I dont agree that religious ideas are special, a bad idea is a bad idea even its something cherished by the person. — DingoJones

The US, in particular, was founded by people escaping from religious oppression. For that reason, protection of religion is built into the foundation and superstructure of our institutional protections, in particular our Constitution. I'm not saying we're the only ones that feel that way. And I'm not saying that religion shouldn't be criticized.

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. — DingoJones

It's hard to take your argument seriously when you completely misstate what I wrote.

would you say the same thing about 13 out of 18 anti-nazi threads? Anti racist threads? — DingoJones

There were none of those in the period I surveyed. Do you think that means everyone supports the Nazis and racists? Silly argument.

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". — S

@HarryBalsagna - let me introduce you to S. Please believe me - he's much better now than he used to be.

Without going into detail, I disagree with your characterization of what I said. Some of the things you attribute to me I never said, didn't imply, and don't agree with.

The US, in particular, was founded by people escaping from religious oppression. For that reason, protection of religion is built into the foundation and superstructure of our institutional protections, in particular our Constitution. I'm not saying we're the only ones that feel that way. And I'm not saying that religion shouldn't be criticized. — T Clark

Freedom of religion, not protection of religion. This is actually the quintessential example of what we are talking about here. If you can understand the difference, you will understand in what way you are wrong on this issue. I think that would help alleviate your mental anguish about this as well.

It's hard to take your argument seriously when you completely misstate what I wrote. — T Clark

Ya I spelled some words wrong too. Ill just have to find a way to live with myself.
Well I wasn't quoting you, that was the gist of what you said. You are acting as though thats not what you were saying but its in print. Someone bolded a quote from you where you said exactly that, so speaking of dishonesty and hypocrisy...

There were none of those in the period I surveyed. Do you think that means everyone supports the Nazis and racists? Silly argument. — T Clark

You missed my point entirely.

Freedom of religion, not protection of religion. — DingoJones

Protection of freedom of religion. 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.

Ya I spelled some words wrong too. Ill just have to find a way to live with myself.

Well I wasn't quoting you, that was the gist of what you said. You are acting as though thats not what you were saying but its in print. Someone bolded a quote from you where you said exactly that, so speaking of dishonesty and hypocrisy... — DingoJones

Without going line by line, you mischaracterized what I wrote.

Lol, wow.

What a literally insane thread.

I'm an atheist and I don't think my views towards the religious are amicable but that doesn't mean I stand behind every anti-theist and their attitudes and reasoning. Every position is also held by an idiot but when you take the words of an idiot and characterise it as those of "anti-religious posters" you're not distinguishing between the idiot and the group. I find the same thing true of anti-religious posters, they look for worst examples of religious ignorance and then purposely fail to distinguish between the religious idiots and the religious people who aren't idiots.

Regardless of what your intent was and whether or not you dislike anti-theism/religious sentiment, you should have gone about this a different way. The valid criticism many of the posters have given - and harsher criticism which hasn't been given yet wouldn't be valid if you had focused on the undue hostility and prejudiced behaviour of the posters rather than focusing on the anti-religious content of their posts.

EDIT: I am going to say tbh, I may have projected my feelings about some of the threads and posters here onto you. The guy in your OP may be an idiot but he's innocent of undue hostility and prejudiced behaviour lol. Philosophy forums are always the same, people argue about free will, religion and morality more than anything else. I dislike all three topics by now since I've already argued on them many times before.

Ya, you are being dishonest here. At best, you arent communicating what you mean properly but now youre acting as though its some sort of dishonesty on my part? Plus you ignored any points Ive made so far and instead focused on cherry picking and evading.
I feel like ive been fairly polite, more polite than you perhaps, but I think what you are doing is so much worse. I was trying to have a genuine discussion on your topic, and in return you have (presumably) allowed your anger and annoyance to taint that attempt...as a result its clear to me a discussion is not what you were after here.
So Ill do you the courtesy of reading any response you care to give as the last word but I think we are done here.

Regardless of what your intent was and whether or not you dislike anti-theism/religious sentiment, you should have gone about this a different way. The valid criticism many of the posters have given - and harsher criticism which hasn't been given yet wouldn't be valid if you had focused on the undue hostility and prejudiced behaviour of the posters rather than focusing on the anti-religious content of their posts. — Judaka

I haven't yet seen any criticism of my posts that I consider valid. Most of the people who have responded have mischaracterized what I wrote. Maybe that means I wasn't clear enough, but I don't think that's it. I think they're responding to what a typical anti-atheist might write and not what I wrote myself.

I'm going back and forth about your suggestion that I focus on bad behavior rather than religious content. I think that's too diffuse an issue for me to go after. My thoughts came into focus specifically around @god must be atheist's proposal that pro-religion posters should be segregated. I just took his idea and carried it to what I consider it's reasonable conclusion. 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.

\

I haven't yet seen any criticism of my posts that I consider valid. Most of the people who have responded have mischaracterized what I wrote. Maybe that means I wasn't clear enough, but I don't think that's it. I think they're responding to what a typical anti-atheist might write and not what I wrote myself. — T Clark

No. We're responding to exactly what you've said. It's just the ginormous chip on your shoulder that's hindering you from realizing it.

So Ill do you the courtesy of reading any response you care to give as the last word but I think we are done here. — DingoJones

You and I see things differently. I have been polite. I haven't been angry. I don't think I said you've been dishonest. I did say you mischaracterized what I wrote. I think that was a misunderstanding on your part, not an intentional act.

You're right. It doesn't look like you and I are going to make any progress.

It is a thread to discuss the disruptive and disrespectful behavior of atheists and anti-religious posters on this thread. — 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'. ;-)

No. We're responding to exactly what you've said. It's just the ginormous chip on your shoulder that's hindering you from realizing it. — Artemis

I've gone back through all the posts you've made on this thread. There is not a specific criticism about anything I actually said.

I haven't been angry. — T Clark

4) It pisses me off. — T Clark

Okay then.

You read it wrong then.

1. I gave an opinion to your discussion about the segregation idea. As in, it's stupid.

2. I pointed out that you are wrong to attribute sole responsibility to atheists. To which you basically responded that you'll make exceptions for theists acting like jerks, because....what? they were "triggered" by some OP that I didn't write?

3. I pointed out that your "evidence" isn't actually evidence. Last two weeks? Is that really a statistically meaningful sample size? And what does "anti-religious" even mean to you? Because you've also admitted to including free will discussions and stuff--so basically you just don't want there to be any secular discussions whatsoever.

Someone else pointed this out already, but if you want a Bible Study Group, I'm sure you can find one easily through Google or even in person in your area.

The first forum I signed up to was the Dawkins forum. That was an absolutely seething hotbed of 'fear of religion'. — Wayfarer

I started out there too. That and the Brights. The most wonderful misnomer in the history of self-aggrandizement. That's where a lot of my feelings for atheism came from.

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. I generally avoid religious discussions. I don't think I have much to offer. Lately there is a new crop of anti-religion posters who put out especially virulent, mean spirited threads. Not just one or two, but one after another after another. It wears me down and I think it damages the forum. I definitely don't want the moderators to get involved. I think almost all of the posts that bother me are within the standards presented in the guidelines. So, I'm trying this instead.

I think you're the one who mischaracterised what you wrote, you should have decided to go after unnecessary and unhealthy persistent aggression towards a group. You introduced a number of topics without intending to and you're arguing with people as if you didn't bring them up but you did. The very title would have set many people against you from the start - you led them to expect that you're going to be complaining about anti-religious posters rather than 1) this segregation idea or 2) the way in which some anti-religious posters are going about expressing their anti-religious ideas.

I thought the direction you were going to be going in was against "Gnostic Christian Bishop" who literally spams threads about God being a cunt. A ban on him would be nice, make it happen T Clark.

Not just one or two, but one after another after another. It wears me down and I think it damages the forum. — T Clark

I do see your point. I often tell myself, 'that's it for forums'. But I guess it's become part of my daily routine, and there are worthwhile discussions.

Someone asked the other day what is the difference between philosophy of religion and theology. It's a good question, and I think this forum ought to enable the former, and discourage the latter. Philosophy of religion is philosophical analysis of religious doctrines, and doesn't make assumptions for or against. Whereas theology implicitly assumes a faith commitment.

I used to post on DharmaWheel forum and part of their ToS was 'no proselytizing'. I think that could be profitably added to this forum. There are a couple of posters (one in particular) who would be immediately booted (and should be) under that guideline, but I can't see that clause in the ToS.

As for a lot of the anti-religious posters, I have to ignore them. Not because I'm an evangelical, but they're what I call 'spiritually illiterate' - they don't even know what it is they're negating most of the time. It's like 'I don't know much about Modern Art, but I know what I don't like'. ;-)

I used to post on DharmaWheel forum and part of their ToS was 'no proselytizing'. I think that could be profitably added to this forum. — Wayfarer

Proselytizing is a difficult thing to determine. T Clark previously said:

"I'm not speaking for anyone. In my experience, many atheists don't see what they do when they try to win people over to their way of seeing things as preaching, they see it as rational discussion." -T Clark

Which implies that no matter what anyone says about religion, no matter how good of faith they are employing to stay within rational discussion, it's just proselytizing in his view.

Proselytizing is a difficult thing to determine. — Artemis

Agree. It's a difficult thing that, with all the best will in the world, people are going to have some fundamental disagreements about these kinds of issues. But there's at least one poster here at the moment who is basically advertising for converts to an alternative religious movement. That is the kind of thing I had in mind by 'proselytizing'.

I am generally more to the 'spiritual-idealist' end of the ledger, but at the same time, I don't think a philosophy forum is the place to wield Biblical verses as an argument. One may from time to time refer to them as illustrative of a moral maxim and the like, but I would draw the line at Christian apologists posting them as part of an argument.

The other point is to try and avoid sarcasm and being dismissive. I used to be like that, and especially in this subject, it is a very easy thing to fall into. But I think you have to put your case as best you can, and then past a certain point, simply desist.

I think you're the one who mischaracterised what you wrote, you should have decided to go after unnecessary and unhealthy persistent aggression towards a group. You introduced a number of topics without intending to and you're arguing with people as if you didn't bring them up but you did. The very title would have set many people against you from the start - you led them to expect that you're going to be complaining about anti-religious posters rather than 1) this segregation idea or 2) the way in which some anti-religious posters are going about expressing their anti-religious ideas. — Judaka

Whether or not I agree with your characterization, I must admit this hasn't been a very useful discussion, at least from my point of view. Again, it wasn't my intention to just go against "unhealthy persistent aggression." You're right though, just arguing about whether I actually said what they said I said is not the sign of an effective discussion.

I think you are right about that Gnostic dude, he is proselytising and I think this forum actually does have a rule against that doesnt it? I posted right after he started yet another one and asked if we were tired of this yet...no response from the mods so I guess not.

I looked into the ToS last night (specifically in relation to this) and couldn't see anything, but it was on my iPhone. But I couldn't see anything.

I am generally more to the 'spiritual-idealist' end of the ledger, but at the same time, I don't think a philosophy forum is the place to wield Biblical verses as an argument. One may from time to time refer to them as illustrative of a moral maxim and the like, but I would draw the line at Christian apologists posting them as part of an argument. — Wayfarer

I guess I have to think about that one a little more and whether I think it's proselytizing to quote Scripture in an argument.

I do think it's senseless, though, when you're talking to an atheist or someone who doesn't believe in your religious text.

I will say that it was only a few months ago (6 maybe?) where the opposite was the case. These sorts of discussions just roll in and out in favor of atheism and in favor of theism. Maybe annoying, but hey -- it's a forum, and we're all in different places with respect to these topics. So even if they may be a bit tiring to some, some people feel the need to talk about them too.

Good post.

Neither Theism Nor Atheism Can Prove

Invisibles can neither be shown nor not,
So, one’s ‘agnostic’ toward the belief or not,
No matter the 'sure things' dishonestly said;
Thus, none can teach the belief as true or not.

:up:

To shut someone up would be like sewing up a goose's ass. It's intent is stop unwanted and harmful things from seeing the light of day but it's just too risky - the goose that laid golden eggs

So, how to address this admittedly relatively minor problem? — T Clark

The way I resolve it is by not reading the threads that are titled in a way which seem to poke at those who maintain a religious faith. It's been a long time since I've had a religious faith, but I have very little interest in reading or sharing ideas with iconoclasts.

What I don't want them to do is to stop talking about what they believe to folks who will listen. It is only by talking and talking (and sometimes taking the time to insult those who they feel have too much control over their environment) that they may work out their issues.

They do me the favor of labeling their threads in a way which telegraphs a certain contempt.

Isn't the solution of supporting multiple threads (as this forum currently does) sufficient to task?