Should atheists be barred from posting in R/T?

[varkam]

Poll question: Should atheists be barred from posting in R/T?

This is my first poll ever on DU, and I figured I would just see what people here thought. Fire away.

[msongs]

1. yes only christians should be allowed to post there - it is the one true religion :-0 nt

[Autumn Colors]

2. And how will you "brand" such atheists so you know who they are? (n/t)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. No

but people who are deliberately rude to others, who intentionally hijack threads or start threads baiting either atheists or believers should be told to cool it.

[cosmik debris]

6. So who will be the R/T Police?

Such nebulous rules will be tough to enforce. Who would you appoint to that position.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. the mods

do a good job of enforcing the DU rules, which I think include not allowing personal attacks.

As for the rest-- If you are an OP, and see that your thread has been hijacked, perhaps the best thing to do would be to delete the OP (if possible) or, if this is not possible, to post a notice on the thread saying something like this:

"I feel that this thread has been hijacked by people who do not really wish to discuss the issue I wished to be discussed. So I have posted a new thread on this issue in ."

That way, people who are interested in the topic can go to the group, where rules are stricter--especially about who can post and about hijacking threads.

As for people being rude, my idea is to simply post a reply to the effect that you feel the person is being rude-and then ignoring any other posts the person makes. If the poster is, indeed, being rude, it will be obvious to everyone who reads the threads; if the other person is being overly sensitive, this will be obvious, too.

These techniques should be able to keep down the number of flame wars that seem to periodically erupt on R/T and which drive many people away from ever posting at the forum.

[More Than A Feeling]

7. Wow.

I was just about to post that he forgot the response "No, but they should remember their place, and not be so uppity".

Also, I doubt that you actually mean all people who start such threads. In fact, in another (inflammatory) thread you posted that one of the replies "proved the OPs point."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Yes

In my opinion, the poster was being rude, and was more interested in making rude comments than in continuing any discussion. Perhaps I should have said it that way, to make myself perfectly clear. And I would encourage everyone who posts at R/T to do the same.

And I think that if you believe a person who starts a thread is doing so deliberately to bait you or your feelings about matters religious, then tell them so. Personally, I thought the OP of that thread was showing how atheists and deists could have a stimulating and interesting discussion -- an exchange of ideas instead of insults or rudeness. Obviously, your interpretation of that post was very much different than mine.

[cyborg_jim]

17. You not liking my questions is not rudeness.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. Thank you!

I didn't think I was rude to you, either! :)

[More Than A Feeling]

19. Look, I used to feel the same way:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=29143

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=15799

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=42950

I know how it felt to be on the receiving end of questioning and statements that made me uncomfortable. My solution was to stop blaming the questioner, and take a look at the ideas I was espousing. My ideas were indefensible, and that was not the fault of my questioners.

Also, as you can see if you read those threads, its all relative. What you call rude seems incomparably tame to the epic R/T clashes of old.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. You are assuming a lot of things here

one is that the questions and statements make me uncomfortable, and another is that those statements will make me question my beliefs. First of all, rudeness is rudeness-calling someone stupid or calling them a name is, to my mind, not a polite thing to do. And the arguments--or rather challenges--I have had from atheists here simply show me that they have no concept of my concepts.

Not that I haven't looked at the comments. What I see from them is a totally different way of thinking than I have. No, I don't use logic, which is obviously highly prized by the people who post the comments. I learned that logic isn't logical when it comes to things beyond logic. In fact, I've come to the conclusion that our ways of thinking are so different it is extremely difficult to communicate . So the only way I can think of to have a reasonable discussion in DU is to tell someone if you think they are rude, and then not answer them if they continue being rude. Other people can read the threads and decide if one poster is being rude or if the other is simly thin skinned.

[More Than A Feeling]

28. I have a basis for my assumption.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=292x1880

What I see in that thread is that you don't like it when your concepts aren't respected. If you weren't made uncomfortable by challenges to them, whence comes the reluctance to post?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

47. because there is no point

I have posted about some of my mystical experiences, and the atheists have pronounced them the result of brain chemistry or optics and otherwise have neatly decided what it is all about, often with derogitory comments. So why bother? I'm not going to change any minds. As a Sufi master once said, "Spirituality is experience." If someone has closed their minds to the possibility of the experience, then there is no common ground for a discussion.

[cyborg_jim]

49. Right - so are you closed minded to the possibility that it really IS brain chemistry?

What makes you so damned sure that the 'atheists' have never experienced those things you have? I sure as hell understand 'mystical experiences' - I've 'induced' plenty of them. Don't get down on me because I know how to separate intellectual concerns.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

59. How interesting

My husband and I were just talking about the possibility that brain chemistry may be a factor in mystical experiences. So no, I wasn't closing my mind to the idea-I merely stated that when I describe a mystical experience, the atheists here who comment upon it say that it comes from brain chemistry or optics. I didn't say or mean to imply that I didn't think they could be a factor. But I did mean to imply that the comments shut off discussion that they might not be the only factor, or that another factor could be involved.

It seems to me that you have decided your experience could only be brain chemistry, and have closed the door on other explanations. That was what I was trying to convey in my post-that atheists have decided there is one reason for a phenomena and aren't interested in looking at the possibility of another explanation.

BTW, I have never done drugs. I don't smoke or drink alcohol, either. Don't know how my mystical experiences were "induced", but they all came to me as a surprise, and not out of wishful thinking or some sort of chemical interaction.

edited for clarity in second paragraph

[cyborg_jim]

63. Right, so here comes the problem

It seems to me that you have decided that it can only be brain chemistry, and have closed the door on other explanations.

How have you decided that there is something beyond brain chemistry? How do you rate other explanations? How do you cut away at those that fail to reach the truth?

that atheists have decided there is one reason for a phenomena and aren't interested in looking at the possibility of another explanation.

No, the problem is that no particularly good reason is ever provided for the other posited explanations. I await to stand corrected in lieu of answers to the above.

Don't know how my mystical experiences were "induced", but they all came to me as a surprise, and not out of wishful thinking or some sort of chemical interaction.

And how do you know that the later are not involved just because you are not consciously aware of it? Do you have to be consciously aware of something influencing you in order for it to be involved? Why do you think you should be able to determine the solutions for the answers from the inevitably limited perspective of your internal processes? Clearly there are severe limitations to what one can hope to determine about oneself by introspection - unless you would like to argue that you have no limits and why that would be.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

66. Look at your way of thinking

and that shows your world view.

The Greater Self has no limits. Because the greater self is beyond logic. Gate gate para gate para sam gate.

[cyborg_jim]

68. Again, saying something is beyond logic renders it meaningless

I'm sorry, but your words don't *MEAN* *ANYTHING*. This isn't about ways of thinking, you're just retreating from the problem.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

72. Not retreating from

retreating into. There is life beyond words and life beyond logic.

[cyborg_jim]

75. Again, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

I'm sure it sounds good to you but it's nothing more than a soundbite until you clarify *WHAT IT MEANS*!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

78. What difference does it make?

You don't believe there is anything beyond logic.

[cyborg_jim]

83. No, it's not a case of belief, just definition

Logic is about thought. You can't think about things beyond thought. This is just a natural deduction of the premises.

How can you possibly discuss things that cannot be thought about?

What do you actually mean?

You cannot possibly understand an idea until you can explain it to someone else. You may think you understand it but that can quickly evaporate in the face of having to actually explain it to someone.

You seem to confuse so many terms and ideas that all I get from you is a mish-mash of 'spirtual sounding' buzzwords. Sorry, I don't go in for buzzwords. I would like something a little more concrete.

[More Than A Feeling]

65. If there were evidence of another explanation, I would examine it.

But as far as I know, there isn't. And lack of evidence is not a good reason to jump to speculation about the supernatural.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

71. you think we didn't?

We were alone in the cabin, and it was--well, we wondered if we were really alone, if you get my drift. No wires, no obvious way for me to be levitated-and I'm not a slip of a girl, so it couldn't have been my husband holding me up in his sleep-I'm too heavy for him to lift! And there was no one outside--like I said, we were isolated, and my husband wasn't taking chances. Nothing was stolen, no evidence of an intruder--we checked this right away.

But I find it interesting that you say "lack of evidence is not a good reason to jump to speculation about the supernatural." Doesn't that imply that you deem the supernatural as not being a valid option? That you believe, perhaps, that there is always a natural or logical explanation, and never any other kind?

[More Than A Feeling]

81. It implies that I've learned from history that many things were once thought to be supernatural

Today, we know they have natural explanations.

[Zhade]

109. You know, that sounds remarkably like a sleep paralysis-induced hallucination.

They're much more common than most people realize.

Look into it, it's a fascinating phenomenon localized entirely within the cerebral cortex.

[varkam]

118. Sleep paralysis.

It's essentially a partial awakening during REM-stage sleep. Paralysis is a characteristic of REM so we don't act out our dreams. There's also hypnogogic hallucinations (i.e. feeling like you're floating as you're drifting off).

[JerseygirlCT]

126. And could not the divine work via brain chemistry? nt

[cyborg_jim]

128. How do you tell the difference?

[JerseygirlCT]

131. I don't know.

That might be where one of those words Episcopalians use comes in: discernment.

What's the "message" you're receiving? If it's one of love and justice, then I'd guess you're good with taking it as the real thing -- if you're wrong, where's the harm anyway?

If it's not, then I'd dismiss it, myself. And maybe see someone about that brain chemistry!

[cyborg_jim]

135. That's noble and all but it's avoiding the issue

[JerseygirlCT]

137. Not avoiding. It's just that there isn't an answer that will

satisfy you.

The difference is that some don't require a scientific, provable answer. So we're sort of talking past one another here.

I'm content to trust my judgement.

[cyborg_jim]

138. The problem is that our judgements will always be flawed

For a 'truth-seeker' that should be a major problem. Being content is the point at which bad judgements can take hold.

[JerseygirlCT]

139. Well, I guess it depends on your definition of truth, though,

doesn't it?

By content, I mean that I trust my own judgement as the product of my search. In my view there is more to the world than the provable or factual. As a believer, I do believe there is a divine presence in and among us, and that we can and do communicate with this divine all the time.

There is absolutely, positively no way I could prove my belief to you, though, and I know that. That's where the content comes in. I'm content to let that be so.

[cyborg_jim]

140. I think 'things that are' as opposed to 'things that aren't' is about as unambigious as it gets

In my view there is more to the world than the provable or factual.

Again, how can you tell? That's the problem.

There is absolutely, positively no way I could prove my belief to you, though, and I know that.

Ah, but that's not really the problem.

The problem is you can't prove that to yourself either.

[JerseygirlCT]

143. No, that's really not a problem, Jim.

I'm quite convinced myself. As I said, my criteria are not yours, and I trust the judgement of my experience.

"Proof" as you see it isn't really necessary here. There are just things I *know*, and I don't feel uncertain about them at all.

[cyborg_jim]

154. Yeah, that really is a problem

There are just things I *know*, and I don't feel uncertain about them at all.

There are people who just *know* that a god wants them to kill someone. Just because what you *know* is benign doesn't mean the problem goes away.

[More Than A Feeling]

57. Again, I said the same thing a year and a half ago.

You say can't defend your mystical experiences because they can be explained in naturalistic terms, without regard to the supernatural.

Why do you have a problem with them being so described?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

62. because there can be another answer

why do you have a problem with that?

I think the answer is that we literally think in different terms.

Though I would be interested in knowing what natural phenomenae would cause me to levitate three feet off the floor (while in a prone poisiton) in the middle of the night and spin around. This happened; I was asleep at the time, and only woke when my husband pulled me down to the floor. My body turning around awoke him. There was no one else in the cabin, which had no electricity and basically was a floor with a futon mattress on it.

[cyborg_jim]

67. "This happened"

How do you know this for certain? Because you know it for certain?

Don't you see the problem here? We *KNOW* for a fact that our mental faculties can be *VERY* wrong about reality.

You were *ASLEEP* at the time - the interface between waking and dreaming states is particularly prone to produce hallucinations.

There is no natural phenomena that could explain levitation - if it happened then that would be an important discovery. The problem is that you almost certainly not provide any substantiation for it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

76. I was asleep

but my husband wasn't. Like I said, the noise and movement of me spinning around woke him up. He looked around for me--and then looked up and saw me.

[cyborg_jim]

79. Then swap the roles

I've got to assume your husband's state of mind wasn't fully coherent given he was almost certainly in a half-dreaming state if he was being awoken by your spinning.

So how much confidence can we really put into your husbands witnessing is the question? It's a damn shame his first instinct wasn't to get a camera phone and video it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

82. Yes, of course!

Of course, we had neither phone nor camera, nor camera phone. And your answer is as I expected. BTW, my husband says hi and wishes you happy everything.

[cyborg_jim]

88. Then you are going to have to live with uncertainty

Unless you think memory recall is infallible - but then we already decided previously that it isn't right?

Isn't it interesting just how completely imaginary things can feel totally real? Wasn't that the whole point of the 'deja-vu' discussion? If one can accept:

1) Our brain mechanisms are not infallible
2) We cannot distinguish whether something is real or not based on the feeling of it being real

Then it's pretty dangerous to make strong conclusions about reality based on one's subjective experiences is it not?

[JerseygirlCT]

132. Would you have believed that?

Would it have changed anything for you? I'm guessing probably not. Pictures can be shopped, right?

I think this is the part where believers and atheists find themselves speaking in different languages...

The experience was real to her and to her husband. It obviously continues to have meaning to them. What you perceive as "real" in her situation -- is it really important? (I don't mean that in a snide way, but I hope you see what I do mean).

[cyborg_jim]

155. Good point

That's why repeatability is important.

What you perceive as "real" in her situation -- is it really important?

Not in a small limited scale - but you take a whole load of isolated unimportant events that seem 'real' to people and you get... well you get psychic scam artists and the like.

[More Than A Feeling]

77. Other answers lack evidence, that is why.

There is also a lack of evidence concerning your levitation experience. (Most importantly, that it actually happened, and happened exactly the way you describe it). It would take more than you telling me this for me to believe that anything actually happened that needs explaining.

[Zhade]

110. Not to sound crass, but to quote the internet: "pics or it didn't happen."

Again, I encourage you to look into sleep paralysis and accompanying effects. Mind-blowing, but utterly within the mind itself.

[cyborg_jim]

48. Logic

You seem to be deeply confused about this.

No, I don't use logic,

Yes, yes you do:

I learned that logic isn't logical when it comes to things beyond logic.

Logical deduction.

In fact, I've come to the conclusion that our ways of thinking are so different it is extremely difficult to communicate .

Logical deduction.

So the only way I can think of to have a reasonable discussion in DU is to tell someone if you think they are rude, and then not answer them if they continue being rude.

Logical deduction.

Everyone uses some sort of logic - it is inevitable. Logic is at the most basic about thought - it is what the root word means. The question is whether or not the logic is valid - that is produces sound conclusions.

So for example I would question this:

I learned that logic isn't logical when it comes to things beyond logic.

Things beyond logic are beyond thought. It is not simply illogical to use logic, it is IMPOSSIBLE. This makes pursuing things 'beyond logic' a waste of time - namely because you simply cannot do it.

I also get tired of the continual assertion that I just don't understand what is being said because I question the fundamental premises.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

64. then how about this?

I don't understand you and what you are saying. And I know it is possible to go beyond thought-done it many a time.

[cyborg_jim]

69. Explain how one can go beyond thought

Because I find that statement devoid of meaning.

I don't understand you and what you are saying.

Could you be a little less specific?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

80. follow the breath

to the place of the heart. There is no need for words or logic there.

[cyborg_jim]

89. Again, that doesn't mean anything

It's just buzzwords. It's like a chant one might use to put oneself in a catatonic state. You could string together any other random collection of words and be just as meaningful.

I really am not sure you really know what you mean either - just that it *sounds* good to you.

[Evoman]

120. How exactly do you go about doing that?

What do you mean by breath? What do you mean place of the heart? I'm guessing you aren't speaking literally, because its hard to follow a current of oxygen or CO2 into the sternum.

[cyborg_jim]

122. I don't think ayeshahaqqiqa is going to give us an answer

If there's really something to this stuff then I would like to know - but shrouding concepts in mystical nonsense doesn't really engender my confidence in the reality of their beliefs; it just confirms what I suspect already - they don't really know what they're talking about either.

[Evoman]

151. Yeah.

I have trouble understanding what stuff like this means. I just have this idea that language should be used to communicate, not obfuscate or confuse. And sometimes I think I sound snarky, but I don't mean to be...I seriously want to understand. But I can't understand "following a breath into the place of the heart" or "beyond thought"...it makes no sense to me.

[varkam]

18. I think things get muddy when intent is brought into question.

Who gets to decide what the intent of the poster is? I have rarely intended to offend others or inflame discussion, though I have been accused of doing so on a regular basis. It seems that offense can just as easily be ascribed to the intent of the poster as it can be the reaction of the one who reads it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

27. My idea is to stop senseless flame wars

which have broken out on R/T over the years and just leave people angry with nothing really solved. Think about it: if a poster doesn't like what another poster has said because they feel it was rude, the first poster states so and then refuses to reply to any reply the "rude" poster makes. That would stop flame wars, or at least tone them down.

And if an OP thinks their thread has been hijacked, no matter what forum it is in, they have the right to delete it (if within the time window) or to tell others that they are moving the thing to a group. In fact, don't you think it would have been interesting to see if that happened to some of the threads posted at R/T? Then the discussion intended from the beginning could go on.

And the point is discussion, not fighting.

[smoogatz]

4. Yes, but only if theists are barred from posting in the science forum.

Cripers. What a ridiculous fucking question.

[maddezmom]

5. I picked "No"

before I saw the last option :P

[varkam]

11. lol - thanks for the vote of confidence

:D

[maddezmom]

21. actually, I have a lot of confidence in you

:hug: Hope things are going well for you. But honestly, I'm a lurker in this forum. I'm a Christian by label and find I have more in common a lot of times with my atheists friends at DU.

Going back to lurk mode. :hide:

[varkam]

22. Lurk not, my friend

R/T always needs differing perspectives - it's what keeps this place alive.

And thanks - things are going okay for me. Just taking it a day at a time :)

[cyborg_jim]

8. Yes.

Goddamn dirty atheists.

[struggle4progress]

9. Of course not. But I think the forum would be more interesting

if more posts here involved cultural and political stories involving religion and theology, current or historical

Instead, significant energy is expended in this forum on ideological and metaphysical matters, which generates heat and smoke aplenty but rather little light

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. I so agree

one poster on another thread mentioned Taoism in passing. I wish there were more threads about the world's religions and how they have effected the thinking and culture of the people who practice them. I would hope that even atheists would agree that since religion has historically played a big role in the cultures of the world, they have had an impact upon cultural practices and how people think and view the world.

[cosmik debris]

10. Absolutely!

Ideological purity is essential for peace. Any variation from the majority dogma must be dealt with in the harshest fashion.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. The only time to "ban" someone from a particular forum would disruption.

While posters should be mindful (and civil) of where they are posting, I fail to see why it would be necessary to "ban" atheists from this particular forum.

[Evoman]

16. Ban atheists, and this forum would be dead within a week.

Just look at the groups. The atheist group, among all the religion themed groups, is the only one you could call lively (with perhaps the exception of the astrology group, which isn't religious per se).

On edit: Banning only Varkam would be ideal. You still get the back and forth between atheists and theists, minus the rudeness, thread jacking, and general chaos that Varkam causes.

[JerseygirlCT]

133. LOL. Nah, I think knowing human tendencies, some new

reason to disagree among those left would surface, and we'd be back in the same boat.

But I do agree that it would be a much less lively place without you. For sure.

[Evoman]

147. BWAHAHA

"But I do agree that it would be a much less lively place without you. For sure"

Thats a nice way to put it! Less "lively" lol.

[JerseygirlCT]

148. Honest to goodness, wasn't meant

as anything but a compliment!

Besides, without you and a few others, I'd be talking to myself!

[Evoman]

150. I know.

I just found it funny.

[JerseygirlCT]

152. OK. That's good, then! nt

[wildhorses]

20. it is the ying/yang and paradox esoterically that i seek--

how can one know theology/religion without knowing the opposite. i have had some very deep spiritual conversations with people who consider themselves to be atheist/agnostic. i have found them to be very satisfying and enlightening. i love these people very much and would not want them to be excluded from anywhere.

[Jamastiene]

23. I answered no.

What would be the point? If you are seeing posts that you feel are against the rules, the alert button is there for you to let the mods know.

I am, however, concerned about your feelings toward atheists. How would you feel if someone posted,"Should religious DU'ers be barred from posting outside of R/T?" Wouldn't you see that as highly disturbing? Or what if someone in one of the Race groups posted, "Should white people be allowed to post in the Race forum?" IMO, discrimination is discrimination. The poll you have posted is highly discriminatory and IMHO, it is flame bait.

I'm sorry to see that you feel that all questions/posts/thoughts by non religious people should be barred from R/T. I'm going to pray for you to come to terms with your obvious disregard for your fellow humans for simply disagreeing with your or asking questions. It would be a shame for you to miss out on the good that the atheist community has to offer. You do realize that an atheist was instrumental in the widespread use of computers in the first place, don't you? What would you be doing without that atheist? You probably wouldn't be doing much with a computer in that case. None of us would.

I would like to wish you a Happy Easter and best wishes for you to develop peace in your heart toward your fellow human beings.

[varkam]

30. Where'd that come from?

I didn't say anything one way or the other about my own personal preferences. Though, my avatar and sigline might give it away - I am an atheist.

[Jamastiene]

41. Didn't look at your av or sig line.

I never do any more to be honest. It was being a smartass. I thought that was obvious. Sorry for any confusion. How many Christians in R/T ever come off lovingly or stand up for the exchange of ideas with atheists like that? You tell me. It has been a while since I have been here.

[varkam]

116. Here's your post:

What would be the point? If you are seeing posts that you feel are against the rules, the alert button is there for you to let the mods know.

I am, however, concerned about your feelings toward atheists. How would you feel if someone posted,"Should religious DU'ers be barred from posting outside of R/T?" Wouldn't you see that as highly disturbing? Or what if someone in one of the Race groups posted, "Should white people be allowed to post in the Race forum?" IMO, discrimination is discrimination. The poll you have posted is highly discriminatory and IMHO, it is flame bait.

I'm sorry to see that you feel that all questions/posts/thoughts by non religious people should be barred from R/T. I'm going to pray for you to come to terms with your obvious disregard for your fellow humans for simply disagreeing with your or asking questions. It would be a shame for you to miss out on the good that the atheist community has to offer. You do realize that an atheist was instrumental in the widespread use of computers in the first place, don't you? What would you be doing without that atheist? You probably wouldn't be doing much with a computer in that case. None of us would.

I would like to wish you a Happy Easter and best wishes for you to develop peace in your heart toward your fellow human beings.

I think you forgot a sarcasm tag somewhere, because I really can't see how anyone could read that and come away with the impression that you were just being flippant.

[okasha]

33. The OP is an atheist.

You just took the bait.

[varkam]

34. "You just took the bait."

What bait?

[Jamastiene]

43. Damn, take a joke and learn to laugh.

Too bad some of us can't make a decent joke and make it work out right. Sorry for ever speaking to you. I won't make that mistake again.

[varkam]

112. What the hell?

All I did was point out that I was an atheist in response to your accusation that I was bigoted against them. Why are you so angry with me?

[More Than A Feeling]

35. Why do you say that?

You make it sound like the OP was trying to trick someone, but if you look at the poll and read the sig line, its clear where the OP stands.

[varkam]

36. Plus, anyone who hangs around here

knows pretty clearly where I stand on things.

[Kolesar]

40. I would have never guessed

I just ended up here in R/T because your poll was on the "latest" page.

[Jamastiene]

44. Same here.

I usually don't come here any more because of all the hatred that seems to come from people if you try to ask a question or discuss anything rationally or in a neutral manner.

[varkam]

115. Doesn't change the fact I still have an avatar and a sigline. eom

[Kolesar]

121. and I have a cold and a headache

I remember watching Carl Sagan on Johnny Carson's Tonight show back when Sagan was the "leader" in the Mars-Viking program.

[WhollyHeretic]

42. Oh stop the dissembling. This is obviously another nefarious plot by the EAC™

[Jamastiene]

45. Yes, just wringing hands waiting to prove that

just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean someone is not after them. :rofl:

[Jamastiene]

50. Oh yes, I'm such a troll.

I certainly MUST be a troll to make a joke in this forum. Now, I remember why I have avoided R/T like the plague. Too late for me. Why, I made it my life's goal to get 10,000 plus posts then get really busy in real life for a couple of months just so I could come back and post in some of the more obscure, flame fest havens such as GD or R/T, just so I could be called a troll. Really mature of you.

[varkam]

111. Did I pee in your coffee this morning?

I really don't understand why you should be so upset with me. All I did was defend myself against your charges of bias by pointing out that your assumption of where I stood was mistaken.

[Jamastiene]

124. Have the rules changed in R/T or are we still supposed to argue

endlessly about whether the sky is up or down? I think it was all a misunderstanding to be honest. I didn't express myself the right way and you too offense and I ran with it. I shouldn't have, but the implication that I must be some sort of disruptor here was a shock to me. I used to come here all the time, but the flame wars and the hate got to me after a while. Nobody knows me here now, apparently. I probably won't come back after this experience. Maybe I'm safer in the Lounge where they keep the crazy ones like me locked. :silly: This has got to be the biggest sub-thread about nothing that I have ever seen. Still, isn't it nice when someone religious does try to stick up for atheists? I've seen that happen a couple of times, but often it doesn't go that way, unfortunately.

My stance: I don't classify myself as either religious or not religious. I'm stuck in between all confused about it all. That's why I say I'm still learning.

If you knew me, maybe you'd understand, but you don't, so all I can do is apologize and hope you'll see that I was having an off day yesterday. Nice to meet you anyhow, but no, I do not think atheists should be banned from R/T. Hearing from all sides gives undecideds (on religion, not politics) a chance to get a more complete picture.

[varkam]

129. I didn't take offense until you started jumping all over me

Here was my reply (in full) to your post:

"I didn't say anything one way or the other about my own personal preferences. Though, my avatar and sigline might give it away - I am an atheist."

I fail to see, in that message, where my anger is.

I shouldn't have, but the implication that I must be some sort of disruptor here was a shock to me. I used to come here all the time, but the flame wars and the hate got to me after a while. Nobody knows me here now, apparently. I probably won't come back after this experience. Maybe I'm safer in the Lounge where they keep the crazy ones like me

I can quite honestly say that I intended no such implication. If I did, it was purely by accident and I apologize. I have never had a post deleted for personal attacks or accusations of trolling, and I doubt I ever will because I try very hard not to do that sort of thing.

My stance: I don't classify myself as either religious or not religious. I'm stuck in between all confused about it all. That's why I say I'm still learning.

We're all still learning.

If you knew me, maybe you'd understand, but you don't, so all I can do is apologize and hope you'll see that I was having an off day yesterday. Nice to meet you anyhow, but no, I do not think atheists should be banned from R/T. Hearing from all sides gives undecideds (on religion, not politics) a chance to get a more complete picture.

Apology accepted, but I would appreciate it if you would stop making assumptions about what things I understand and what things I do not understand as well as the intentions behind my posts. I am an atheist, but also an agnostic as those two claims are not mutually exclusive. I don't know if I'm right - so I have been coming here for over a year now to try and see what other people's perspectives are. I meant you no disrespect when I pointed out that I was an atheist, nor did I intend to accuse you of being a disruptor. It seems this whole episode was one giant miscommunication.

[Goblinmonger]

134. You're an atheist?

I don't think we can be friends anymore.























:rofl:

[Jamastiene]

46. Why such vitriol?

Don't look at sig lines any more, buy you can bet I won't try to speak kindly to someone in a joke any more. From now on, I promise to follow the R/T rules and speak only hatefully and go for the jugular every single time. Would that satisfy you?

[More Than A Feeling]

53. I'm very confused.

What vitriol? I was questioning Okasha's post because he sounded like he thought that the OP had nefarious motives, and I didn't think that was the case. I didn't want you to feel bad because you thought that you had been taken in by something.

I also didn't think that you were joking in your first post, I thought you were trying to be helpful and stand up for atheists. I'm not sure how that is a joke.

[WhollyHeretic]

55. Maybe it's some sort of performance art

:shrug:
The poster seems to be having a flame-war all by themselves

[Jamastiene]

58. Yes. I am, because obviosly R/T is such a hotbed of friendliness.

I call this piece, "Posting anything at all in R/T." My next piece is called, "Hello." That will probably be in GD. I bet I can be hated from the depths of everyone's heart for that too. Thanks for the hate. Which red state are you from?

[Jamastiene]

56. Actually, I was, but at the same time I was trying to show that

sometimes it's the implications that can start the flame wars not necessarily the people. In any case, don't feel alone, because now I am confused too. I have to admit though, the exchange is so passionate that I feel like there should be an offshoot of the religion forums for the questioning. Too bad some of the forums are so stagnated you have to talk to yourself in there, like the Seekers group. I thought that one would be perfect, but I have noticed that an awful lot of the subgroups/forums (outside of the big forums) seem to be like echo chambers.

No hard feelings, I was being part smart ass and partly making a point. I am friends with atheists and Christians on DU and often I see people who would otherwise be friends just blowing flames at each other because the topic could have been better stated. It was on the latest page. Otherwise, I would have steered clear of this forum for that reason.

[More Than A Feeling]

61. Wow, clearly I have had my head messed with by a master.

I'm very impressed. That's supposed to be my job.

[Jamastiene]

74. Why thank you, but I must admit that

I am very very confused right now too. Good to make friends though. Maybe we can make people think by talking about the flames that do happen here all too often by people who could be great allies despite differences. Differences shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. :)

[okasha]

70. Not "nefarious."

More like "disingenuous"--just another riff on the "Theists want atheists to sit in the back of the bus and shut up (that is, when they don't actually want us dead)" whine.

I'm a she, by the way.

[Jamastiene]

85. The truth is that you hear a lot of that on all different sides.

Like I said in another post, people are so passionate here that many people who would otherwise be allies end up feeling persecuted when in reality it's all just an exchange of ideas. Sometimes it is best to take a chill pill and realize this isn't D AND R Underground. It's DU, which means that we all aren't going to have the same exact views, but our larger goal is still not exactly to give the Republicans carte blanch either. So, why get so pissed at each other so much. Why not settle down and disagree on the one point, then move along to something that makes friends, not enemies?

I have seen the persecution route taken by many religious people as well as nonreligious people in R/T when you don't necessarily see that as much in the Liberal/Progressive Christians forum nearly as often. I cannot speak for any experiences in any of the others, because I never really went there as often as the Progressive Christians one and here. Some of us left R/T for a long time for that very reason. For the record, I have not decided on what religious or nonreligious beliefs I could state without a doubt as fact. I just think that methods of discussion of both the religious and the nonreligious could be better handled in a lot of cases here in R/T. This could be a great forum is the big picture could be the first thought in everyone's mind when they reply to one another.

[More Than A Feeling]

86. Oh, sorry about that.

IMO, it would only be disingenuous if the poster had meant for people to think that the poster was a theist.

[okasha]

91. IMO it is disingenuous

because I've frankly seen little to none of the implied attitude on DU. Now, I grant you there are fundamentalists and dominionist types in RL who do hold such hostile attitudes toward atheists--and LGBT persons, and Muslims, and non-whites, and women, and Jews, and non-Americans, and Mormons, and pagans, and liberals, and environmentalists, and socialists, and artists who push the envelope, and in short, anyone at all who isn't just exactly like them. You don't find too many of those types on DU, though.

[More Than A Feeling]

94. I think this is in response to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=119972&mesg_id=119972

[okasha]

95. Can you show me a post in that thread

where it's suggested that atheists should not be allowed to post in R/T?

Does it get through at all that when someone as balanced and open-minded as GrannyT or Ayeshahaqqiqa (sp?)or H2O Man suggests that there's a problem with rudeness and stifling of discussion--that there just might in fact be a problem?

[More Than A Feeling]

96. Sure I can, but keep in mind that that thread may

not have been what the OP had in mind, since I am not the OP:

from the thread I posted the link to:
"and indeed this is the type of discussion I though we could have on DU when we started the Religious forum, before the atheist takeover of that forum occurred:"

Now, obviously, the idea of anyone controlling the forum other than the mods is ludicrous. No atheist has the power to determine who can and cannot post here, or what they can say. The behavior the post is complaining about is atheists being outspoken, and challenging religious ideas, which the poster refers to in a later reply as "an aggessive jihad". Clearly, this poster would prefer that atheists not do as they do here. From there it is only a short jump to, if the atheists do not stop, some kind of action should be taken against them.

I used to feel the same way as those posters (I could show you my old posts out of the archives to demonstrate that), but it was because I had wedded my identity too closely to unsupported religious ideas. So when I put those ideas out there, and people challenged me, I got annoyed that they wouldn't give those ideas any respect. But they were justified, because I had no evidence.

[Jamastiene]

97. I think one reason this entire topic is so explosive is

because no one has any evidence either way. I just remember the way it used to be when I came here. Atheists were vilified to the point that the discussion became one big huge flame war with no end until the mods had to step in and lock it entirely. It stifled discussion, although not intentionally, which is sad to see. Sometimes people can disagree without hating each other or trying to marginalize each other. I would rather see the discussions continue instead of turning into a flame war, but here in R/T, you can count on a flame war if nothing else.

[More Than A Feeling]

98. It used to be much worse than it is now.

Things are relatively tame this days.

[Jamastiene]

99. That is what I remember as well.

It got so bad I decided to avoid it about a year or 2 ago. I just didn't want to be here any more after seeing some of the posts.

[okasha]

101. So what we have here is a post

that does not say atheists should not post in R/T. You simply assume that there's a "short jump" from an unflattering description of some atheists' behavior to a position the poster hasn't taken. What is your basis for assuming that the poster--or anyone else--has made, or is willing to make, that jump?

The discussion has not been about anyone's being "outspoken" or "challenging" another's position. That's simply an attempt to gloss over the concern and trivialize it. The discussion has been about discourtesy sufficient to stop dialogue altogether and drive away posters who don't care to reciprocate when a debate gets down to eye-gouging and hair-pulling. Do you consider it a good thing that reasonable, open-minded people no longer feel comfortable in this forum?

[More Than A Feeling]

103. The basis is that based on what that poster wrote...

It is not disingenous for someone to make a post that takes it a short jump further to make a point. Not disingenuous at all. After all, seven people voted yes in the poll. Thats another basis.

I don't see a problem if people who want to talk about their worldviews (but don't feel comfortable in a forum where those worldviews are not automatically respected when they make supernatural claims), stay away from this forum. That's their choice. I once made that choice, too. I stayed away from this forum for almost a year.

My question for you is this: When does a debate become "eye-gouging and hair-pulling"?

[okasha]

104. It was eight.

And since the poll is anonymous, we don't know who they are, do we?

Okay. I see you want all theists banned from the R/T forum.

[Jamastiene]

105. I didn't hear that being said by anyone yet.

It is true that many topics in R/T turn in to out and out flame wars, but don't say the atheists are always at fault there. There are people who flame on the theist side of any debate as well and quite often. It happens to the best and worst of us.

[varkam]

114. How much longer are we going to speculate why I posted the poll?

I posted it because the charge has been levied, several times in fact since I've been here, that atheists should not be allowed to post in R/T. I simply wanted to know where people stood - is that so evil and inflammatory?

[varkam]

117. I didn't post the OP in response to that thread.

It's something a bit more long-term. Just the other day there was a poster in R/T (who shall remain nameless) that was speculating it was silly for atheists to post in R/T and used an analogy of a vehicle forum to try to make his or her point.

[varkam]

113. Then you haven't been looking too hard.

And, by the way, eight people would disagree with you. All the OP was intended to do was to see where people stood on the issue - no dirty tricks, nothing up my sleeve. How, again, am I being disengenuous?

[okasha]

123. There's an old joke

about a woman who called the police because the man next door was standing in front of his window, naked. So an officer duly arrived, peered out the lady's own bedroom window and said, "What's your complaint? You can't even see the guy's window from here."

"'Course not, silly," she said. "You gotta climb up on this chest of drawers, and then you can see everything."

Or to put it biblically, seek and ye shall find it in front of a mirror.

And, by the way, eight people would disagree with you.

Now, that is an interesting statement, given that the poll question is "Should atheists be barred from posting in R/T," and my observation was that I've seen very few-to-no posts calling for atheists to be barred from R/T. I wonder how you would know that those eight people would disagree that there have been few-to-no posts calling for atheists to be barred from R/T?

[varkam]

127. Semantics, and you know it.

The meaning of my statement regarding the eight people is that they think atheists should be barred from posting in R/T. That was clumsy on my part, and I apologize.

Over the year I've been here, I have seriously lost count of how many times I've heard someone lament about atheists being in R/T, or who have actively proposed they be banned, or have wondered out loud why atheists even come to post in R/T. It's not as though I'm pouring over every thread to try and find them. But let's say for the sake of argument that I am completely and utterly mistaken and that I have imagined all those posts - does that change anything about my OP? Does that mean that I should not want to know where people stand? That's all I wanted to do.

[okasha]

130. In the couple years I've either been lurking in the forum or posting

I can't recall seeing a post proposing atheists be banned. Perhaps you could cite a couple, since you say they've been so numerous.

I do recall a number of posts asking why atheists post here--all of them pursuant to particular atheists' evident distaste for the subject matter and for believers themselves. Those that I recall seemed genuinely puzzled. "Why are you here?" doesn't equal "Get the hell out!"

[varkam]

136. I never said that it did

And that, my friend, be a straw man. I never said "'Why are you here?'" equals "'Get the hell out!'".

Seeing as how I can't find any posts actively asserting atheists be banned from the forms, I will withdraw my statement that they exist for the sake of argument. It was perhaps hasty of me to say that those particular messages are out there because I cannot recall any at the moment. To the others, however, I stand by what I said. Even so, so what? Does that mean I shouldn't of posted my OP? I wasn't out to prove anything with it. I wasn't out to club anyone over the head - I simply wanted to know where people stood. And the eight is up to twelve.

Also, I don't have disdain for the subject matter. I actually like the subject matter very much, and am very interested in it - which is partly why I became an atheist.

[Jamastiene]

39. I was being a smartass just in case you missed the point

entirely. Thanks for giving the persecuted few (and I ain't talking about atheists or agnostics in this case) a lot of room to blast you. Gee, thanks for proving them "right" even when they aren't.

[okasha]

73. Obviously, I did miss it.

And continue to do so.

[Jamastiene]

100. Ok, then, join in the confusion.

You are not alone in that confusion. That much is certifiable.

[Evoman]

84. I am having the hardest time following this sub-thread.

Lol...I don't what the hell is going on! I'm completely lost. Help ME!!!!

[Jamastiene]

87. Welcome to my brain. It makes no sense to me either.

You could admit it is a fun one though, couldn't you? Here's a secret: I'm as lost as you are. We are discussing nothing and everything all at the same time, but some pretty good points are being made by a bunch of different people. Honestly, I don't know who is religious and who is nonreligious, but it sure is enlightening. :hi:

[Evoman]

90. Well, whatever the case, its nice to see you again. I don't think

I've ever seen you on this forum though. You are more of a lounge lizard, aren't you...and the ability to make no sense is actually a plus in that forum ;)

[Jamastiene]

93. It has been a long time since I have been here.

Before I knew about R/T's reputation for needing a fire department or 60 on duty at all times, I saw the name and thought, "hmm, interesting." I clicked the link and visited here and haven't been the same since. :hide: After not understanding why otherwise good allies would be hating each other so much as it seemed to me, I moved to the Lounge to be happy for a while. There, I learned from the best how not to make any sense whatsoever. It is rather enjoyable to mix zany off the wall observations with real commentary from time to time. The padded cell that is the Lounge has been nice until recently. I just seem so out of the loop lately because I have been so busy in real life that I haven't had time to come around and many people have forgotten that I existed at all.

In any case, not making sense sometimes ends up making sense after some discussion.

Btw, I noticed you on my buddies list from long ago. I have no idea what the purpose is for the buddies list except for our own purposes to PM our friends and such. In any case, I've seen you around when I didn't have time to post. Some of my DU friends speak highly of you from time to time when I am catching up. I might not always have time to post, but I sure like to keep up as best I can. Must have missed the OP entirely though, unfortunately. Time is so short and errand lists are so long, sadly.

[Evoman]

119. Dude, I'm the one who drew this picture.

[cosmik debris]

24. So what is the purpose of this group?

A lot of people seem to think it is for discussions ON THEIR TERMS ONLY. Others think it is a firing range for phrases like "mental illness" or "atheist's religion".

In fact the quality of this group is in its diversity. And diversity is only created by equal opportunity. Nobody gets to have their own way. Nobody gets to segregate the minority. Nobody gets to make rules to punish disagreement.

I think the only people who should be banned are the ones who want to control this forum by eliminating voices of dissent.

[H2O Man]

29. No

.... but it would be nice if there was a forum for religious and spiritual folks to have serious discussions in.

[varkam]

32. Is this not it? eom

[grannylib]

31. Of course not. Although I am a Christian, I am not threatened by the beliefs of

others, whatever those may be. Being open to discussion without being judgmental is enriching and leads to understanding and tolerance, and IMHO, that's a good thing.

I am open to talking about my faith, but not interested in cramming it down anyone's throat. If someone wants to talk to me about why s/he is an atheist, I am fine with that, and am also free to ignore someone who DOES try to cram something down MY throat, whether that be an atheist or a rePiglican or whatever *lol*

So no, I am open to anyone posting in R/T; my hope is that all would do so in a spirit of mutual respect and a desire for understanding and a willingness to disagree but in a way that is not putting down the beliefs of those with whom one does have disagreements.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

51. Amen!

Mutual respect means not being rude or putting down other's belief systems. I know of spiritual DUers who would never DREAM of posting on R/T because of the disrespect that is so common here.

[Jamastiene]

54. Then there are some who honestly haven't made their

minds up who like to read sensible down to earth discussions to learn about religious beliefs and non religious beliefs as well. You are right about people avoiding this place.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

60. Yep

they tend to go to the various groups where they can discuss things instead of getting into fights.

[grannylib]

92. I'm sorry to hear that. I would have thought that it might be a wonderful place

for people to learn about the faith or beliefs of others, or to discuss what we may have in common, regardless of faith or lack thereof or spirituality or lack thereof or WHATEVER!
I find that if we look, we find much more that unites us as a human family than divides us, and it's all so INTERESTING! What a monumental bore the world would be if we were all the same...we have enough in common to make us one family, but enough differences to make life amazing.

Not sure why some have a hard time with that, but everyone has her/his own filter on things, and I guess it's not wise for any of us to expect that others can see things through our life lenses :-)

[Jamastiene]

52. Very nice post.

It's nice to see something positive and open in R/T. I've been away a while and the reason was the extreme sniping that seemed to go on in here when I was here before. I would say I cannot classify my beliefs yet as I see good points from all circles.

[stray cat]

37. It should be policed like DU does for freepers

Some people have honest opinions are post to chat - some people are only interested in being disruptive and offensive and their statements are occasionally deleted.

[Kolesar]

38. My observation of banning people from the Ohio forum was that it was totally fucked

It was too much burden on the mods or the gods to figure out correctly to what degree somebody had "crossed the line" of civil behavior. The place emptied out. Oh well, maybe I don't need another distraction.

[westerebus]

102. Before being burned at the stake

having just started, I vote no. Let every body have their say. How else can I prove what I don't know?

[Jamastiene]

106. "How else can I prove what I don't know?"

I feel that way often. Welcome to DU. :hi:

[westerebus]

108. Thanks.

[kiahzero]

107. I voted No

Despite my record of complaint regarding the fact that any sort of theological discussion quickly turns into a battle over first principles, I don't think banning atheists from R/T is appropriate, necessary, justified, or just.

[JerseygirlCT]

125. Goodness, no. Why would they? nt

[SidDithers]

141. I almost said yes...

because we'd be forced to pretend that we're christians. Just like in real life for many of us.

Sid

[beam me up scottie]

142. Ouch.

I hear you.

We're forming an atheist underground down here. So far there are three of us. We now speak in code and identify each other by our invisible pink unicorn tattoos.

[TechBear_Seattle]

144. Thank you for suggesting religious discrimination

It is always nice to know that we atheists can expect support from the Democrats. :banghead:

[More Than A Feeling]

146. OP is an atheist

Someone else didn't realize that either, and things got very confusing. He explains why he posted this somewhere upthread.

[TechBear_Seattle]

149. DOH! I would have known that if I'd bothered to look at the name

:blush: I hate it when I'm taken in by sarcasm.

[zonmoy]

145. if atheists are banned

then how soon will maltheists like myself be banned.

[varkam]

153. Okay - setting the record straight

I should of probably put this in the OP because I see it's caused some confusion. I am an atheist, so naturally I do not want to be barred from posting in R/T (nor do I want anyone else to). I didn't intend to bait anyone, or trick anyone, or anything of the sort. All I wanted to do was see where people stood on this issue which has been brought up now and then here in these forums.