Do Atheist and Christians on DU need to reach a peace accord?

[Perky]

Poll question: Do Atheist and Christians on DU need to reach a peace accord?

After many years of fighting this batle...my suspicion is that no one has moved to the other camp and not one caught in the crossfire has been moved one way or another. It is a stalemate. So the question is there value in reaching across the divide, shaking hands buying each other a beer and moving on?

No one of us on either side is worn down by the daily dust-ups and it is never going to end.

IS there value in calling for a ceasefire?

If you are adamanf and would seriously consider a ceasefire Please PM me.

[zanne]

1. Don't shove it in my face and I won't shove it in yours.

We have a religion forum for those who would like to praise Jesus and an Atheist/Agnostic forum for those who would not like to praise Jesus. There's absolutely no need to discuss religious matters otherwise. I suggest that we all agree that there are such things as ethics and morals and everybody has those, so we don't need to apply Christian, Muslim, Jewish or other labels to anything. We can argue about what's right and wrong without applying religion.

[baldguy]

12. Bingo. Religion is a matter of personal choice.

The old saying is that when people get together they should avoid talking about religion & politics.
But DU exists for people talk politics. And we've got the religion forums to talk about religion.

[Perky]

18. or athiesm?

[TexasProgresive]

29. I seldom look at the religion/theology forum because

as soon as someone posts a serious topic the rabid naysayers chime in and destroy the thread. Maybe the moderator for that forum needs to treat posters that are only there to ridicule as they do freepers.

[More Than A Feeling]

36. What are you saying?

What does it mean to be a "serious" topic anyway, and what counts as "mockery"? Who are "rabid naysayers" and why aren't they "serious"?

Can't one be serious and ridicule someone else at the same time, as you are doing right now?

[TexasProgresive]

37. You have a funny idea of what ridicule means.

I ridiculed no one.

[More Than A Feeling]

38. Do you not recognize that to characterize someone as a "rabid naysayer"

is ridicule, or even that impugning the motives of posters as "only there to ridicule" is itself ridicule?

[PurpleChez]

49. You're totally off base

If the post had unfairly characterized specific people or posts as "rabid naysayers" or "only there to ridicule" you would have been 100% justified to call him/her on it. But, as I read it, the post only contended that such posts/posters exist. I would find it a bit disingenuous to suggest that they don't, on all sides.

[LoZoccolo]

2. Once upon a time on DU...

...one of the admins went around to the various interest forums surrounding religion on DU and tried to hammer out such a thing, and I think specifically ask that they not use the specific forums for discussing tactics to be used in the more general forums like General Discussion. The Christian group was fine with it, the alternate paths group was fine with it...every group was fine with it except one. The showdown with the admin defiantly escalated until one of them was tombstoned, and a bunch of the others go around with her avatar in their signatures as a testament of how they do not like certain rules intended for promoting civility on DU.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Here you go...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=263&topic_id=11115&mesg_id=11115

[SidDithers]

42. Looks like civil discussion to me...nt

Sid

[CarbonDate]

71. Dredging up old dirt that had nothing to do with you?

Good for you. That was a year and a half ago. Yes, some of us had a disagreement with the Admins. We've moved on. Was it really necessary to dig that up again? Or were you hoping to kick up some residual ill feelings in order to provoke us?

[LoZoccolo]

6. More...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=263&topic_id=11400

[SidDithers]

43. Looks like more civil discussion here too...nt

Sid

[LoZoccolo]

8. And another...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=263&topic_id=11400

[SidDithers]

45. And this links to the same thread as in #6...

so I'm not sure what your point is. Perhaps free-thinking atheists are just more used to questioning authority, and asking for reasons, rather than blindly following a dogma presented to them.

Sid

[WhollyHeretic]

13. on edit I don't want to continue a locked flamewar

Have a good weekend

[LoZoccolo]

14. Yes, I do think before I post.

For example, I had to think of what search terms to use in order to dig up all these old posts.

I'm just saying that I am doubtful that it will happen, for a specific and documented reason.

[Goblinmonger]

106. Yeah, it's all the atheists fault

cause that thread you linked to several times shows atheists as uncontrolled buffoons who do nothing but throw poo at Skinner.

Give me a break. Believe what you want to believe about what happens in here.

[Broadslidin]

3. Astrology, Channeling, Mysticism, Crystals, Occult Christian Philosophies.....

"I went down into the garden of nuts
to see the fruits of the valley..."
Song of Songs 6:11

[RC]

7. You don't say much,, but when you do...

:thumbsup:

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. Bless you for this poll ...

:rofl:

But if you seriously propose a cease-fire, you'll just start another flame war between religious pacifists and enthusiasts.

:popcorn:

[PurpleChez]

9. I was raised Lutheran but my current sympathies lay along Buddhist lines

I don't come here as a Christian apologist by any means, but I still have a great respect and fondness for my Christian upbringing. Despite growing up in a very white-bread, mainstream church we were never taught to hate anybody, never taught that our faith made us better than anybody else or gave us the right to bend them to our will. We learned fellowship and stewardship. Perhaps thirty years after the fact I remember how gay couples were welcomed into our congregation without a second thought. Although I am no longer a believer in any orthodox sense of the word, 'church' did nothing but good for me. So I bristle when posters make blanket condemnations of all persons of faith, mocking them as being deluded believers in a "cosmic sky daddy" or whatever, forgetting that the list of believers includes many of our great Democratic heroes and just about every figure in the civil rights movement. To paint Martin Luther King and Fred Phelps with the same brush is absolutely inexcusable. What really galls me is when folks imply (or exply, if that's a word...if not it should be...) that it's okay when THEY level sweeping insults at others because, after all, THEY are right. When the fundies say things like that we all have conniption fits. I say: call a truce, agree that one can be a person of conscience whether or not one is a person of faith, and unite against our common enemy....

[Lars39]

10. This is a continuation of the flamewar that Skinner just locked.

And he locked *both* threads.

[Perky]

15. This poll is nuetral and the OP is voting for a ceasefire.

[Lars39]

20. The timing of your poll negates that.

[Perky]

21. Why?

:shrug:

[Lars39]

23. Reread Skinner's locking statements.

[Mark E. Smith]

11. A cage match would be kind of cool

I mean, if they want to fight at least it should have a chance of being interesting.

[Perky]

17. The cage match on GD has been going on since DU started

No one would ever admit tob being tired and we could continue to slug away..but no one has a knock out punch and no one has a glass jaw.....I am fora calling it a draw.

[WinkyDink]

16. WTH cares? This is a political board.

[MoonRiver]

19. I am a "New Age" Christian, and have NO negative feelings toward atheists

I just don't get the intolerance. It makes me mad.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[robcon]

24. Did I miss something?

Have there been any anti-atheist posts on DU? I can't recall ever reading any.

Anti-Christian, and anti-believer posts are legion on DU. I think that's regrettable.

Can anyone help me out? Have there been any anti-atheist threads or posts on DU? There have been numerous reactions to virulent anti-Christian posts, but can anyone point out a post where atheists are ridiculed? or atheists' beliefs excoriated?

[Perky]

26. hey can you do me a favor and delete your question

I do not disagre with you but I am trying generate some support for an accord and I fear your pose would put some people on offense or defense and it would quickly spiral into another flame war.

Sorry.

[mudesi]

46. Yes. Yours.

Your tone is anti-atheist in the sense that you imply atheists have been flooding DU with anti-Christian/believer posts.

My objective observation has been that whenever a non believer insults a fundamentalist, legions of believers take over the thread with offense. For example, when a news story comes out about a pharmacist who doesn't prescribe birth control pills, and a non believer mocks said pharmacist, Christians will respond to the thread and accuse the atheist of using a "broad brush", and of being disrespectful to them, when the atheist was only being disrespectful the the pharmacist.

I've also observed that many of those Christians disagree with the pharmacist's actions, but for some reason feel that an attack on him is also an attack on them, simply because they share the same religious beliefs.

[PurpleChez]

50. The post made no such implication.

[robcon]

63. Objective observation??????

lynyrd-skynyrd wrote :"My objective observation has been that whenever a non believer insults a fundamentalist, legions of believers take over the thread with offense."

How the hell did you get an objective view of things? Talk about over-reaching. Are you a god?

But since you didn't answer my question, I assume you can't remember or find any anti-atheist threads on DU.

[mudesi]

65. I am not a donor

Thus I can't use the search feature. But here is a recent one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=487519&mesg_id=487519">Here is an example of a thread where the OP derided a Christian store owner who did not give him the price of an item. The Christian implied that the OP should trust that the price is fair simply because the store is owned by a Christian. You will notice a number of people who took it personally, as if the OP was attacking them, not the obviously condescending and elitist store owner.

The fact that you feel there is no anti-atheist sentiment on DU shows a total lack of your objectivity in the matter, not mine. Your reply to this thread takes on an anti-atheist tone itself.

[Perky]

105. It was a very interesting thread

But if you look at the dialog that emanate from it there were question abouit motivations for challenging the owner and for posting the encounter on DU. Many of the respondant fanned the flames... by dissing all Chrsirian Businesses and others responde by asking question or retaliating with flames of their own. Undortunately OP vanished from the thread timeline fro quiet some time. leaving it to others to flame back and forth.

[varkam]

59. Wha?

You must not hang around here very often.

[NMMNG]

67. I'm always amazed at how many times I read this here

Have there been any anti-atheist posts on DU? I can't recall ever reading any.

Maybe it's because you aren't the recipient of the abuse that you don't see it, or perhaps it's just because anti-atheist slurs have been so accepted over history that nobody gives them a second thought when they come across them.



Atheists are "mentally challenged"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=64719&mesg_id=64933

Atheists are selfish people who don't give to charities or help the needy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=117478#117574
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=117478#117556
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=117478#117566



Then there are the routine posts claiming that one could not possibly be moral without a belief in God, and the ones stating emphatically that the Bible is the only source of morality.


Read more carefully in the future. The attacks against atheists are out there.

[Goblinmonger]

107. Give me a break

donate to the site and get a star so you can search and then look for the discussion of the rawstory editorial about whackjob atheists. Look at some of the atheist-lovin that came out of that. Look up stories about Newdow, the pledge, the Utah crosses, and see what you find.

Though I'm afraid YOU will just see good old fashion discussion with atheists being all uppity and rude by speaking out.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

25. Two things need to happen:

1) The religious NEED TO ACCEPT that not every thread glorifies religon; in fact, many don't. Atheists are not making fun of you when they say that they find religion a mad delusion, as a great many of them do see it as; they are talking about how belief does not work for them. They have a right to talk about how they dislike religion and its constructs and not be trampled into the ground for being "mean." Grow some skin.

2) Atheists need to be willing to let some discussions on religion, among religious people of different stripes, go on in R/T. Yes, everyone knows about the different groups for "circle-jerking," but R/T isn't just a place for the religious/nonreligious to mingle; it's also a place for people of different religions to mingle and discuss the tenets of their different faiths. If you see a lively thread blossoming that compares, say, Buddhism and Hinduism, there's no need to go barging in and question the "truth" of either faith.

I think R/T was intended to be a forum for objective religious discussions. That means not only comparing having faith with having no faith, but also comparing different faiths. I used to hang around R/T a lot more because I thought I might be able to discuss different religions in a very objective, fascinated sort of way. Silly, silly me.

[Warpy]

27. How about mutual RESPECT?

No truce is going to happen without that.

Respecting Christians means not defining their belief system as a bunch of fairy stories anywhere but in the atheist group.

Respecting atheists would be to allow them to define themselves, to listen, to respect that definition, and to stop trying to define them in terms of belief. Well, anywhere but in the Christian group.

Respect means not intruding into either group's forum to proselytize, accuse, start fights, or attempt to redefine someone else in one's own terms.

Remember, we don't have to understand each other. That's not our job.

We have to respect each other, even each other's right to be wrong.

:evilgrin:

[Perky]

32. that would be a start but I also thing there is a type of discussion that gets missed.

If you look at the majority of the relgiously tainted posts on GD it is poking fun or excorriaitng things that fundies do. I thin that is fair game except that on occassion it lurches very quickly into a loss of specificity and becomes another flame war abot people of faith and too broad a brush being used. that turns into a deabte about religious faith being expressed in the public square and that it where the lefties get their hackles up.

truc has got to deal with that sort of cycle as well...

Maybe a room that discusses the role of religion in the public square? AL poste that go down that road could be moved there.

[mudesi]

44. But by definition, that is not possible

Respecting Christians means not defining their belief system as a bunch of fairy stories anywhere but in the atheist group.

See, that's the problem right there. The very definition of atheism is just that - As an atheist, one sees a Christian's belief system as a bunch of fairy tales. There is literally no way to avoid offending a Christian when someone has that view. Hence, the flamewars.

As someone who believes in God, but is against the human institution that is organized religion, I take no offense to an atheistic view. I do not believe that Jesus ascended bodily from the dead, or that he walked on water, or that he turned water into wine. These beliefs are utterly illogical and unrealistic with what we know through science today. To me, they are fairy tales invented by the early formation of people who called themselves "Christians" over 2000 years ago.

But to a fully fledged, practicing Catholic (for example), the atheist's view is offensive, no matter how "respectful" the atheist is attempting to be. The very act of not believing in the fairy tale is inherently disrespectful.

[Warpy]

47. Too bad you didn't see fit to post the rest of the sentence

which was the point.

[China_cat]

28. The only peace accord acceptable to the christians

would be for the atheists to fuck off and die. And if they wouldn't be that accomodating, to at least keep their mouths shut and let the christians have everything they want.

[Perky]

30. Not true

Oddly I think that would be the position held by atheists. but I am willing to put asid my assumptionm to reach a place of tolerance respect and greater civility

[China_cat]

31. Ok, tell me what you'd do or say

if I used the 'no religion' or 'trash religion' graphics as an avatar and 'don't include me in your delusions' as a sig line?

Your cross and 'have a blessed day' are exactly the same and you know you'd bitch to high heaven if someone used what I suggested...would complain that you're being persecuted.

[Perky]

34. I think it is fine for you to broadcast your beliefs

The problem, and it works bot ways is when it bleads into intolerance of other beliefs.

Do you think there is symmetry with "trash religion" and "have a blessed day"?

[China_cat]

53. I've made my point.

[Perky]

54. and now you lost me....

:shrug:

[China_cat]

55. My mention of avatars or sig lines that I COULD use

(but don't), you consider offensive and unfair but I shouldn't consider yours offensive and unfair.

I rest my case.

[Perky]

62. But you see I would never ever put in my avatar that I am anti-Atheist

Because your beliefs are none of ny business and I would bever feel comfortable saying publiclay that Athiest are wrong. My nature is to buld bridges.

my avatar is an afrirmation of what I hold true and should not be interpreted as somehow wayinf I am better. I would not have the slightest tension in an athiest putting up an avatar that spoke to what they believe. The tension only comes when the avatar ridicules someone else's beliefs.

Or is atheism, at its core, about mistrust of religionists rathere than rejecting the concept of God?

[China_cat]

74. but you would push your religion on me

your avatar ridicules the fact that I find no evidence of any gods of any kind. If your 'faith' is so strong why the need to push it in everyone else's face? Will it crumble if you don't have to announce to everyone that you are first of all a christian? And (borrowed from another place) what possible difference does it make to your life or afterlife if I don't believe what you do?

It has nothing to do with 'rejecting the concept of god'. There just is no evidence for entities of that type.

[Perky]

76. But that is not the inttent og my avatar

It is to affirm my faith.

[kiahzero]

77. Is mine ridiculing you too?

Do you just have this reaction to crosses, or is the mere presence of any religious symbol "pushing it in your face?"

[China_cat]

78. I don't understand why it is so essential that religion

be the FIRST thing people see about you.

[kiahzero]

80. Because it's a large component of some people's personalities

The Sacred Chao (mu) that I have as my avatar certainly says quite a bit about me. :shrug:

[China_cat]

81. And we wouldn't see that without it being pushed in our faces?

Example; Jimmy Carter. No christian fish, no fishhook lapel pins, no outward signs of his religion, not even 'hi I'm a christian'. But you know it when he talks, when he acts, in everything he does...without ever mentioning it.

As far as I can see, if you have to talk it, you ain't walking it.

[kiahzero]

82. How is it being "pushing in your face?"

The mere presence of a religious symbol, anywhere, is "pushing it in your face?"

[China_cat]

83. Because it is a precursor to condemnation or prosylitizing.

[kiahzero]

85. That's a rather large leap of logic.

It doesn't seem to be supported by explanation of how A implies B, either.

[China_cat]

87. No leap of logic. Experience

[kiahzero]

88. Don't you think that's awfully prejudicial?

You're arguing, in spite of the available evidence, that Perky is trying to proselytize to you, on the basis that other Christians who wear a cross proselytize to you. In other words, you're letting your past experiences blind you to present circumstances.

[Perky]

91. I have no doubt that the imagery you have is valid in your experience

and valid in a larger historical or cultral sense. But it is not the only image a cross should evoke.My question is what can be done---what would you like to see-- in order to move at least into a multiple image of what the cross means. I am looking for reflective dialog here.

My personal reflection on the avatar you might wish to present is that a "no religion: avatars is ok because you are entitled to that belief. I would have more cocerns if the image/avatar poked fun or ridiculed CHristians for what they believe. I say chioefly because I don't see the cross as poking fun or ridiculing athiest. It may challenge or irritate you the way a "no religion' avatar might challenge or irritate me, but a Cross is not in and of itselg ridiculing and ardent atheistic belief.

[Perky]

92. ok...but here is the thing

and I am willing to be corrected on this point. Can you point me to a post on DU that was abjectly proselytitical (if that's a word)? I would never dream of doing that in the context of DU.

Is the first step in an accord an agreement that proselytizing on DU is inherantly "bad form", diserepectful of DU's pluralistic underpinnings and should carry a heavy penalty? I would be fine with that. But I do not think it occurs much if at all.

[kiahzero]

93. There's one guy that posts here in R/T to proselytize sometimes.

Aside from that one person (who, interestingly, doesn't have a cross avatar), I haven't seen anyone else doing it.

[Perky]

94. That is very unfortunate

PM me who that is.. if you do not mind. I have typically stayed in GD and I have never seen it there.

[opiate69]

96. Hmm.. here's one right next to this very thread..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=116950&mesg_id=116950

[JerseygirlCT]

101. No, no it's not

And there's where you go terribly off track.

You're making great huge assumptions -- assumptions that are based on stereotypes you wish to hold (that all religious people are out to convert you, etc.).

That's always unfair.

If or when someone here actually does do that -- then deal with that person and that situation.

Don't broadcast your fears and biases to entire groups of people who've never done you any harm.

[JerseygirlCT]

100. That's right, you don't

And that's fine.

But for those who ARE religious, that may very well be the most important aspect of their personality, the part they most wish to emphasize to others.

Why should you take that as some sort of personal insult?

[JerseygirlCT]

99. Is a statement of belief from one person now considered

pushing that belief on others?

By the same token, you shouldn't be allowed to state your own position.

Sure, that way no one gets upset, but no one talks, either.

Is that really where you want to go?

There's a big difference between a statement of belief (for example the cross avatar) and the idea that merely using such an avatar "ridicules the fact" that you find no evidence of gods of any kind.

You're making a mighty big jump there. And one that is very stifling of free speech, I might add.

[China_cat]

79. I need to add that I find

the 'concept of (a) god or gods' just as valid as I do the concept of Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, pixies, nixies, leprechauns, unicorns, werewolves, vampires and zombies. All concepts in the realm of the imaginary are valid. But, until there is evidence for any one of them, that is still the only place they are valid.

[JerseygirlCT]

98. That would be my question, too

I think there's a difference between stating -- even passionately -- your own beliefs, and trashing someone else's.

[MistressOverdone]

41. I have to admit

that I don't see the parallel between the two, but YOU do, so that is the issue.

I would have no problem with the avatars you describe, and in fact, I've seen similar ones. The whole FSM is basically an in-your-face for believers, but I happen to think it is funny.

I have a cross in my avatar, a Celtic cross. It is both illustrative of my beliefs and my culture/heritage. It isn't intended to divide. I thought that is what avatars were..things that are important to us. So I say go for it! Say what you want! Don't anticipate what others might say or do. If the mods who run the place think it is over the line for the standards of this site, and they have their guidelines, they'll let you know.

[kiahzero]

70. The FSM is really more directed at creationism than anything else.

It can sometimes be used to ridicule theists, but I don't think it was really intended that way in the first place. :shrug:

[cyborg_jim]

89. Um, it pretty much takes the basic magical thinking and ancient storytelling mythos

And follows all the 'rules' of religion whilst doing so in a completely insane way.

If you're big on dismissing the FSM whilst embracing Moses wrestling god on a mountain then it's mocking you.

[kiahzero]

90. That may be what it has come to mean to some

But the creator intended it to be satire demonstrating the foolishness of Intelligent Design.

[kiahzero]

69. Really?

A fair comparison might involve something along the lines of the American Atheists logo in your avatar and something nice but secular in your sig.

If you really feel like the mere presence of a cross as someone's avatar would be equivalent to yours saying "Trash Religion," I have to go apologize to a lot of conservatives, because I always swore up and down they were inventing strawmen when they talked about people actually believing things like that. :shrug:

[China_cat]

75. Oh right.

Get all kinds of shit for a simple sig line saying 'I'm looking for a non-prophet religion' or even the one I use now and then get back to me.

[MistressOverdone]

40. Hmmm

I certainly don't want the atheists to "fuck off and die." Nor do I want them to let the Christians have everything they want. (not quite sure what I want, actually, that is so different than non-believing DU'ers..I think our commonalities outweigh our differences in most areas.)

I think in so many cases in this 'war' folks are talking at and past each other, and few are listening TO each other.

I have read quite a few times here on DU about people not wanting beliefs "shoved" down their throats. It might surprise some non-believers to understand that Christians in liberal denominations (as I am) are often the brunt of this shoving. Not long ago I met a woman in a professional situation who mentioned her church, and I mentioned mine and she asked me which one I attended. When I told her, I heard all about the evils of infant baptism, gay ordination, yada, yada, yada. AND I got an invitation to attend her church with her. Sometimes you just smile, nod, and vacate ASAP. And I did so.

[JerseygirlCT]

97. You know, that's not only ignorant, but really insulting

Do you think you could provide some back up for that claim?

Don't do that. It's unfair, and it's hurtful.

Try taking that giant chip off your shoulder and relating to the people here according to how they treat you -- relate to them as individuals.

Stereotyping isn't a good thing, regardless of who is doing it.

[xchrom]

33. hey perky! -- there you are --

i've missed you in the lounge.

good to see you around.

:hi:

[Perky]

35. Yeah I fell back in GD for a while

raising ruckus as always.

[xchrom]

39. well it's good to see you.

keep those ruckuses raised.

and don't forget about the lounge!
gd shouldn't get all your attention.

[varkam]

48. That all depends on what you take the purpose of discussion to be

It seems to me that you're implying that the reason atheists and christians talk is because the other side is trying to convert the other. I've never thought that to be the case, at least insofar as my participation here is concerned. I like hearing alternative viewpoints. Sometimes things get a bit heated, but in what subject do things not get heated from time to time?

[Perky]

51. Not quite my intent

I don't think there is any real effort to convert, I think the problem is that that there is greater tendency to dis the other party as loudly as possible rather than live simply and quietly based on what you believe.

My great hope is that we can find understanding even respect while still maintaining what we believe.

[varkam]

57. From the OP

"my suspicion is that no one has moved to the other camp and not one caught in the crossfire has been moved one way or another."

[Perky]

52. maybe what I am saying is this.......

and this is not meant to be flammable.

One of the things I have noticed is that atheism seems to be combination of on the one hand a rejection of the concept of God and on the other a view of people who have chose to embrace the concept of God and how they act out that embrace.

The former is Atheism, but the latter is more correctly anti-religion. I do not believe they are the same thing.

The question I woould like to pose is whether or not they can be viewed seperatly and if so, is that one of the frameworks we can use to move toward some sort of an accord.

This is not the only framework and I certainly am open to other frameworks as well.

[westerebus]

56. Anti christian more to the point.

No one wants to be accused of anti semitism, though anti christian is in the open and very vocal. Christians are anti atheist at the core of their belief system. Deny god and you are a threat to their concepts of good and evil,reward and punishment,afterlife and the meaning of life itself.
That does not leave much room for dialog. A lot of accusation and anger on both sides.
Atheists reject god exists. It doesn't make them less moral,less ethical,less loving of their family, less brave, less intelligent, less human or humane then christians. You don't need a religion or a god to be a decent person.
I don't care what side your on. We share a common enemy. The fact that the face of that enemy is a fundamentalist right wing and is in the Whitehouse is what matters. That they claim to be christian has yet to show itself in positive form defined as being their brothers' keeper. Instead abuses and terror are inflicted on the poor,the weak,the sick,the least of us.
Know your enemy and mark him well.
Thanks for your time. Peace in our time.

[varkam]

58. I'm anti-religion.

In other words, I'm an anti-theist in addition to an atheist - however, that doesn't mean that I'm bigoted towards Christians. My best friend is Greek orthodox and his father is a priest. What you mean to say, instead of anti-religion, is perhaps just bigotry.

[westerebus]

66. For the most part no.

There may be a few. My experience having read DU for two years before joining has been positive with some exceptions. I think most are like you. On either side of this issues.
Honest, tolerant and thoughtful of their positions. Some are frustrated and angry. There is misconception on both sides. It's when the anger takes over. People are demonized or dehumanized with that broad brush and they become the "less than".
My sister is greek orthodox by marriage. I think the Greeks got it right on married priests.

[JerseygirlCT]

114. Anti-theist or anti-theism?

I'd say there's a difference there.

[westerebus]

122. Question?

Is that the starting point? Finding that may explain the resentment that spills over into anger. It seems the angrier some are the more specific their grievance. Very personal,a wounding that was intense in its' nature. Your thoughts?

[JerseygirlCT]

124. Well it does become personal, doesn't it?

For many of us (probably on both sides) this is not just an intellectual exercise or fun on a board. It's pretty important to us.

So while I enjoy the back and forth conversations, I don't much enjoy the blanket statements of disdain for entire groups of people.

Attacking ideas is one thing; attacking people another.

Which is why I asked. Is the objection to theism or to anyone who believes in God? And if the latter, isn't that a pretty gross generalization? And perhaps intended to hurt? If so, why? To what purpose?

[Evoman]

60. Am I delusional or what?

I've always thought that most of us got along quite well. Yeah, we ALL get a little heated, but as someone who travelled the internets for some time, I can't think of ANY place that is as civil as this. While words like "Your beliefs are delusional fairy tales" or "Your atheism is a religion and your a fundi" seem uncivil, lets have some perspective...I barely ever see people swear at each other. Even the occasional ad hominem isn't as grievious as other places have been.

I like it here. I like all of you. And I think that the most offensive people on DU are NOT regulars on this forum.

[Random_Australian]

61. Seconded!

[Dorian Gray]

112. That is a really nice sentiment

in this festival of discord. I was happy to read it, Evo! :)

[NAO]

64. A Ceasefire - YES...but a Cease-post - NO! No excuse to squelch discourse.

If there were actually a WAR between the 'People of Faith' and the 'Reality-Based Community' - I mean if shots were being fired, or people were coming to physical blows - I would certainly want to have neutral arbitrators to step in and use physical coercion to stop the fighting.

But in 'flame-wars' where the flames are merely rhetorical (in contrast to those formerly used by Christians to burn heretics alive) I see no reason to silence discourse.

[NMMNG]

68. I tired of the squabbling ages ago and have left R/T several times because of it

I actually thought of posting a "Is it possible for people here to get along" thread myself recently. The thing that stopped me is I really wasn't sure if it's possible. :shrug:

[Perky]

104. Hope springs eternal I suppose

[NMMNG]

109. It does

But it grows weary after being beaten down time and time again.

[PassingFair]

72. Other.

I think this post should be locked and you should be banned for continuing
to post flamebait like this day after day after day.

Don't you have something better to do, or
something else to offer?

[CarbonDate]

73. No, there's no value.

Every one of us is free to walk away from the R/T forum at any point. That's what I did when I tired of the squabbling. I say keep religious discussions out of GD. That's what R/T is for. Don't want a religious discussion where people disagree? Stay away from R/T, go to the group that caters to whatever religious/non-religious group you happen to belong to. We atheists have a pretty nice little community at the A&A group, and I'm sure the Christians do, too. Come here to bicker, keep it out of GD, and stay off of each other's lawns (i.e., Christians don't come to A&A and atheists don't come to the Christian groups). Seems relatively simple to me.

[catbert836]

84. "my suspicion is that no one has moved to the other camp"

Wrong. I have.

[More Than A Feeling]

86. Same here, and I'll bet there are lurkers who have switched too.

[Meshuga]

118. I'm still on the fence

But haven't crossed the fence yet. What would be the traits for person to be considered part of one sideof the camp or the other? :-)

[More Than A Feeling]

119. Well, in my case, as you know, I have left Christianity.

I suspect the OP was referring to the theist/atheist divide.

[JerseygirlCT]

102. But is that really seen as the goal of the conversation?

I never thought of it that way.

I'm not really out to persuade anyone to see it my way.

I've learned a great deal, though, and I think that's one of my goals.

Plus, it's fun!

[catbert836]

110. No, it isn't

However, Perky seemed to be saying that throughout the battles on R/T, no one has changed their opinions from when they first joined the fray. And I have.

[JerseygirlCT]

113. Gotcha. Thanks. nt

[Perky]

117. Wll I said it seemed doubtful or at least that was my intention

[catbert836]

120. And your doubt was misplaced.

NT!

[toddaa]

95. No

Like your god, it's all in your head. There is no battle.

[Perky]

103. The purpose of this thread is to have a meaningful, constructive dialog

to see if there is anyway that two groups who approach progressive politics from different perspectives but the same result can find away to be more accomomodating of eachother's view. I would greatly appreciate your help in keepin gthe conversation civil.

[toddaa]

108. Meaningful, constructive statement

There is no conflict, therefore, there is no need for a "peace accord."

Politics has nothing to do with religion. You religious people love to parade around us amoral heathens with your holy convictions and your belief that you have a higher purpose in getting involved in politics, but it has nothing to do with your Jesus or your Mohammad or your Vishnu. You get involved in politics because you are human. Selfishness and empathy. That's it and nothing more. The fact that we ally in political matters has nothing to do with your religious belief or our lack their of. We do it because we have to live together, whether we like each other or not.

Atheists would love to have peace with religious people, but it's kind of hard when the vast majority of religious people despise us. Your little pity parade would be sickening if it wasn't so comical. You as a believer belong to 85% of the population and your religious belief dictates culture in this country. You have near absolute control of society in America. It exists for your benefit and you only tolerate us unbelievers as long as we keep acknowledging the fact that your in charge. But on DU, you don't have nearly the same numbers as you do in your own town. Being the progressive minded person you think you are, you attempt to tolerate us unbelievers, but shockingly, we don't think much of your WWJD ethics because we don't think much or your God. What's more, horror of horrors, you find out that we think your beliefs irrational, mostly counterproductive, and sometimes destructive. Because of this, you decide we are intolerant, even though we've done nothing to stop you from continuing to believe the things you do or to stop you from being active in progressive politics.

Well guess what? Now you might be getting an inkling of what it's like to be an atheist in a God soaked culture that doesn't want us here, and would just as soon we all shut up.

[Goblinmonger]

111. A-fucking-men, brother

Well said. I don't think most people, even progressive christians, understand anything about what atheists go through on a daily basis. Your post is dead on. I wish I could recommend a single post.

[Perky]

115. I would like to understand what atheist go through

Because I honestly think that I am probably somewhat blinded to it. It is doubtful one side could convince the other of the existence issues. but I am genuinely concerned if there is a sense by atheirst that there is belligerance and hostility they face.

[NMMNG]

116. Some examples

I have to go in a few minutes but here are a couple of links;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

Persecution of Atheists in America

[varkam]

121. Wow.

That's one of the better posts I think I've ever read here on DU. :thumbsup:

[westerebus]

123. Don't shut up.

Express your opinion please. This is not intended as sarcasm. Its a good thing to be able to express your opinion. Doesn't matter what side your on. Someone may see themselves or someone they know in your experience.