So anyway, why do think that, for example, the religious belief that Jesus walked on water, or the religious belief that God hates fags, deserve special respect and tolerance over non-religious beliefs such as the non-religious belief that Jesus, being just a human, could not have walked on water, and the non-religious belief that homosexuals are just fine, and God doesn't hate them because God doesn't even exist? — S

Although many of my posts this morning have been facetious and sarcastic, I want to give this a serious answer.

Throughout history people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs. Tortured, killed, enslaved. Yes, I recognize that, in many cases, the persecution has come at the hands of followers of other religions. That is why the foundational protections for religious belief in the US Constitution are so important. The first amendment, the first and most important of the rights in the Bill of Rights, protects religious belief and freedom of speech. In truth, they are the same thing.

Rabid attacks by atheists on religion have a goal - to exclude religious believers and their values from public life. Not torture, death, or slavery - just disenfranchisement. It's worth resisting that goal.

I'm not unsympathetic to your position here because I have seen pointless injections of generally "religion sucks, religious people are stupid" sorts of non-sequiturs within otherwise interesting threads about religion. I have in mind those posters who do that, and my general response has been to cease responding to them. They offer very little to the debate. They strike me more as agenda driven, thinking they have arrived enlightened upon a village of idiots, delighting they can proclaim the emperor wears no clothes, as if anything they have to say isn't something already considered. — Hanover

Your approach is a good one. I try to follow it much of the time. This time I decided to take a more ....active hand. Look how well that's turned out for me.

As I said, I blame it all on the moderators, especially Baden.

This thread is not complaining about people expressing and arguing for their views. It's about those who troll such threads, with the intention of preventing the discussion of (what they see as) 'nonsense'. — Pattern-chaser

Actually, the only time the word "troll" appeared in this thread was when you used the term, meaning your position does not really appear to be the complaint of the OP. Your claim (which I don't see evidence of) is that the anti-religious posters are disingenuous and seek not to present their contrary views, but they are intentionally just trying to aggravate and annoy. What I believe is that the anti-religious crew truly believes that religion is antiquated nonsense that has wrought mostly ignorance and suffering onto the world and they wish to point that out when others try to offer support for religion. The problem is that many of the religious posts assume (even perhaps hypothetically) that the religious basis for the belief is valid and the discussion is far above those fundamental concerns, making repeated objections that religion sucks or is bullshit irrelevant.

If, though, you have identified a troll, flag the post, and it will get looked at. I don't know what else can be done.

Although many of my posts this morning have been facetious and sarcastic, I want to give this a serious answer.

Throughout history people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs. Tortured, killed, enslaved. Yes, I recognize that, in many cases, the persecution has come at the hands of followers of other religions. That is why the foundational protections for religious belief in the US Constitution are so important. The first amendment, the first and most important of the rights in the Bill of Rights, protects religious belief and freedom of speech. In truth, they are the same thing.

Rabid attacks by atheists on religion have a goal - to exclude religious believers and their values from public life. Not torture, death, or slavery - just disenfranchisement. It's worth resisting that goal. — T Clark

I don't think that that answers my question. You said that religious beliefs deserve special respect and tolerance, and the suggestion, given that you specified religious beliefs, is that they deserve special respect and tolerance over and above non-religious beliefs. Is that what you meant to suggest, or was your specific mention of religious beliefs redundant?

So yes, I think we need to be cautious around religious intolerance lest we end up with persecution, but we also need to accept that religions do seek to constrain the autonomy of those who may be too young or too meek to actually decide for themselves to follow their rules - we need to allow such people to express their anger over this without incidentally sweeping them up in the attitudes designed only to avoid persecution. — Isaac

As I've said elsewhere, my thoughts about segregating atheists were intended to be ironic. It's clear I muddled my message. What you've written makes sense.

I disagree that "all religious matters are bad philosophy." Tell that to the guys who invented philosophy. On the other hand, to "allow such people to express their anger" probably is bad philosophy. I acknowledge that means this whole thread is bad philosophy. I plead nolo contender.

I don't think that that answers my question. You said that religious beliefs deserve special respect and tolerance, and the suggestion, given that you specified religious beliefs, is that they deserve special respect and tolerance over and above non-religious beliefs. Is that what you meant to suggest, or was your specific mention of religious beliefs redundant? — S

Yes, I meant to say that religious beliefs deserve special respect and tolerance over and above non-religious beliefs.

Although many of my posts this morning have been facetious and sarcastic, I want to give this a serious answer.

Throughout history people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs. Tortured, killed, enslaved. Yes, I recognize that, in many cases, the persecution has come at the hands of followers of other religions. That is why the foundational protections for religious belief in the US Constitution are so important. The first amendment, the first and most important of the rights in the Bill of Rights, protects religious belief and freedom of speech. In truth, they are the same thing.

Rabid attacks by atheists on religion have a goal - to exclude religious believers and their values from public life. Not torture, death, or slavery - just disenfranchisement. It's worth resisting that goal. — T Clark

Wait. Let me give this a go. You're suggesting that, because the non-religious have been persecuted throughout history, and because the religious have been persecuted throughout history, and because religious zealots would silence criticism or expressions of nonconformity with their religion, and because militant atheists would silence religious expression, it is only the religious who deserve special treatment?

On the other hand, to "allow such people to express their anger" probably is bad philosophy. — T Clark

Yes, I too had somewhat mixed my messages and was referring here to society in general (as with religious tolerance) not philosophy forums, where both religious discussions and rants about how badly religions may have treated one do not really fit (though clearly we will have to agree to disagree about the former - amicably, though, I hope).

That is why the foundational protections for religious belief in the US Constitution are so important. The first amendment, the first and most important of the rights in the Bill of Rights, protects religious belief and freedom of speech. In truth, they are the same thing. — T Clark

Freedom of speech would include the right to call religious people motherfuckers though. Free speech is a shit throwing contest when it is being practiced most freely.

The Constitution only speaks to government interference in the free exercise of religion, not in prohibiting the Baptists from calling the Mormons heathens (or whoever might have a beef with one another).

Yes, I meant to say that religious beliefs deserve special respect and tolerance over and above non-religious beliefs. — T Clark

Nope.

Wait. Let me give this a go. You're suggesting that, because the non-religious have been persecuted throughout history, and because the religious have been persecuted throughout history, and because religious zealots would silence criticism or expressions of nonconformity with their religion, and because militant atheists would silence religious expression, it is only the religious who deserve special treatment? — S

I don't know. Do you have any candidates for other beliefs that might deserve special treatment?

Yes, I too had somewhat mixed my messages and was referring here to society in general (as with religious tolerance) not philosophy forums, where both religious discussions and rants about how badly religions may have treated one do not really fit (though clearly we will have to agree to disagree about the former - amicably, though, I hope). — Isaac

I can be amicable if I try.

Freedom of speech would include the right to call religious people motherfuckers though. Free speech is a shit throwing contest when it is being practiced most freely.

The Constitution only speaks to government interference in the free exercise of religion, not in prohibiting the Baptists from calling the Mormons heathens (or whoever might have a beef with one another). — Hanover

You are completely right. Call anyone a motherfucker you want. I won't call in the feds to have to stopped, but I might (or, more likely, won't) call in the moderators.

Do you have any candidates for other beliefs that might deserve special treatment? — T Clark

I'm no historian, but with what little knowledge I have, the only serious oppression I can think of perpetrated by atheists on the religious is Nazi Germany. All other cases of oppression have been one religion oppressing another, no?

Historically, the religious have definitely been guilty of oppressing atheists.

So, although Nazi Germany is definitely a bad enough period in history to make laws aimed solely at avoiding it, I'd answer your question by saying that historically, atheism is a belief which has a history of being persecuted and so deserves equal respect to religious beliefs.

Wait. Let me give this a go. You're suggesting that, because the non-religious have been persecuted throughout history, and because the religious have been persecuted throughout history, and because religious zealots would silence criticism or expressions of nonconformity with their religion, and because militant atheists would silence religious expression, it is only the religious who deserve special treatment? — S

Well there it is. The totally hypocritical position Clark holds, completely biased, perfectly illustrated. Well done, but of course it will have no effect whatsoever.

I'm no historian, but with what little knowledge I have, the only serious oppression I can think of perpetrated by atheists on the religious is Nazi Germany. All other cases of oppression have been one religion oppressing another, no? — Isaac

This is not true. Nazi Germany had religion mixed into their ideology. The Nazi party was endorsed by the church in Germany, and supported by the Vatican. Appeals were made to Christian beliefs and biblical references in the name of Nazi ideology. As Christopher Hitchens is fond of bringing up when people get this wrong, “God with us” was on the belt buckle of every Nazi uniform.
So Nazi Germany is actually a terrible example, you’d be better off going with Stalin but of course that was a state religion (like modern North Korea) so it doesnt work there either.

The US, in particular, was founded by people escaping from religious oppression. — T Clark

This is true, but the oppression was by not from those who were anti-religious. It was from those who held different religious beliefs. Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. That is why the first amendment begins:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...

It continues:

... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The greatest danger to religious freedom was religion. It is only when one is protected from religious hegemony that one is free to exercise religion according to his or her own beliefs.

Since you introduced an historical perspective, we need to go back further. A key player in the diminution of "Holy Wars" was Francis Bacon and the concept of tolerance. The holy wars that Bacon addresses were not between theists and atheists or Christianity versus Islam, but between different Christian sects.

Going back even further, it should never be forgotten that Socrates was accused and sentenced to death for his outspoken atheistic views. The pre-Socratic philosophers too were often accused of atheism. The tension between philosophy and religion can also be seen in Plato and Aristotle, although it is not always readily apparent since they learned from Socrates' example.

While I get the context - anti-religious is kind of an oxymoron. As religion is just a binding system of beliefs; meaning physics and chemistry and music are in essence religions.
And each one has its zealots. Really, just look at the fighting over Temple Mount - it's the same.

As to the issue posed, I agree that anti-religious posters being largely unfamiliar with the functions of what they criticise, perhaps unwittingly, often spout polemics and go on a tantrum.
And sometimes that may incite a standoff which degenerates the thread in question.

But I disagree with both of the proposed solutions.

Segregation is throwing out discussion in favour of a gang war.
Special treatment for 'theists' is also not a solution - they're not infants and if they're true 'theists' having their faith tested is not only natural, but a way to develop it. Your solution is essentially his, but one sided.

If folk overall would employ some patience and murmur less, maybe that'd be a step in the right direction.

Fair enough. As I said, my knowledge of modern history is not that exhaustive. I accept what you say about the 'state religion' of Stalinist Russia, but I don't think that is what T Clark had in mind, so perhaps that would make an adequate example. My main point was that atheists have almost never persecuted the religious whereas the opposite has definitely and frequently been the case, hence entitling atheism to at least the same level of protection. Hopefully my ignorance of the details from Nazi Germany hasn't altered the main point, I appreciate the correction.

I don't know. Do you have any candidates for other beliefs that might deserve special treatment? — T Clark

Sure, but that's beside the point. I'm not saying that there should be no beliefs which deserve special treatment of the kind that you're talking about. I'm saying that religious beliefs don't deserve that kind of special treatment over and above non-religious beliefs. In fact, not only do they not deserve special treatment in the sense of which you're speaking, some of them actually deserve to be strongly condemned, criticised, or made fun of, including the examples I put to you earlier.

Well I agree with that point, in fact Id add that the only people T Clark is NOT interested in protecting or making a special exemption for are the non-religious. Really, he just wants to exclude non-religious people and do so on the measure of the ones he has found obnoxious. This is precisely the same thing done by racists, bigots and the religious throughout history. A black guy raped my girlfriend, all black people are animals. This gay guys rainbow pants bother me, and he isnt even ashamed..fuck the gays!
And here we see the truest evil of religion, how it makes a virtue of the abominable, how a good man can do, say and believe something evil and not even notice...indeed carry on believing himself not only good but better than others for have doing so.
This is what company T Clark is keeping with his logic/reasoning...bigots, racist and religious fanatics. I fart in his general direction.

His mother was a hamster.

Evidently.

Since you introduced an historical perspective, we need to go back further. A key player in the diminution of "Holy Wars" was Francis Bacon and the concept of tolerance. The holy wars that Bacon addresses were not between theists and atheists or Christianity versus Islam, but between different Christian sects. — Fooloso4

I have acknowledged that much of the persecution of religious believers has come from believers in different religions. I don't see how that is relevant to the question at hand.

I'm not saying that there should be no beliefs which deserve special treatment of the kind that you're talking about. I'm saying that religious beliefs don't deserve that kind of special treatment over and above non-religious beliefs. — S

I disagree.

Using anger to thwart an opposing belief
Does nothing positive to provide a relief
But negatively shows the inability
To directly and completely counter the plea.

I disagree. — T Clark

Yeah, well, your father smelt of elderberries.

I'm no historian, but with what little knowledge I have, the only serious oppression I can think of perpetrated by atheists on the religious is Nazi Germany. All other cases of oppression have been one religion oppressing another, no? — Isaac

I also am no historian, but I think what you're saying is not correct. The various communist revolutions of the 20th century were inflicted by atheistic regimes intent on destroying the authority of religion. Tens of millions were killed, hundreds of millions were subjugated, although not just for religious reasons.

I am a historian.

Historians are better than the rest of you and know more and are right about everything. And this is the case whether they are religious or irreligious. And we are even nice to you ignorant peasants and don't insult you at all. This is called 'being civilised'.

These days, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, but back in the day, atheists were a particular target for the armchair and comfy cushions. So think of their tedious threads as reparations, and tick each one off as a karmic debt repaid.

Special treatment for 'theists' is also not a solution — Shamshir

I have no problem with criticism of religion. I don't even want there to be any official action against the worst perpetrators by the moderators. I just want to call them out on their misbehavior.