in favor.....

Again. It comes back to hypocrisy and nastiness. I try not to complain about moderation on the forum and I'm not complaining about it now. That's why I started the thread - my own effort to hold people responsible for their anti-social behavior without the threat of official action.

↪T Clark

If you were antisocial more often, you'd probably be more fun.

DingoJones

↪T Clark

I dont agree that religious ideas are special, a bad idea is a bad idea even its something cherished by the person. Religion is full of bad ideas, and should be called out for them like any other idea.
You think anti-theists should just shut up, which is fine, but you seem to be wanting it to pit tules in place to MAKE them shut up. Thats authoritarian, which of course is a big problem with religion to start with.
Also, you keep quoting yourself with the “13 out of 18” anti religious posts. Two things. First, as has been said religion has alot to be criticised for so it makes sense that there would be more threads about it. Second, would you say the same thing about 13 out of 18 anti-nazi threads? Anti racist threads? Its irrelevant the number of threads that criticise anything, it matters if those criticisms are valid.

Deleted User

↪T Clark

Implying that the solution is for atheists and/or "anti-religious" people keep their mouths shut—simply because "you don't like it" .. Lol. This is not a Christian forum. If you want a bible study group then you are in the incorrect place. Pointing out that religious claims are unsound, illogical and nonsense is not "disrespectful". You claim to not be offended, yet are fine with the disallowance 'anti-religious' posts based off some random feelings of not liking what is being said, and only allowing for 'pro-religious' posts.

As I said, I don’t support segregation, but if that policy were to be implemented, I think that no anti-religious threads should be allowed here. Atheists and anti-religionists could respond with criticism to pro-religious posts, as long as the responses were consistent with the OP. They would not be able to start their own anti-religion threads. - T Clark

It is not difficult to read the rest of your posts what type of message you are attempting to get across. The example is in the OP and the ones below. You then go around calling out "atheists and anti-religious" for bad behavior while simultaneously making passive aggressive virtue signalling call-outs about random users, calling others hypocrites, self-righteous, etc. on forum dressed up to come off as 'civil'.

Again, you say "anti-religious" posts (whatever that is) contributes nothing to the forum, but what even is your anti-anti-religious post contributing here but a complaint about complaints?

T Clark

I have also witnessed atheists complaining about theists incessantly posting bible verse and scripture in an attempt to shut down a philosophical discussion or debate. — HarryBalsagna

Hello and welcome. You express yourself well, so doubly welcome. I think you'll find that the kinds of things you refer to above do not happen here much. There are a good group of moderators who try to balance between reasonable civility and quality on one side and freedom of expression on the other. Also, as I've noted in my posts on this thread, vocal theists are far outnumbered by atheists and other anti-religious posters - often very vocal and nasty.

While I agree with the sentiment that respect is important in furtherance of substantive discourse, I find it difficult to agree with things akin to "the oppression of Judeo-Christian thought". Thick skin is kind of a requisite to entering into a forum such as this. If you're not willing to have your ideas or beliefs challenged, perhaps this is not the right place for you... otherwise, let the moderators be the judge of what crosses the line. — HarryBalsagna

I agree. If you look at my other posts and threads, I think you'll see that I can dish it out and take it. I come here to have my ideas challenged. Otherwise, what's the point. I don't think that contradicts being respectful. Keeping in mind that, for me, civility and courtesy are a goal and not an accomplishment. I'm working on it.

T Clark

If you were antisocial more often, you'd probably be more fun. — S

We both probably used to be more fun.

Hello and welcome. You express yourself well, so doubly welcome. — T Clark

No, no, no. You're doing it all wrong. You need to be more vocal and nasty. What you should have said was, "Shut up and go away. You sound like a bloody idiot, so doubly go away".

The behavior of anti-religious posters

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions