Ethics of religious discussions?

Post Reply New Topic

^

I know. I was just trying to come up with possible accusations you could throw at him.

I think that post fairly clearly described that in fact I'm not an atheist. I have no label, not concerning religion, as I don't answer the question that we base this label on.

My main point... I just wanted to tell a joke without it being dissected into a million pieces and the entire point of it missed. But I think we're past that now. I should have stopped responding to your random tangents, but I'm rather compelled to respond when quoted for some reason. Maybe I view it as a form of conversation? Probably, hmm, maybe sometimes it's better to remain silent.

Ps. Stop being presumptuous and condescending, it grows tiresome. I simply have differing opinions on his "art". I view it as negligent if not outright harmful. Unjustified rhetoric is empty lies, and as with empty lies, it is powerful because you get to hear whatever it is you want, but it has no substance. The same goes with my studying of philosophy, you shouldn't assume you can qualify whether or not I've even "begun"... I am beginning to suspect I am just being trolled here.

If a point needs fallacies it is a stupid point not worth paying attention to. If the point does not need fallacies then the one making fallacies to bring the point should stop denigrating the point by debating it badly.

I looked up what my label would be, since it seems important to people. I'm an ignostic.

I have been vocal about this place being anti-Christian, but I do not feel I am any of the things you write about here. I do not believe in Creationism, I do not think gays are immoral, I have never insulted any of you, I do not believe that everyone lacking faith will burn in hell, and I don't think I'm usually thoroughly trounced in a debate.

One of my issues is in the way people do exactly what you just did: paint everyone who says they have faith with a single, negative brush. What you describe is a minority of those who hold faith on these forums. Those who believe as I do get tired of having to explain over and over that no, we don't believe that, no matter how much you want to assume we do, and no, we don't act like that nor do we believe most Christians do.

It is downright insulting to me to be painted with that brush. I don't identify with the extremes in Christianity at all, yet I have to enter debates as if I am one and the same with them. Its just BS. I am left to wonder if people want to hold onto those extremes because it allows them to dismiss the concepts of faith wholesale without having to think too hard; if they want to have their hate so they can avoid having to wonder if they might be the ones who are wrong, or can believe the negative feelings they hold are justified. It is a type of prejudice, in my opinion.

Another of my issues is the way arguments against faith assault the intelligence of anyone who has faith. Without impunity, you get to throw in how it isn't rational, how people must be deluding themselves, and so on. These arguments, in my eyes, intend to paint me as being either less intelligent or sane than the person making the statement. Oh, the poster will say, "I was not talking about you," but how could they not be? If they blanket write it is delusional or irrational to believe in a higher power, than there is no other conclusion than they consider me delusional and irrational, for the sole fact that I believe in a higher power. Even if everyone here stops writing it, I have learned over the years it is how so many of you think, and that is painful. Who the heck wants people they like and respect to see them as deluded, irrational, or unintelligent?

The indirect assault happens everywhere on Wrong Planet, even outside of debates, nearly as soon as someone mentions anything about Christianity or faith. I've watched parents seeking help for their kids disappear because of it. They'll be talking about some issue in their home and in the description mention something religious, then inevitably one of the responses will include something snide about faith.

Just take a look at how many sentences in this thread reiterate these concepts. It is pretty self-evident, if you are willing to look.

I've intentionally tried to throw in something similar back, obviously from an opposite angle, in this post, and we'll see how many people lash back at it, how they feel about the subtle accusation.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 12 Feb 2012, 12:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

How do people get "painting everybody with one brush" when I specifically refer to examples of the people I am referring to?

You didn't in the post I quoted.

Am I only allowed to infer what you meant after I've finished reading every last post in a thread and properly sorted who wrote what?

Sorry if I picked out your post specifically, but it was the first one I came across this morning that seemed like a good jumping point. I've been scanning the thread off and on since it started, but wasn't able to post, so those are my summary thoughts.

Even thread titles on PPR tend to attack faith.

I do believe that there are many posters here that seriously want to abolish all faith and religion. You know, I get it. I can understand how when one holds certain views they could reach that conclusion. But hiding the agenda behind rational argument and questions that aren't posed to seek answers is false. I would much rather hear, "I think the world will be a better place if we can all evolve past any concept of God or a higher power."

Either you did, or I completely misread you like you completely misread Chesterton. You said (as I was reading it) that if someone insulted the theory of gravity, then it was justified to insult them for it.


I see no insults, nor how anyone could read insults into it.

This is another reason why the theory of justified insults that I thought you were proposing would be a bad idea. It is quite possible to misread someone's post as insulting when it isn't (or at least isn't meant to be), so people could then start insulting each other over imagined (rather than real) slights.


He is not attacking the label skeptic, or people who would label themselves as skeptic, but making a definition (by repeatedly giving examples) of some group of people which he calls 'new rebel', 'modern revolutionist', 'infinite skeptic', 'modern man in revolt', and someone who is 'rebelling against everything'. He clearly contrasts 'revolutionist' with 'modern revolutionist', and would probably also contrast 'rebel' with 'new rebel' and 'skeptic' with 'infinite skeptic'.

You have to read the whole thing and look at his overall intent to understand what someone who writes like Chesterton is saying. His problem is with people who don't have positions of their own to defend, but go around attacking everyone else's positions anyway, and don't even bother to be consistent in how they attack them.


Are you acting like the sort of people Chesterton is describing? If not, then it is not you he's attacking.


This didn't annoy me at all, although I disagree with it.

Your original 'tool' comment pissed me off, and I had to resist the temptation to be nasty about it.

In this version, you say why you think what you think, not just what you think. Although you are not complimentary about Chesterton here, it's clear that there's a reason for that, and you didn't just randomly pick an author and an uncomplimentary adjective and stick them together for no reason. This is what I wish PPR were more like more of the time.

+1

What church? I'm Quaker, (Quakers have meeting houses, but thar ain't none 'round here parts!)

Given that atheists are a significant minority (in all but northern Europe), the 'place where theists can have discussions unchallenged' = the vast majority of the planet, just not here.
It's like a white guy wondering why blacks get 'black history month.'

Atheists/Agnostics are not really a minority.
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

It is somewhat alarming to see how backward the U.S. is.

ruveyn

Less than 10% in the US, a quarter in Australia: we are significant minorities in your country and mine, so don't whine that you have nowhere to chat about theism without being crushed by atheists. I don't have the time or the inclination to sum up the total numbers in that table (and, note, those numbers are of countries with the *most* atheists, so they're deliberately leaving off the other end of the spectrum).

Thread titles attack democrats, republicans, rich people, poor people, health care, Canadians, black people, white people, racist people, homosexual people, pro-abortion people , anti-abortion people, and just about any body.


Abolish? Not really. Implode once nobody takes them seriously anymore? Definitely. That's the ultimate best case scenario.


Hiding the agenda? I call BS.

Don't theists have an agenda as well? Christians are ordered by Jesus himself to convert as many people as possible.

Since when is it a problem to have an agenda? And since when is it a secret that everyone has one?

--
If people are insulting and bullying people, the solution exists in the forum rules. But to ask for a place where atheists should just shut up does not seem fair. We do not have a "Republicans only" forum, I don't see the point of giving poor theists a free place. A walk out of jail card that will allow them to spew their awful theories unchallenged.

Actually, it would just be nice if a mention of a faith concept wasn't always considered an invitation to expound on the irrationality of belief and the ridiculous positions by minority religions.

Members here don't generally use insulting terms when disagreeing with me about politics, but they often do when disagreeing with me on faith. I am much more comfortable here on questions of politics than of faith. It isn't the same, not at all.

I don't think I can get you all to see it, and honestly I stopped trying ages ago. But since Tallyman asked, I answered. It is how I feel, that this forum is unfair to those who espouse faith, but I'm not busy collecting all the examples, even though I see them almost every time I open a thread. I don't have to prove how I feel for it to be valid. Tallyman at least had the grace to acknowledge that maybe there is an issue here those on the other side can't see, and i appreciate that, even if I don't expect anything to end up chaning - if I had a good plan for change, it would have been implemented by now. But understand this: some members that were valuable to other aspects of this forum have left Wrong Planet over this.