Evidently.

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.

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.

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.

Well said, though I wonder what exactly you mean by “a board like this”. You mean a philosophy forum, discussion forums in general or something specific to this forum in particular (that puts it in some other category than the two aforementioned ones)

I hear you loud and clear: threaten them with extreme violence. — S

:lol:

Good post.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Seems to be a general symptom of online discourse, I wouldnt say its just free will topics. Religion, antinatalism, etc
People just seem to doggedly trot out their pet topics regardless of its redundancy....and then people for some reason always support the new topic by responding and engaging.

So what is confusing you here? People claim that two objects cannot occupy the same space because it doesnt seem as though they can. Pretty simple.

...right, self important douchbags. Thats what I said.

Alright, I understand. It seems pretty strange to me to call for a law to be in place and follow that up with how meaningless the law is (“its not like they cant take matters into their own hands anyway”) but I understand how your looking at it.

Why do they know best? Are you saying that people (aside from your stated exceptions) who want to commit suicide are always mentally ill?
I guess what Im wondering now is whether or not you think someone can decide to commit suicide rationally, and why dying of cancer or whatever legal exceptions you accept are different than someone elses equally strong desire to die if you dont believe in “rational suicide”.

Lol, well I have a range of views and sometimes they line up with other peoples. *shrug* (not that the free speech stuff is something I agree with Terra on, Im not a free speech absolutist.)

Ive thought of the logical consequences yes, we probably mostly agree there. My issue is with the law part...when you make something a law it becomes a liberty issue. You are not at liberty to do certain things under the law, which is distinct from being at liberty to do them at all. (You are at liberty to kill someone if you can manage it, but not at liberty under the law to do so. Maybe thats not a distinction you make?)
So Im curious about why you think its important that it be the law that people can’t kill themselves...keeping in mind that I understand that some people might need help or are not thinking clearly...We should help them or get them thinking clearly but ultimately it should be up to them, not some authority. But you disagree with that so, why exactly? (In principal )

Lol, no...YOU dont know what Im talking about when I say it seems horrible to me. Im happy to clarify if you just ask.
So you keep focusing on framing and semantics for some reason, but not really addressing the actual question. Maybe Im coming off as adversarial? Im sincerely asking about your view here, not even trying to object to your view per say. My questions aren’t meant to lead you anywhere or entrap you or any of that typical internet shit.
Anyway, what seems horrible to me is the authoritarian nature of such a law, in the sense that an authority presumes to decide for someone else something that I consider a fundamental liberty. I know you may not agree, but that's what I mean.

Well I dont think we should rashly submit to what someone says, that's a straw-man. This “rash” business is all you, not me. I don’t think anything about deciding to kill oneself should be rash. (But I still wouldn't want it to be illegal to make rash decisions about your well being).
Anyway, I used the term “force” in the sense of enforcing the law. Its pointless to have a law that you cant enforce. Calling it a “law” is just postering at that point.
So what Im asking about is how you view the principal of...if you don’t like “forcing” we can use “lawfully coerce” or something, doesnt matter...the principal of lawfully coercing someone to live when theyd rather die. That is an authority (the law, or a medical professional you said as well) deciding something for someone against their will. Thats authoritarian. Now Im not saying all such authoritarianism is horrible, but rather in the particular case of deciding to kill oneself it seems horrible to me.

I understand your practical view here, but im interested in the principal. So I agree that we want t to persuade our loved ones, whomever that may include, not to kill themselves and try to work it out or whatever, but you mentioned legality. Thats much different, thats a state enforced law that forces someone against their will to live a life they dont want to live. That seems horribly authoritarian to me.
So aside from the obvious practical things you stated, what in principal are you operating with? Why do you think its ok to use force to prevent someone from checking out?

No, not simply if they want to. But I do support the legality of assisted suicide under the right circumstances, as per the laws in certain countries. — S

Why? What gives anyone the right to decide for someone else whether or not they are allowed to kill themselves? I understand about mental illness that might lead to suicide and how we would want to “save” that person, but if they don’t want help and just want to die...you want someone other than them to make that decision? A person cannot even die if they want to die? We gotta take that from them too?

Sure it is. Jump off a bridge, a tall building. Easy. If you are talking about the difficulty of going through with it then I submit your desire to not be alive is an illusion, brought upon by mental problems or a weak and whiny disposition. Have you considered that possibility?

Right, im just saying its not a problem. Why make it into one? It doesnt really matter regarding the point being made, and I cant imagine it preventing anyone from understanding the simple point being made. I dont see a problem.

Ok, but you are missing the point completely. Define religion however you want but if its different than how he defined it then he is obviously not talking about your/that religion. His point is specifically about religion as it pertains to a moral framework.

He is using it in a general way, talking about something common to most/all religions, a moral framework...what? Whats the problem?

You think people didnt have do’s and dont’s before religion?

I think what you are noticing is not the forums tolerance to low quality religious discussion, but rather to low quality discussion in general. The reason, I presume, is to build the forum by providing a platform for people interested in philosophy. You aren’t going to get very far with a heavy handed, elitist sort of attitude. If you want diverse discussion and a wide range of people its obviously not going to pay off to be intolerant of novice philosophers or people inexperienced with the format. (Or even just folks with poor quality thoughts).
People have different levels of quality they can bring, but that quality can never improve if those people are excluded. Anyway, I think that's what you are noticing, as its pretty clear the low quality isnt just restricted to religious topics.

Its a “dating” app. People use it to have casual sex.

Well most people are aware of the wrongness of sexual predation, thats not the same as being sexually liberated. Sure, awareness about sexual predation is at an all time high but there is also Tinder.
To your other points, I think that makes sense. I was more alluding to the social history of sex.

Maybe. What makes it more plausible? You think if there was no religion, sex wouldnt be one of the main “special” things for humans? I think its pretty plausible it wouldnt change much at all.

Sex is a huge part of the human psyche. So much of what people do and say and make rules for are based on the biological imperative to pass on genes, its no wonder it provokes such strong reactions in ethics.
I think alot of those old traditional sexual “ethics” come from religion in modernity. They are largely outdated, since its so much less necessary to control sex among the masses. Its just not a big a deal anymore, and thats why you get the sexual revolution and a much looser ethic in the growing generation.

What, as an atheist, would be a quality discussion about religion?

Just leave, no need to delete anything.

Right but it doesnt matter if someone reasons or not, right? People might do it, but they might not. Doesnt really matter to you does it?
Re ceding moral talk, what do you mean “go along with”? It cannot be correct or incorrect for them to talk about it however they want to right? If they feel like morals are objectively reasoned, thats not something they can be correct or incorrect about, is that right?

I didn't address that again because I'd say the same thing I said earlier ("People will reason from stances that they take to be foundational in a given instance (what people treat that way can change on different occasions)_._._._plus the three later paragraphs from that same post). So it's not that you abandon reason, but there can't be a stance that's wrong (alethically)/incorrect/mistaken etc. via reason. — Terrapin Station

There is no purpose to reasoning though, it doesnt matter how a person arrives at any ethical/moral position, or even that they make any attempt at all to make sense. If you arent concerned about being consistent with reason, in what way are you not abandoning it?
Re the illusion, the distinction that morality is something different than the way you feel is an illusion in your view right? Im not talking about the feelings themselves as being an illusion.

Lol, I knew that you would focus only on that one sentence. The rest of my post was meant to elaborate what exactly I was getting at. Lets address my “other words” instead, I should have been more careful with my words.
So do you abandon all reason and sense when ethics are involved?
And for the language, that doesnt explain why you wouldnt explain ethics/morality as an illusion. It seems like thats what you think other people have concerning morality/ethics.

I understand about foundational stances, but you are saying it doesnt need to at least be internally consistent? You think someone thats not making any sense at all is still valid in their moral views?? In other words, you abandon reason and sense as a standard for anything ethical/moral?
You always say morals are not something anyone can be right or wrong about, but if a person doesnt even need to make sense then isnt it more accurate to say you don’t believe morals exist rather than that they are based on anything (feelings)? If there is no distinction at all between feeling and morality, then why have you bothered to co-opt the language (use the terms of ethics/morals) at all? I would think you would describe morality as an illusion or somesuch instead.

Yes, I practice meditation and have spent alot of time in deep reflection which becomes habit while thinking.

Wait you dont think reason plays a part at all? That someone has a moral stance that is contradictory and illogical doesnt matter to you at all, cuz they cant be right or wring about such things? Is that right?