Sure gets quiet...

[BiggJawn]

...when you can't discuss the fallacy of the dominant monotheistic religion without someone getting their panties in a big twist....

[salvorhardin]

1. Hey, if twisted monotheistic panties are your kink

I'm sure we can get something goin' on for ya. :-)

[BiggJawn]

3. Hell (which does not exist) I'll try anything once...

At LEAST...

[onager]

2. "This is a discussion group!...

You can't discuss things in here!"

(apologies to "Dr. Strangelove")

[Kolesar]

4. one of my favorite lines, indeed ... eom

[arwalden]

5. Why Does This Group Even Exist?

[BiggJawn]

6. To provide a place for lazy itchy Alert-fingered Monotheists,,,

...to "shoot some fish in a barrel" without having to do the work of searching the whole site for material that thumps their comfort zone.

[arwalden]

9. I'm Deleting The Neutered A&A From The "My Groups" Listing...

It would be easier to type with mittens on my hands on that it would be to try tiptoe around and be euphemistically critical of religion so as to "not offend" the delicate and fragile egos of the overwrought and hypersensitive monotheists and Xians.

[BurtWorm]

7. I missed the Big Shebang.

I only caught peripheral shrapnel. Are we not allowed to discuss the fallacy of the dominant monotheistic religion in here anymore?

[phantom power]

8. If I understand what's going on...

the problem was forum members going on forrays into other forums (which shall remain nameless) and conducting horrific panty-raids.

In other words, if we sit around this forum and talk nasties about certain monotheistic religions, that's OK. If we whip ourselves into a war-like frenzy and start flame-baiting in *other* forums, that's not OK.

[BurtWorm]

10. Well, I can deal with talking nasties in here.

I can deal with not whipping myself into a war-like frenzy and conspiring in here to drop bombs on other groups.

I couldn't deal with not being able to speak my mind in other groups--even occasionally dropping bombs when I feel so moved in them.

[phantom power]

11. I'm sure that speaking one's mind is still allowed.

As long as there is some basic respect for rules of decorum, yada yada. I also assume the occasional rant is not forbidden, in moderation.

I think it's a golden-rule thing. We wouldn't want, say, Christians gratuitously attacking us here in our forum, and we're expected to not gratuitously attack members of other forums.

[BiggJawn]

12. No, not even THAT any more...

They are holding us to "In this forum it is inappropriate to belittle those with religious beliefs or to engage in demeaning or hateful speech toward members of DU who may hold such beliefs."

Problem is, to those assholes (yes, he said ASSHOLE, you know where the alert button is, you fuckwad!) EVERYTHING is a "personal attack" if it involves their delusion.

So, to say "I think it's all a bunch of Hooey" is "belittling".

[arwalden]

13. Bingo.

[Az]

14. I do not believe that Jesus was real

Not just his divinity. But I am skeptical of his actual existance. I suspect he was a ficticious creation. Most likely an adaption of the works of Homer by the gospel author refered to as Mark.

I do not believe there is a god. I believe that individuals that converse with god are really conversing with their own mind. Due to neurological factors of our mind we can seperate parts of ourselves and attribute them with identities of their own.

I believe that religion has been at the center of creating the environment where by people have killed each other in the believed conviction that they were doing right. That this conviction of righteousness has lead to some of the bloodiest conflicts in human history.

I believe that dogmatic authoratative religions are predatory and exclusionary. I believe that they do not have our best interest in mind. Only the propogation of their beliefs. I believe that some of their beliefs turn society on its head. I believe that hoping for the end of the world and believing that what happens to you after you die is better than before is a bad idea for a society armed with nuclear weapons.

I believe we can contend with religious beliefs without insulting the individuals that adhere to them in this forum. I believe there is more leeway in this particular subgroup but even here we must act as if we are part of society if we want to be part of society. I believe we have to be part of society if we want to change society for the better. For ourselves and our children.

So discuss things you feel need discussing. We are all in the same club here. We get that we think the believers are wrong. We get that we are angry about how we are treated.

It is freeing being nondeluded. But there is more to it than just that. We can rejoice in our shared freedom. But I hope we want to do more than just ridicule those that still believe. Disagreement is not ridicule.

[arwalden]

22. Alert! Alert! Alert...

you just said that you were "nondeluded"... which implies that believers are DELUDED. That's a personal-attack! ALERT! ALERT! :eyes:

:rofl:

BTW: A beautiful post. I've saved it on my hard drive. May I quote from it later?

[Az]

23. Always

Quote away.

[BurtWorm]

15. Maybe it's reasonable not to belittle the people on DU who believe.

Tempting as it may be sometimes, I'll admit. Being unable to belittle the faith, though... That I'd have a problem with. Being unable to criticize an idea a DUer of faith shared in another forum amongst ourselves (without "belittling" the person), I'd have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with trying to restrict ad hominem attacks on DUers. It's fun to make ad hominem attacks, but it's probably good practice to refrain from them.

[BiggJawn]

16. Yes, unable to belittle the "Faith".

And their rulebook states that any and all "attacks" on The Faith are as personal an attack on the Believer as though you called them by name.

Because, don'tcha know? There's people over there DIEING for my Freedom of Speech, and if I'm not gonna pray for them, then I just need to STFU....

[BurtWorm]

17. It never ceases to astound me

to find out how insecure an idea the Faith is. It seems to leave the faithful feeling very vulnerable. :wtf:

[BiggJawn]

19. Not much of a "Gawd", is He?

If He needs to be defended against little ol' ME....

[Az]

18. Its not really a question of freedom of speech

Its a question of working within the confines of a diverse group and trying to maintain civillity. Disagreement is possible. Its even necissary for any meaningful dialog to occur. But if some level of respect is not extended to others then the entire thing falls apart.

I could tell a believer that I thought they were a deluded fool for believing the things they do. That they were merely using their beliefs as a crutch because they couldn't handle reality. But that would pretty much be the end of any meaningful discourse.

Now you can claim that meaningful discourse is not possible with believers. But then I have to ask you why you were even trying mocking discourse in the first place. If you are talking to people to try and make a difference then you really have to extend them respect. Whether you respect their particular beliefs or not. Even if you think their beliefs are dangerous. If you don't your really just wasting your time and theirs.

[funflower]

20. Extremely well said, Az.

:applause:

[arwalden]

24. But So Many Of The DU "Believers" Are INCAPABLE Of...

... separating themselves from the religion or from the belief. They are one and the same. Others feel the same way about the Pope. If you criticize or scorn the Pope --> therefore you've ridiculed the religion --> therefore you've insulted the believer. ALERT ALERT ALERT!

[Az]

25. Unfortunately it is an art

It is possible to speak your mind on a subject without directly confronting another person's beliefs. You simply have to phrase things such that it is clear that you are not castigating the person or belief. Expressing concerns and worries is far more palatable for most believers. It is when one insists that their position is wrong that trouble begins.

This isn't about freespeech. Its about maintaining a dialog. Sometimes you have to give a little to get a little in a conversation. Grant someone that you may be wrong and then you can explore how they may be wrong. Sometimes its as easy as that. Other times you may run into a stone wall.

[arwalden]

26. Art? Or A Game?

What's that old axiom? How does it go? I can't recall its exact wording... but describes what happens when one allows the opposing side to establish the parameters and boundaries, define the words, limit the language, and frame the argument.

We can't all be as talented as you are. You have an understanding and a knack for wordsmithing and weaving delicately worded non-threatening messages. -- In light of the fact that that most people don't (and can't) write or speak like you, it would appear that we've already lost. As it now stands all a believer now needs to do in response to any criticism is to click "ALERT!" and feign being personally insulted.

When linguistic hacks (such as myself) are restricted to expressing our opinions about religion by ONLY using poetic, non-threatening, imprecise, wishy-washy, hyper-polite verbiage... then it's clear that the other side has won a major battle.

First they must get rid of enlightened "troublemakers" and "ring-leaders", and many of their followers will silence themselves. Next, they must limit the scope of the permissible language that the others use and they too will be silenced, or they'll just slink away in frustration.

Watch me slink.


edit: typo correction... added missing words

[Az]

27. That is a valid point

It is only recently in our collective history that atheists have begun coming out of the woodwork in large enough numbers to be considered a group. Our fate in the past was fire and general headlessness if we exposed our views in public. We have gained our right to speak our mind in public without fear of such extreme retribution.

But the problem we face is that we do not have a collective identity and no practice in the art of dialog at the table of our society. Frankly we are not even welcome at that table by all as yet. Thus we have no tradition of how to express ourselves to others in society. We still hold the memories of injustices past and present. We are angry still. So to the rest we appear uncivil.

We deserve a place at the table of society. But we have to recognise that it is a table of many and despite our freespeech it has traditions and rules. They are not going to change those traditions and rules in our favor unless we gain a place at that table and present our views in a way they can understand.

[Zenlitened]

28. "They are not going to change those traditions and rules in our favor"

True. WE are going to change those traditions and rules, and not by asking their permission first.

[Az]

30. Its not going to happen on just our say so

No minority has ever pulled themself out of a situation on their own. It takes making others see their plight and understanding it. If all it took was our say so we would not have any problems.

Yes we have to demand change. But we have to know that that we have to do it as part of the society and not seperate from it.

[Zenlitened]

31. We do have allies. The religion-besotted are not among them.

Making nice with hard-core fundies only empowers them to, as others have pointed out, set the tone, the tempo and the timetable.

Did MLK singlehandedly bring about victory in the black civil rights movement? No, the fact that whole cities were burning at the time had something to do with it as well.

Here, no one is proposing burning down cities. They are merely saying it's necessary to confront the complacent with some plain talk now and then, that's all. Plain talk. Hard truths. These are powerful medicine -- not for the fundies, they're lost causes. But for the other "guests at the table," listening, who'll reveal their character in the ways they respond.

I think it's important that we not confuse sanctimony with civility, timidity with well-reasoned talking points. If the larger political context in this country is any guide, that kind of can't-we-all-just-get-along approach is a prscription for disaster.

[Az]

33. Not suggesting fundies

We just need a critical mass to recognise our plight. And trust me I am all for talking.

Its kind of difficult to be civil with a person shouting at you. Never suggested otherwise. But the problem is one of how to converse with people who are religious but are tolerant. That is where we must remain civil.

[Zenlitened]

34. Civil, sure. Circumspect, no.

If the person I'm speaking with responds to my views with "shut up! shut up! shut up! stop being so mean and terrible!... well, I have to suspect I'm not speaking with somone who is "religious but tolerant" at all.

[Az]

35. Agreed

Lead with civility and expect the same in return.

[Zenlitened]

36. Well, there you have the crux of the matter:

Will anything beyond "I disagree" automatically be interpreted as uncivil?

Time -- and the personalities involved -- will tell.

[BurtWorm]

32. I've come upon a few like that myself.

;)

I'm guessing that what is so threatening to any Christian who considers himself or herself "intelligent" and "rational" (not to mention "progressive") is the vulnerability of the faith to the charge that it is inherently irrational and requires suspension of disbelief and the magical thinking of a three-year-old to make any sense. This has got to be a very difficult position to defend, if you want to think of yourself as an intelligent adult. (No offense intended to any lurking Christians.)

[NMMNG]

21. I don't get it

Why do the theists come here, then get offended because they see posts that paint theism/religion in an unfavorable light? I certainly wouldn't expect to go into one of the religion groups and not have some posts at least occasionally denouncing atheists/agnostics. I have no idea if such posts exist, as I've never gone into said forums given that they hold no interest for me.

[arwalden]

29. Your Answer... A Simple Explanation...

... can be found in post #6 (above).