IIDB and Promoting Atheism

[viscousmemories]

A little background:

During the first six months I was involved with IIDB (in the first half of 2003), I started and/or participated in a few fairly volatile policy threads in their Conference Room forum. Some (if not all) of the administrators and many of the moderators there thought I was strident and implacable, whereas I thought they were stubborn and irrational. In retrospect I think we were both partially right and partially wrong. Nevertheless, in January of 2004 I posted a farewell thread and left IIDB*.

Since then I've spent a lot of time reading about philosophy, science, history, and above all, critical thinking and logical argumentation. As a result my worldview evolved from that of a fairly self-assured "strong atheist", to that of a fairly humble agnostic. However at the same time I have learned things about Church/State separation, science education, and politics in general that make it fairly obvious to me why some people feel vehemently opposed to the spread of religious fundamentalism and believe that such must be countered by promotion of brands of secularism.

About midway through 2004 I started dipping my toes back in the water at IIDB, almost always led there by a friend linking to this or that thread but rarely inspired to post on a topic. As you might guess, one of the areas of most interest to me was the forum administration, including the guidelines, policies and rule enforcement. But another area of recent interest has been a couple of growing trends there (in my opinion): Anti-theist aggression and the arguable value of promoting atheism for its own sake.

The reason I'm starting this thread here and now is because if history is any guide, if I were to start it in the IIDB Conference Room it would be locked within 24 hours, even if it didn't rapidly deteriorate into histrionics and namecalling (as it probably would). Not that the same couldn't happen here, but the key difference here is that nobody will be edited and the thread will remain open for as long as there are people who want to discuss the issue.

So my cards on the table:

Overall, I like IIDB and I have a tremendous amount of respect for all the people who put time and effort into making it and building it up. And that means the usership as much as the administration.

However, I'm not a fan of moderation and I tend toward the belief that adults don't need to be censored, so I'm not one of those people who believes that the moderators make discussion possible. In fact I think they often inhibit discourse more than help it.

I also believe that IIDB has a very strong, deeply ingrained culture of hostility toward theists and theism (Christians and Christianity in particular) and that nurturing that environment is counterproductive to what I see as much more important goal of seeking common ground with theists on issues of critical importance to everyone. Whether adding theist moderators can help acheive that remains to be seen, but I respect and endorse the effort.

Based on private and public comments that people have made to me over the past year, I know there is a lot of difference of opinion on this. For my efforts to defend my own values and what I consider rational position in various debates there, I have been accused of everything from trying to endorse or promote Christianity to trying outright to destroy IIDB. And what people don't say (and when) often speaks as loudly as what they do.

A relatively new member here who has never posted and chose not to identify him or herself to me has informed me via PM that he/she is aware of up to 5 moderators and 1 administrator of IIDB who have resigned or intend to resign over the appointment of theist mods. Included was a not-so-subtle hint that it is people of my ilk who have contributed to forcing good people who love the Infidels to step down in protest.

The fact that there appears to be a fairly sizable subculture of anti-theist IIDBers who seem to prefer only private collaborations and anonymity frankly scares me. I asked for my account at Heathen Hangout to be disabled when I could no longer stomach being part of what is for all intents and purposes a "No Jews/Christians/Muslims" club. But at least there the discrimination is overt. Only "non-theists" need apply for membership.

So this is it. Now's your chance to let us all know what you think about the current and future state of IIDB, postulate your theories about how I'm trying to tear it to the ground, tell me I'm an incorrigible prick or just get whatever it is up your butt or on your chest out and into the light. If you dare...



* For anyone who's interested (and qualifies for membership there) I expounded on these events extensively when I was the administrator of what is now the Heathen Hangout forum, of which I am no longer a member.

[Goliath]

Well, this has a very high-probability of turning into yet another shitfest flamewar, but what the hell...

IMO, the IIDB isn't nearly as anti-xian* as it was, and that's very sad. In fact, theists and theism are downright mollycoddled there. That site is closer to being a xian site than I could've ever imagined.

I don't believe that this is due to you, vm, but due to the Board of Directors (BoD) in changing the goals of the IIDB to "finding common ground with theists." We've had this conversation before, so I won't reiterate everything that I've said, save that I find the activity of finding common ground with theists to be a complete and total waste of time and energy.

To be honest, I have oftentimes wondered if one or more members of the BoD haven't secretly converted to xianity (and to avoid the otherwise inevitable accusation: No, I am not claiming that one or more members of the BoD has converted...I'm merely wondering if that's happened).


* - by "anti-xian", I mean against xianity, not against xians...I've never liked the phrase "anti-xian", but "anti-xianity" just sounds...stupid.

[viscousmemories]

Thanks for the post, Goliath. I appreciate that you don't think it's my fault and to be honest I've wondered the same thing about the BoD myself, but I don't think it's the case I think they've just had a change of opinion about what course of action might be the most effective. Anyway I'm gonna limit my responses on this thread for the most part because I'm more interested in hearing what people have to say than babbling anymore than I have.

[seebs]

I firmly believe that militant atheism and fundamentalism promote each other. Each makes the other look good.

Once, when I was particularly frustrated with Christianity, it was Starboy who convinced me that atheism really didn't offer any improvements.

I think that the ultimate goal of a world friendly to metaphysical naturalists will best be achieved by a world in which they are friendly to everyone else. Good neighbors are popular neighbors.

As a theist mod of IIDB, my take on it is that, at worst, I'm just another mod, probably a little better than some, not as good as others. The differences in worldview, I think, are most likely to manifest in having a clearer picture of some discussions where most non-theists will have a hard time understanding a distinction relevant to the perceptions of theist members.

To be effective in its goals, IIDB must have an active theist membership; without that, there's no communication, and at that point, it's not useful. That theistic membership will probably see the existence of theist mods as a sign that the intent of the forum is to be welcoming.

When I first showed up at IIDB, the forum description for EoG said, roughly, "how can anyone believe in a God in this day and age?" I complained on the grounds that this did not seem to indicate a forum welcoming of sincere discussion of the issue; the forum description was changed.

I think that IIDB's purpose will be better served by the current policy than by the previous policy. Yes, some people are driven off. I believe those people to be statistically more likely to end up working against IIDB's goals.

[LadyShea]

You know, there is a whole new batch of users there that I don't know and don't know me. That I was a mod for most of 2 years doesn't mean a damned thing to anyone. Many people I know or knew no longer post there.

IIDB isn't going anywhere. Mods can resign and there's a bright eyed and bushy tailed batch ready to replace them. People can leave and there's a whole batch of new people that never even knew they existed that are thrilled to have found II. This is how pretty much all life functions, except with family maybe.

What I am saying, VM, is that you and "your ilk" aren't destroying anything.

[TomJoe]

IMO, the IIDB isn't nearly as anti-xian* as it was, and that's very sad.

Just a quick question... how should such an anti-Christian attitude manifest itself at IIDB?

[Goliath]

IMO, the IIDB isn't nearly as anti-xian* as it was, and that's very sad.

Just a quick question... how should such an anti-Christian attitude manifest itself at IIDB?

The way it used to before all of the goal of the IIDB was rewritten from promotiong metaphysical naturalism* to kneeling down and sucking the blood-engorged cock of Jesus (well, okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration... :D).

* - For the record, I'm not a metaphysical naturalist, but at least the goal of promoting metaphysical naturalism didn't result in the sickening pro-xian policies that are now in place.

Now, how much time will it take for lunachick to see this thread and make it seem as though I'm all for taking away the right of xians to vote?

[Dragar]

To exist is to change. I agree with LadyShea. You aren't destroying anything. You're changing it, maybe.

I've never been a fan of IIDB. It has some excellent members, and an excellent library - but it's so hostile to theism.

It's understandable. I think it would be very upsetting to live in a culture saturated with theism, and people like to lash out at things (and people) which upset them, especially verbally.

But, it's not desirable if the goal of the place is to be anything more than a place to rant and rave about theism in general. You can't educate people with hostility, you can't build bridges between the two groups by burning down every foundation you attempt to lay (and you can't hope to come close to mastering the art of misusing metaphor as well as I).

Half the battle in changing someone's point of view is making them actually consider the idea, rather than dismissing it out of hand. Half the battle of getting along with people is to be nice to them first.

[Goliath]

Thanks for the post, Goliath.

No problem.

I appreciate that you don't think it's my fault

Well, I don't see how it possibly could be. You simply don't have any control over what goes on over there, like nearly everyone else.

and to be honest I've wondered the same thing about the BoD myself,

Really? That's surprising.

[seebs]

FWIW, I continue to feel that Christian sites would often benefit from atheist moderators. I think CF's moderating team is often hampered by the rarity of mods who have any clue what an atheist is. It's not just that I want my view represented everywhere; it's that I think most sites should have a diversity of views.

And yes, I'm aware that CF is "a ministry". There are atheists who would be much better witnesses for Christ than some of CF's current mods, so I think it'd still be a step forwards.

[Goliath]

But Dragar, I've never been interested in deconverting xians, and will probably never be interested in deconverting xians.

[Goliath]

There are atheists who would be much better witnesses for Christ than some of CF's current mods

I hope that you're not referring to me.

[Dragar]

But Dragar, I've never been interested in deconverting xians, and will probably never be interested in deconverting xians.

Are you interested in you and other non-theists living alongside them?

[Goliath]

Are you interested in you and other non-theists living alongside them?

Yes, but that's easy. All that's required for that is living and trying to make sure that they don't kill me.

[TomJoe]

The way it used to before all of the goal of the IIDB was rewritten from promotiong metaphysical naturalism...

Unfortunately, that doesn't tell me much.

I suppose you think IIDB now caters to Christians, though I would reject that notion since I can find many, many cases of attitudes of "intellectual superiority" amongst many of the atheists at IIDB when dealing with Christians... not exactly a pro-Christian environment if you ask me.

All of which is beside the point I guess... my point being... I have a problem with one group tearing another down in order to make themselves look good. As seebs said (I'm paraphrasing), militant atheists make fundies look good, and vice versa. We all share this hunk of rock, and while I don't agree with the basic premise of atheism, I'm more than willing to have them as my neighbors, as long as they treat me with respect and kindness. If they can't do that... they can keep themselves off my lawn, and certainly don't come visit me or expect an invite for my parties. Same goes for any other person, be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist... you catch my drift?

[Dragar]

Yes, but that's easy. All that's required for that is living and doing my best to make sure that they don't kill me.

And, presumably, to make sure that (for instance) minority groups such as non-theists are not discriminated against?

[seebs]

There are atheists who would be much better witnesses for Christ than some of CF's current mods

I hope that you're not referring to me.

Actually, it's a tough call. There are former staff of CF compared to whom I think you are downright respectful of Christianity. Among the current staff... It's a tough call. There are people who, it seems to me, feel about the same way about the Gospel that you do about the institution of Christianity.

But I was thinking more among the moderates, yes. :) I figure, if someone like LadyShea were up for a moderation role at CF, I'd like to see the "no" votes restricted to people who have voluntarily donated body parts they were still using to make someone else's life better. The rest of us are really in no position to judge.

[Goliath]

I suppose you think IIDB now caters to Christians,


Not quite, no...but it mollycoddles them.

not exactly a pro-Christian environment if you ask me.

IMO, when it comes to being a xian-friendly environment, it's probably not too far off to say that the current IIDB is to the old (ie pre-goal-change) IIDB as CF is to the current IIDB.

I'm more than willing to have them as my neighbors, as long as they treat me with respect and kindness.

Sorry, but having someone as a neighbor does not in any way, shape, or form imply that respect and kindness are given.

If they can't do that... they can keep themselves off my lawn, and certainly don't come visit me or expect an invite for my parties.

I'm not a party person, anyways.

[Goliath]

There are former staff of CF compared to whom I think you are downright respectful of Christianity.

I literally cannot comprehend how that could be possible.

[Goliath]

And, presumably, to make sure that (for instance) minority groups such as non-theists are not discriminated against?

That would be nice, yes...so would a $100,000,000 mansion, a Limo for every day of the week, and a library consisting of a copy of every mathematical text ever written.....

[seebs]

There are former staff of CF compared to whom I think you are downright respectful of Christianity.

I literally cannot comprehend how that could be possible.

Hmm. Who is showing less respect for a celebrity; the guy who writes quite sincere articles about how empty-headed, nasty, and hateful she is, or the guy who "married" her in a church in Vegas, in front of an Elvis impersonator, and now regularly beats the crap out of her, smashes her stuff, and tells her it's all because he loves her?

I think it's the second guy. Dishonest respect is arguably worse than mere contempt.

[Goliath]

Hmm. Who is showing less respect for a celebrity; the guy who writes quite sincere articles about how empty-headed, nasty, and hateful she is, or the guy who "married" her in a church in Vegas, in front of an Elvis impersonator, and now regularly beats the crap out of her, smashes her stuff, and tells her it's all because he loves her?

I think it's the second guy. Dishonest respect is arguably worse than mere contempt.

*sniff-sniff* *sniff* Is that a "No True Scotsman" fallacy that I smell?

[livius drusus]

Just a quick question... how should such an anti-Christian attitude manifest itself at IIDB?
IMO, it manifests itself mainly in the oft-repeated equations of theism with insanity/irrationality/childishness, in the even more oft-repeated equation of theism in general with a tiny subset of mainly US fundamentalist Christianity, and in the prevalence, particularly in GRD where I used to moderate, of poorly thought out so-called "venting" threads in which the OP describes something she doesn't like about religion -- Christianity is almost always either singled out or implied -- tosses in a banghead smiley and prepares for the inevitable Greek chorus of "Yeah, that/they suck/s!" replies.

What has changed is that in the early days people were allowed to eviscerate Christian posters, even given a specific forum known as Rants, Raves & Preaching dedicated to that very purpose, and fed mainly from threads Don Morgan moved out of Feedback for being too silly. Thrown to the lions, I believe was the expression at the time.

RRP was shut down when the BoD became aware that IIDB had developed a reputation as something of a bearbaiting den which was cramping the Secular Web's style and ensuring that most theists capable of philosophical argument stayed very far away.

Every largish movement since then -- stricter moderation of more rules, theist mods, revised mission statements -- have been at heart attempts to address the political discomfort an anti-theist forum causes Secular Web, and internal attempts to improve the level of discourse.

Incidentally, IIDB is no longer in the business of promoting metaphysical naturalism, mainly, imo, because nobody on the board can defend it in the philosophy forums, although also because it's not a very accessible slogan. Naturalistic worldview is the buzzword now, and has been for several years.

[Corwin]

I also believe that IIDB has a very strong, deeply ingrained culture of hostility toward theists and theism (Christians and Christianity in particular) and that nurturing that environment is counterproductive to what I see as much more important goal of seeking common ground with theists on issues of critical importance to everyone.

I don't actually have any particular common ground with theists and theism, Christians and Christianity in particular.

What exactly is the problem here?

[Goliath]

I don't actually have any particular common ground with theists and theism, Christians and Christianity in particular.

What exactly is the problem here?

There is none.

[livius drusus]

You are not IIDB, so the fact that you don't share their goals is kind of irrelevant, Corwin.

The Internet Infidels Discussion Forum is operated by the Internet Infidels Inc., a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet. The Discussion Forum supports this goal.

A goal of equal importance is to foster a sense of community among nontheists and to explore any common ground that we might share with theists, whether political, social or philosophical in nature.

[Goliath]

You know, liv, we're not in the IIDB CR, so could we please have a discussion of the IIDB without the (IMO) condescending reminder that we are not members of the BoD?

[Corwin]

You are not IIDB, so the fact that you don't share their goals is kind of irrelevant, Corwin.

The Internet Infidels Discussion Forum is operated by the Internet Infidels Inc., a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet. The Discussion Forum supports this goal.

A goal of equal importance is to foster a sense of community among nontheists and to explore any common ground that we might share with theists, whether political, social or philosophical in nature.

And from the 'About Us (http://www.infidels.org/infidels/index.shtml) ' page:

The Secular Web is published by the Internet Infidels, an organization of unpaid volunteers dedicated to the growth and maintenance of the most comprehensive freethought website on the Internet. We have full recognition as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization, making all donations to the Internet Infidels fully tax deductible. We want to uphold the dignity of humanity and to encourage the avid pursuit of philosophy and the scientific enterprise. Our adopted mission is to defend and promote a naturalistic worldview on the Internet. To that end we publish the very best secular essays, papers, articles and reviews. We also stand as a bulwark against the forces of superstition, especially the radical religious right, whose proponents would have us fear knowledge rather than embrace it.

Emphasis mine.

I'm seeing 'Internet Infidels DataBase,' 'SecularWeb' and similar references.... and wondering where 'Appease the Theist' comes into the issue?

[livius drusus]

You know, liv, we're not in the IIDB CR, so could we please have a discussion of the IIDB without the (IMO) condescending reminder that we are not members of the BoD?

Sorry you find it condescending but it's directly on-point. seebs said that nurturing an anti-theistic environment is counterproductive to IIDB's goal of seeking common ground with theists. Corwin replied that his personal goals don't include such exploration as if that were a relevant argument. I don't think it is.

Besides, once could conceivably be a member of the BoD and still disagree with the IIDB mission statement, so I don't really see how my quoting a statement you disagree with is saying you or anyone else isn't a BoD member. :shrug:

[TomJoe]

I don't actually have any particular common ground with theists and theism, Christians and Christianity in particular.


I guess we don't live on the same planet then, or have a respect for life and living that life in a society that is both free and fair, cause those would normally be considered common ground areas.

[Goliath]

Sorry you find it condescending but it's directly on-point.

I know that you didn't mean to be condescending, but it really isn't that relevant...we can still have discussions about institutions and people whose goals are different from our own and of which we have no control over. For example, we can talk about whether lady cop should, in fact, leave her job, even though none of us (except lady cop, of course) have any control whatsoever over what she does.



Besides, once could conceivably be a member of the BoD and still disagree with the IIDB mission statement,



True, I guess that's possible, but the fact remains that we may still discuss the goals of the IIDB without agreeing to, or being able to change said goals.

[livius drusus]

I'm seeing 'Internet Infidels DataBase,' 'SecularWeb' and similar references.... and wondering where 'Appease the Theist' comes into the issue?

It doesn't. Again, IIDB has a stated goal of seeking common ground with theists. The fact that this is not a goal you share does not seem to me to be relevant which is what I was replying to.

I also don't believe that seeking common ground and appeasement are synonymous, nor do I believe that the IIDB's current culture appeases theists or theism in any way. Deleting direct insults to theist members is neither appeasement nor seeking common ground, imo, but then again, I'm not on the BoD. ;)

[Shake]

So my cards on the table:

Overall, I like IIDB and I have a tremendous amount of respect for all the people who put time and effort into making it and building it up. And that means the usership as much as the administration.

However, I'm not a fan of moderation and I tend toward the belief that adults don't need to be censored, so I'm not one of those people who believes that the moderators make discussion possible. In fact I think they often inhibit discourse more than help it.
I think this varies from mod to mod.
I also believe that IIDB has a very strong, deeply ingrained culture of hostility toward theists and theism (Christians and Christianity in particular) and that nurturing that environment is counterproductive to what I see as much more important goal of seeking common ground with theists on issues of critical importance to everyone. Whether adding theist moderators can help acheive that remains to be seen, but I respect and endorse the effort.

Based on private and public comments that people have made to me over the past year, I know there is a lot of difference of opinion on this. For my efforts to defend my own values and what I consider rational position in various debates there, I have been accused of everything from trying to endorse or promote Christianity to trying outright to destroy IIDB. And what people don't say (and when) often speaks as loudly as what they do.
I realize you're not out to "destroy IIDB". Some people are obviously not willing to listen to constructive criticism. I will say that there are those who come there looking for answers or support and they find that there and are made to feel more comfortable about their lack of faith. Those who are going through the deconversion process often go through a period of hostility towards not only their specific flavor of former religion, but religion in general. As with feelings in general, I don't feel that this should be squashed. However, condoning their bashing of the beliefs of others, isn't right either. We don't like to have our non-belief thrashed by theists, so we should be more respectful towards their beliefs.

I'll admit to slipping back into theism bashing from time to time, but that's because even after much of the same sort of learning process which you underwent, there are things that come out of religion that just don't make sense to me. I'm much cooler about such things in general now, but I can still get riled up over some things.

CSS has been my latest passion, and I feel a right to get upset about my rights being trampled on by people who believe something different from me.
A relatively new member here who has never posted and chose not to identify him or herself to me has informed me via PM that he/she is aware of up to 5 moderators and 1 administrator of IIDB who have resigned or intend to resign over the appointment of theist mods. Included was a not-so-subtle hint that it is people of my ilk who have contributed to forcing good people who love the Infidels to step down in protest.
Well, while it's of course the right of these mods (and admin) to leave whenever they like, I feel this action serves no good purpose and in fact will further hurt the IIDB overall. I have no problem with a theist mod so long as they operate under the same rules as any other mod, and stay objective with regards to any thread which falls under their jurisdiction. I certainly don't feel a need to leave over the appointment of theist mods there.

The fact that there appears to be a fairly sizable subculture of anti-theist IIDBers who seem to prefer only private collaborations and anonymity frankly scares me. I asked for my account at Heathen Hangout to be disabled when I could no longer stomach being part of what is for all intents and purposes a "No Jews/Christians/Muslims" club. But at least there the discrimination is overt. Only "non-theists" need apply for membership.
I would disagree that that's what that place is, but you are entitled to your opinion. You're less likely to see something said over anti-theist remarks at HH than at IIDB, but there are still some cool heads there.

I think you'd have to agree though, that not all parts of II are the same. I don't even visit all of the forums there, but I do notice some differences even between the few that I regularly frequent. Some are decidedly less hostile than others.

[Goliath]

...a respect for life and living that life in a society that is both free and fair, cause those would normally be considered common ground areas.

And we more than likely disagree as to what originated said life and why it is important to respect life.

For everything that you can find in common, I can almost surely find at least one thing that we do not have in common.

[Goliath]

We don't like to have our non-belief thrashed by theists, so we should be more respectful towards their beliefs.



Why should theistic belief be worthy of my respect?

[Corwin]

I don't actually have any particular common ground with theists and theism, Christians and Christianity in particular.


I guess we don't live on the same planet then, or have a respect for life and living that life in a society that is both free and fair, cause those would normally be considered common ground areas.

Looking at the history of theism, I'd strongly disagree that these goals are shared by theists.

[livius drusus]

True, I guess that's possible, but the fact remains that we may still discuss the goals of the IIDB without agreeing to, or being able to change said goals.

Sure, but Corwin was replying to a claim about IIDB's goals. His second post on the topic seems to emphasize that he believes IIDB is somehow not living up to its goals with their current approach. IOW, it looks to me like he's conflating his wishes for IIDB with IIDB's own aims and I don't think that's a valid conflation as they seem to differ quite markedly.

However, perhaps I misread him. Corwin, are you suggesting that IIDB's current mission statement is somewhow in contradiction with the Secular Web's goals, which are in actuality more akin to your personal ones of not seeking common ground with theists? Or perhaps that the Secular Web should espouse non-common ground seeking as a goal?

[Corwin]

We don't like to have our non-belief thrashed by theists, so we should be more respectful towards their beliefs.

Yeah.... and how's that been workin out for us?

[TomJoe]

And we more than likely disagree as to what originated said life and why it is important to respect life.


How life originated is entirely beside the point. Why it is important however... if we both agree it is important, that is, indeed, common ground. Why we each find it important, is where the discussion, learning and eventual respect of each others positions comes into play.

For everything that you can find in common, I can almost surely find at least one thing that we do not have in common.

Only one? I could probably find a dozen... which doesn't mean a thing.

[Shake]

Why should theistic belief be worthy of my respect?
Why should a theist respect your lack of belief?

All I was getting at there was a degree of tolerance. As an American, I believe people have the right to believe whatever they want, no matter how stupid -- so long as any actions which might come from such beliefs don't impinge on my basic human rights, or otherwise conflict with secular laws.

[Corwin]

True, I guess that's possible, but the fact remains that we may still discuss the goals of the IIDB without agreeing to, or being able to change said goals.

Sure, but Corwin was replying to a claim about IIDB's goals. His second post on the topic seems to emphasize that he believes IIDB is somehow not living up to its goals with their current approach. IOW, it looks to me like he's conflating his wishes for IIDB with IIDB's own aims and I don't think that's a valid conflation as they seem to differ quite markedly.

However, perhaps I misread him. Corwin, are you suggesting that IIDB's current mission statement is somewhow in contradiction with the Secular Web's goals, which are in actuality more akin to your personal ones of not seeking common ground with theists? Or perhaps that the Secular Web should espouse non-common ground seeking as a goal?

Not exactly... but I can remember when 'seeking common ground' was clearly a secondary priority at best... and 'seeking common ground' with people who were clearly delusional was even further down the list.

[TomJoe]

Looking at the history of theism, I'd strongly disagree that these goals are shared by theists.

I'd contend that your look at history has been myopic then.

[Goliath]

How life originated is entirely beside the point.

No it is not. The point is that for every thing that you bring up that we have in common, I can find at least one thing that we do not have in common.

Only one? I could probably find a dozen... which doesn't mean a thing.

It certainly does if you're trying to find common ground with me. Why would you ever want to do that, anyway?

[Corwin]

Looking at the history of theism, I'd strongly disagree that these goals are shared by theists.

I'd contend that your look at history has been myopic then.

Compared to a view that ignores several thousand years of religious violence?

[seebs]

*sniff-sniff* *sniff* Is that a "No True Scotsman" fallacy that I smell?

Nope. I'm not making the claim that "true Christians" are better or different or whatever; only that certain people on CF staff show less respect for Christianity than you do.

[Goliath]

Why should a theist respect your lack of belief?

I don't expect them to.


All I was getting at there was a degree of tolerance.


There is a universe of difference between respect and tolerance. I tolerate xianity, but I don't respect it.

[Shake]

We don't like to have our non-belief thrashed by theists, so we should be more respectful towards their beliefs.

Yeah.... and how's that been workin out for us?
I'm not saying to give them school prayer back or anything like that, but as I just replied to Goliath -- perhaps I wrote that last post out too quickly -- I meant tolerance, more on a personal level, one on one, rather than to the community at large.

Believe me, I know that our rights to be free from religion get trampled on all the time. I am not in any way, for that continuation. I think if everyone -- theists and nontheists -- were more tolerant, the world would be a better place.

I think this is part of what vm was getting at, and I think I mentioned this above: many people undergoing "deconversion" go through a period of anti-theism. Some never break free of it, but feel that they have simply by coming to a reasoned position of nontheism. They jump up on their high horses and talk down to the theists just as they usually do to us. Neither side is right for doing it, and if we really want to be the bigger people, we need to refrain from that.

[livius drusus]

Not exactly... but I can remember when 'seeking common ground' was clearly a secondary priority at best...

I can remember when it wasn't there at all; ie, the RRP days. That was years ago, though, and times change. Do you the Secular Web is better positioned to achieve its political goals without a "common ground" goal?

and 'seeking common ground' with people who were clearly delusional was even further down the list.

If you'd like to make an actual argument that theists are delusional, feel free to start another thread on the topic. I've seen that assertion made on IIDB so, so many times and so, so little evidence provided in support of it. And no, mantras like "believing fictional characters are true = delusion" don't count as evidence because they are metaphysical claims in and of themselves and as such require proof before being accepted as evidence of something else.

[Goliath]

Nope. I'm not making the claim that "true Christians" are better or different or whatever; only that certain people on CF staff show less respect for Christianity than you do.

Then I do not understand the analogy that you attempted to make.

[seebs]

I don't actually have any particular common ground with theists and theism, Christians and Christianity in particular.


I guess we don't live on the same planet then, or have a respect for life and living that life in a society that is both free and fair, cause those would normally be considered common ground areas.

Looking at the history of theism, I'd strongly disagree that these goals are shared by theists.

I'd agree that they are not shared by all theists. But... When theists have those goals, they are in fact common ground. And the majority of theists I know share those goals. (And I can find you atheists who don't.)

When it comes down to it... I would rather look at the common ground I have with atheists who want a free and fair society, than the common ground I have with theists who don't.

[livius drusus]

I think this is part of what vm was getting at, and I think I mentioned this above: many people undergoing "deconversion" go through a period of anti-theism. Some never break free of it, but feel that they have simply by coming to a reasoned position of nontheism. They jump up on their high horses and talk down to the theists just as they usually do to us. Neither side is right for doing it, and if we really want to be the bigger people, we need to refrain from that.

Agreed. :thumbup:

[seebs]

Compared to a view that ignores several thousand years of religious violence?

He's not ignoring them; merely considering the other aspects also. Ignoring any part of the story is problematic.

[Shake]

Why should a theist respect your lack of belief?

I don't expect them to.


All I was getting at there was a degree of tolerance.


There is a universe of difference between respect and tolerance. I tolerate xianity, but I don't respect it.
OK, gotcha! I think I was too quick in my initial post and used poor wording. I agree, and am all for tolerance.

[Corwin]

Believe me, I know that our rights to be free from religion get trampled on all the time. I am not in any way, for that continuation. I think if everyone -- theists and nontheists -- were more tolerant, the world would be a better place.

The problem is that the more 'tolerant' we get, the more they trample.

I agree that genuine tolerance is a good thing.... but there's a difference between being 'tolerant' and being a pushover. Given the change I've seen in IIDB since my return, I'm not convinced it isn't leaning toward the latter.

[TomJoe]

How life originated is entirely beside the point.

No it is not. The point is that for every thing that you bring up that we have in common, I can find at least one thing that we do not have in common.


We only need one thing in common to establish some sort of common ground. That is the whole point of establishing common ground in the first place.

Why would you ever want to do that, anyway?

With you personally? Who knows... maybe not. However I try to respect everyone and their beliefs as much as I am capable of doing, within my understanding of things, regardless of who they are. There does come a time when certain people disgust me and I simply need to stop speaking to them, but that hasn't happened in awhile.

However, there are many people here whom I have come to know, be it recently or from awhile back, who I know don't agree with me on everything, but whom I "relate" to anyways. I don't think carrying around a combative attitude is any way to go through life, too much agita. I'd rather find things we can agree on and talk about those things, so when those contentious situations do arise... we are less apt to villify people who we know, from prior discussions, are great people.

[Shake]

You might be right. I hadn't really noticed, but as I said above (I think), I haven't paid that sort of thing* a whole lot of attention.


PS. Wow! This has been the fastest moving thread I've ever participated in!

* - "that sort of thing" being the overall "mood" (if you will) of the IIDB

[Corwin]

Compared to a view that ignores several thousand years of religious violence?

He's not ignoring them; merely considering the other aspects also. Ignoring any part of the story is problematic.

Yeah... and Mussolini allegedly made the trains run on time too.

I have yet to see anything good in religious history that even comes close to countering the bad.

[Goliath]

We only need one thing in common to establish some sort of common ground. That is the whole point of establishing common ground in the first place.


And what would the point be of establishing common ground with someone whom, for example, you had 10,482 things in common with but 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^100,000,000^1,000,000 things not in common?

However I try to respect everyone and their beliefs as much as I am capable of doing, within my understanding of things, regardless of who they are.

Why?

[TomJoe]

And what would the point be of establishing common ground with someone whom, for example, you had 10,482 things in common with but 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^100,000,000^1,000,000 things not in common?

Maybe because I'm not adverse to opening my mind and hearing what other people have to say, but for me personally, I find it easier to bring myself to approach these beliefs/opinions/etc when I'm familiar with the people who are presenting it to me. :shrug:

Why?
Probably because my momma raised me that way. No use in running around being a prick to everyone.

[seebs]

I have yet to see anything good in religious history that even comes close to countering the bad.

This is probably worthy of its own thread.

I would argue:
1. Many of the bad things that happened near religion were not actually caused by it; they were political feuds, or ethnic feuds, in which religion was more a scapegoat than a cause.
2. Many good things have been done at least partially because of religion, but tend to get overlooked.
3. Religion tends to be at its best on an individual scale, and at its worst on an institutional scale. A church with a million members may do one very visible bad thing... And a million mostly invisible good things.

[Goliath]

OK, gotcha! I think I was too quick in my initial post and used poor wording. I agree, and am all for tolerance.

No problem. Sorry for looking as though I was chomping at the bit too much to respond to that, but I'm so used to trying to get xians to understand the difference between tolerance and respect (i.e. they try to demand respect for their beliefs, but only tolerate beliefs different from their own), that I kinda jumped the gun a bit.

[Corwin]

Ok... bottom line:

IIDB is starting to remind me of a gay club that's adopted a 'don't scare the straights' policy.

[Goliath]

Maybe because I'm not adverse to opening my mind and hearing what other people have to say,

Ah yes, the old "you never listen to what anyone has to say" accusation...nope, wrong again. If I weren't listening to you, then I wouldn't be responding.

Probably because my momma raised me that way. No use in running around being a prick to everyone.

Respect (or lack thereof) for a person's beliefs need have nothing to do with feelings towards said person.

[seebs]

Ok... bottom line:

IIDB is starting to remind me of a gay club that's adopted a 'don't scare the straights' policy.

Hmm.

Well, imagine that the club's mission statement is "promoting acceptance of gays in our culture".

[Goliath]

Ok... bottom line:

IIDB is starting to remind me of a gay club that's adopted a 'don't scare the straights' policy.

:clap: Well said. That's about the best one sentence description that I've seen of what's wrong at the IIDB.

[seebs]

Maybe because I'm not adverse to opening my mind and hearing what other people have to say,

Ah yes, the old "you never listen to what anyone has to say" accusation...nope, wrong again. If I weren't listening to you, then I wouldn't be responding.

For once, I think we have to call you on the "reading things other than what people said" problem. All he said was that this was the way he did things; he made no statement about what anyone else did or did not do.

[Goliath]

Well, imagine that the club's mission statement is "promoting acceptance of gays in our culture".

More like "promoting acceptance of gays in our culture...as long as the straight guys aren't offended in any way, shape, or form."

[Goliath]

All he said was that this was the way he did things; he made no statement about what anyone else did or did not do.

Hmmm...on a reread, you're right. My apologies.

[Corwin]

Ok... bottom line:

IIDB is starting to remind me of a gay club that's adopted a 'don't scare the straights' policy.

Hmm.

Well, imagine that the club's mission statement is "promoting acceptance of gays in our culture".

So what?

When I've gone to a gay club with friends in the past, (long story... when I was in college the only places with a dance floor were the local gay club and the local redneck bar.... guess which one we picked?) it was well understood that if I would get grossed out at the sight of two men kissing, I should probably stay the hell home.

[seebs]

Well, imagine that the club's mission statement is "promoting acceptance of gays in our culture".

More like "promoting acceptance of gays in our culture...as long as the straight guys aren't offended in any way, shape, or form."

Ahh. I see your point.

Here's the thing: "not offending the theists" is not the goal; it's a means to that goal. The BoD apparently feel that IIDB will better promote metaphysical naturalism if theists feel more comfortable visiting. In practice, I think they're right.

[Corwin]

Well, imagine that the club's mission statement is "promoting acceptance of gays in our culture".

More like "promoting acceptance of gays in our culture...as long as the straight guys aren't offended in any way, shape, or form."

Agreed.

Here's the thing: "not offending the theists" is not the goal; it's a means to that goal. The BoD apparently feel that IIDB will better promote metaphysical naturalism if theists feel more comfortable visiting. In practice, I think they're right.

And in practice, due to the resentment it's causing with the base.... I think they're wrong.

Hasn't the Democratic Party (specifically the DLC) taught us the danger of bending over backward to placate your enemies at the expense of your friends?

[Goliath]

Ahh. I see your point.

Here's the thing: "not offending the theists" is not the goal; it's a means to that goal. The BoD apparently feel that IIDB will better promote metaphysical naturalism if theists feel more comfortable visiting. In practice, I think they're right.

But it seems quite obvious that promoting metaphysical naturalism is only a minor goal...fellating Jesus--I mean, seeking common ground with theists--seems to be given much more priority.

[Goliath]

Hasn't the Democratic Party (specifically the DLC) taught us the danger of bending over backward to placate your enemies at the expense of your friends?

An excellent point.

[Dragar]

But it seems quite obvious that promoting metaphysical naturalism is only a minor goal...fellating Jesus--I mean, seeking common ground with theists--seems to be given much more priority.

It's another means to an end, and a smart one. Having a well defended philosophy is all well and good, but when you're a hated minority, nobody will give a rat's arse.

[seebs]

IIDB is starting to remind me of a gay club that's adopted a 'don't scare the straights' policy.

Well, imagine that the club's mission statement is "promoting acceptance of gays in our culture".

So what?

So, if you wanna do stuff that offends lots of people, don't do it at the place committed to making you look good so people like you.

When I've gone to a gay club with friends in the past, (long story... when I was in college the only places with a dance floor were the local gay club and the local redneck bar.... guess which one we picked?) it was well understood that if I would get grossed out at the sight of two men kissing, I should probably stay the hell home.

Sure.

But let's say you had a gay bar which was in the middle of a big publicity campaign trying to attract support for its existence, and some people regularly had live S&M shows there. That might be seen as a poor choice; it would have a negative impact on the success of their mission.

As a secondary point... IIDB's historic mode is not two guys kissing, it's two guys yelling epithets at anyone they think might be straight.

(FWIW, I go to a gay bar occasionally, because my wife likes to go dancing, and a gay friend of ours recommended a local gay bar as having good music and a decent atmosphere. And, frankly, I find it a lot nicer than at least one obviously-straight nightclub I've been to, 'cuz all I have to do is be obviously attached to someone and people leave me alone.)

[Corwin]

But it seems quite obvious that promoting metaphysical naturalism is only a minor goal...fellating Jesus--I mean, seeking common ground with theists--seems to be given much more priority.

It's another means to an end, and a smart one. Having a well defended philosophy is all well and good, but when you're a hated minority, nobody will give a rat's arse.

Except that clearly 'seeking common ground' doesn't make us any less hated.

[Goliath]

It's another means to an end, and a smart one. Having a well defended philosophy is all well and good, but when you're a hated minority, nobody will give a rat's arse.

You (nor anyone else whom I've conversed with over this topic) have not given anything resembling an argument as to why finding common ground with theists will allow us to cease being a hated minority.

[Dragar]

You (nor anyone else whom I've conversed with over this topic) have not given anything resembling an argument as to why finding common ground with theists will not make us a hated minority.

Because when you start to understand someone's persective, it becomes all the harder to hate them.

[seebs]

And in practice, due to the resentment it's causing with the base.... I think they're wrong.

Ahh, but the people offended are, by and large, not the "base".

Hasn't the Democratic Party (specifically the DLC) taught us the danger of bending over backward to placate your enemies at the expense of your friends?

Not necessarily. Look how fucked up the Republicans are getting now; I mean, they're winning some elections now, but the long-term damage is horrific.

There's a certain point to trying to work on the people who don't already agree with you. As they say, the Democrats can largely ignore the desires of the Communists; what are they gonna do, vote Republican?

People who hate theism are not the primary "base" for IIDB, and placating them does no good. It doesn't help IIDB promote the rights of the people who merely aren't theists, and it can actively harm that goal. Furthermore, what are these people gonna do; stop being atheists?

If you're the IIDB BoD, and you have a choice of targeting your site at RufusAtticus or Starboy, you pick Rufus. Rufus has clearly found common ground with at least one theist. But... Working with people like him does more to make people accept atheists than working with Starboy does. You can't make Starboy into a poster child for atheism as a thing you can live with. You could maybe get some milage out of Rufus.

[Goliath]

Because when you start to understand someone's persective, it becomes all the harder to hate them.

Ah, so homocide detectives have a hard time hating serial killers?

All WWII Historians have difficulty bringing themselves to hate Nazis?

Game Over. Try again? Y/N

[TomJoe]

Respect (or lack thereof) for a person's beliefs need have nothing to do with feelings towards said person.

How does one separate a persons beliefs from the person themself? My beliefs are as much a part of me as my hair color, facial features, height and weight. I doubt I could, as an extreme example, like Hitler for who he is, in disregard to what he thought. Maybe that is just a particular character flaw I have however.

As a Catholic, I tend to get about as much shit from other non-Catholic Christians as the atheists do. People always feed me the line "I love you, I just hate your religion." aka "I'm just anti-Catholic religion, not anti-Catholic person." All I can do is tell them, "I'm sorry but... if you hate my faith, you hate me too, because I cannot separate the two."

Perhaps we're not talking on the same level here, and your definition of tolerance and respect and how they are to be applied, are different than mine.

[seebs]

Because when you start to understand someone's persective, it becomes all the harder to hate them.

Exactly.

Look at the people who hate atheists, and they are, with very very few exceptions, entirely ignorant of what atheism is like. These people are not really at issue, and no one cares what they think. They're not the atheists' problem; they're the theists' problem. (And a hell of a problem they are, let me tell you!)

But... Theists who hang around on forums like this, even if they don't start out friendly, tend to end up friendlier. One person like Brimshack hanging out at CF does more good for naturalism than any number of people like AtheistArchon.

So. IIDB's goal is best served by presenting the non-fanatical side of atheism, just as sites like Cross+Flame do a much better job of building tolerance for theism than sites like RaptureReady.

[Goliath]

There's a certain point to trying to work on the people who don't already agree with you.

Why?

[livius drusus]

And in practice, due to the resentment it's causing with the base.... I think they're wrong.

I think it depends on who you consider your base. I, for instance, am not resentful in the least and in fact think IIDB has not gone anywhere near far enough. Also, with very few exceptions, the forum population is not actively involved in advancing the political ends of the Secular Web, so even if they were pissing off the entire membership it doesn't necessarily follow that this would be counterproductive to their goals.

Hasn't the Democratic Party (specifically the DLC) taught us the danger of bending over backward to placate your enemies at the expense of your friends?

Again, I don't believe IIDB is placating theists and even if they were, I don't consider theists my enemies.

[seebs]

Ah, so homocide detectives have a hard time hating serial killers?

All WWII Historians have difficulty bringing themselves to hate Nazis?

Game Over. Try again? Y/N

Harder != Impossible.

That said... Both groups are likely to show a little more tolerance than the Man On The Street, in significant ways. WWII historians at least understand that some Nazis were callow youth caught up in something that overwhelmed whatever little common sense they might have had.

[Corwin]

But let's say you had a gay bar which was in the middle of a big publicity campaign trying to attract support for its existence, and some people regularly had live S&M shows there. That might be seen as a poor choice; it would have a negative impact on the success of their mission.

As a secondary point... IIDB's historic mode is not two guys kissing, it's two guys yelling epithets at anyone they think might be straight.

So it's better to hide it?

'Oh we never have anything risque here.... trust us. You're never going to see drag queens here, or anything else that would offend you.'

At that point, how is it still a gay club?

By the way.... IIDB's historical mode is more 'two guys yelling epithets at homophobes.' (Something I really can't say I have a problem with... especially since it is their club after all.)

[Dragar]

Ah, so homocide detectives don't hate serial killers?

All WWII Historians don't hate Nazis?

Game Over. Try again? Y/N

Goliath, don't you think that a lot of the hate Christians show atheists simply comes from the miunderstanding that an atheist hates God? Yes, that's wrong. But that's not how the fundamentalist thinks, is it? How would you go about correcting that? Hint: It doesn't involve insulting and attacking them and their beliefs.

In a similar way, how can I possibly hate even the most fanatical of fundamentalists when I realise that there are reasons they think the way they do? When I start to think, "Hey, that could have been me, believing that, acting that way, saying those things!" how can I possibly hate them?

[seebs]

There's a certain point to trying to work on the people who don't already agree with you.

Why?

Well, look at it this way.

Let's say TomJoe wants to make his experience on FF more rewarding.

He could spend his time trying to make me like him better. I already respect him, I think he's a cool guy, and I consider him a shining example of what CF's moderation should be like. In short... What's gonna change? We're both straight, it's not like he can try to win my heart. (Also, I understand he's engaged.) I'm not flaming him often enough for making me stop flaming him to do him any good.

He could also look at some of the people who are less receptive to him. If he could find someone who tended to react to him with hostility, and make that person stop doing that... His experience would actually change for the better.

If you want a world in which people are respectful towards you, find people who are disrespectful, but not fanatical, and work on them. They're the ones you could convince, and whom it would do you any good to convince.

[Corwin]

Ah, so homocide detectives don't hate serial killers?

All WWII Historians don't hate Nazis?

Game Over. Try again? Y/N

Goliath, don't you think that a lot of the hate Christians show atheists simply comes from the miunderstanding that an atheist hates God? Yes, that's wrong. But that's not how the fundamentalist thinks, is it? How would you go about correcting that? Hint: It doesn't involve insulting and attacking them and their beliefs.

In a similar way, how can I possibly hate even the most fanatical of fundamentalists when I realise that there are reasons they think the way they do? When I start to think, "Hey, that could have been me, believing that, acting that way, saying those things!" how can I possibly hate them?

Bowing and scraping before them is no more productive.... in fact it's less so.

[Goliath]

How does one separate a persons beliefs from the person themself?

Simple: A person is more than (and separate from) their beliefs.

My beliefs are as much a part of me as my hair color, facial features, height and weight.

No, because I hate your beliefs, but I do not hate you.

"I'm sorry but... if you hate my faith, you hate me too, because I cannot separate the two."

That is your problem, not mine.

Perhaps we're not talking on the same level here, and your definition of tolerance and respect and how they are to be applied, are different than mine.

Perhaps. To tolerate something is simply to let it exist, and not set out to actively destroy it. However, respect involves not only tolerance, but also a holding in high regard.

[Goliath]

Goliath, don't you think that a lot of the hate Christians show atheists simply comes from the miunderstanding that an atheist hates God?

Some of it does, sure. As to most...I don't know.

How would you go about correcting that?

And why would I care about correcting that in every xian?

In a similar way, how can I possibly hate even the most fanatical of fundamentalists

Strawman. We're talking about hatred of beliefs, not hatred of people.

[Corwin]

Again, I don't believe IIDB is placating theists and even if they were, I don't consider theists my enemies.

When was the last time you got edited?

[seebs]

So it's better to hide it?

"Put your best foot forward." :)

'Oh we never have anything risque here.... trust us. You're never going to see drag queens here, or anything else that would offend you.'

At that point, how is it still a gay club?

It's a club for promoting acceptance of gays.

By the way.... IIDB's historical mode is more 'two guys yelling epithets at homophobes.' (Something I really can't say I have a problem with... especially since it is their club after all.)

Total disagreement, on this. The brushes used to paint theists are wide enough to make it pretty much hopeless.

To extend the analogy, say I go to the Saloon with my wife, and someone sees me walking with her, and starts yelling at me about how I should feel some shame, because Matthew Shepherd was an innocent man, and shouldn'ta been killed like that.

That's about the experience I have at IIDB.

To put it in full perspective, my wife's a FTM transsexual who decided she'd rather stick with the working body she was born with, rather than try to fake something up.

The analogy fits surprisingly well. IIDB is full of people who can't distinguish between people not currently fucking someone of the same sex, and homophobes. Hell, they'd yell at gay guys who were dating but not ready to start boffing yet.

[Goliath]

Harder != Impossible.

I didn't say it was. Read.

[TomJoe]

Perhaps. To tolerate something is simply to let it exist, and not set out to actively destroy it. However, respect involves not only tolerance, but also a holding in high regard.

Respect (as a transitive verb) can also mean "to refrain from interfering with". At least, according to my friends Merriam and Webster. It also may mean "consideration for", which in any debate, I would contend that one seriously has to consider the opponents PoV* in order to have a truly fruitful debate... otherwise it's just polemic.

*What's the point of debating an issue if you think your opponent is a buffoon and his PoV is a load of manure? IMHO, you must consider your opponent and their PoV worthy of rebuttal... ie: you must respect them.

[seebs]

[QUOTE]How would you go about correcting that?

And why would I care about correcting that in every xian?

Well, that's a pretty lofty goal...

But every person who holds that belief today, and doesn't tomorrow, counts as an improvement in quality of life for atheists everywhere. (And, I think, for most theists.)

[Corwin]

The analogy fits surprisingly well. IIDB is full of people who can't distinguish between people not currently fucking someone of the same sex, and homophobes. Hell, they'd yell at gay guys who were dating but not ready to start boffing yet.

And society is full of homophobes. (Both literally and in the sense of the analogy.)

[seebs]

Harder != Impossible.

I didn't say it was. Read.

Counterexamples don't prove anything when the claim is that something is harder, not impossible. They're just individual data points, and non-representative ones at that.

[Corwin]

Perhaps. To tolerate something is simply to let it exist, and not set out to actively destroy it. However, respect involves not only tolerance, but also a holding in high regard.

Respect (as a transitive verb) can also mean "to refrain from interfering with". At least, according to my friends Merriam and Webster. It also may mean "consideration for", which in any debate, I would contend that one seriously has to consider the opponents PoV* in order to have a truly fruitful debate... otherwise it's just polemic.

*What's the point of debating an issue if you think your opponent is a buffoon and his PoV is a load of manure? IMHO, you must consider your opponent and their PoV worthy of rebuttal... ie: you must respect them.

Except that we have considered their PoV and found it not only inadequate, but mindbogglingly stupid.

[Dragar]

Bowing and scraping before them is no more productive.... in fact it's less so.

Since when are basic manners 'bowing and scraping', Goliath?

I get Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door - is it 'bowing and scraping' if I avoid use of words like 'magic sky faerie' when I tell them I'm not interested?

[Goliath]

Well, look at it this way.

Let's say TomJoe wants to make his experience on FF more rewarding.

He could spend his time trying to make me like him better....

He could also look at some of the people who are less receptive to him....



Or he could worry less about sucking up to others and find a way to have more fun here.

[seebs]

The analogy fits surprisingly well. IIDB is full of people who can't distinguish between people not currently fucking someone of the same sex, and homophobes. Hell, they'd yell at gay guys who were dating but not ready to start boffing yet.

And society is full of homophobes. (Both literally and in the sense of the analogy.)

Yes.

But yelling at someone who just spent four hours getting the shit kicked out of him by homophobes, because he was sticking up for gay rights, and calling him names, does not make him feel like going back and doing it again tomorrow.

Treating your friends as enemies is just plain stupid.

[seebs]

Or he could worry less about sucking up to others and find a way to have more fun here.

Maybe, but... Speaking only for myself, I find that I have the most fun when I can get along with the people around me.

[TomJoe]

Except that we have considered their PoV and found it not only inadequate, but mindbogglingly stupid.

So would you rather have a place that says "Theists Not Allowed" (so as to have us not bother you with our stupidity), perhaps just so you can rant and rave about how exclusionary theists are?

[Dragar]

Strawman. We're talking about hatred of beliefs, not hatred of people.

Insulting and mocking their beliefs hurts the people, Goliath. Yes, I know in an ideal world people wouldn't identify with thier beliefs. But, they do.

Now, you may not hate them, but persistent hurting others doesn't exactly make me think you care about them, nor does it build you any bridges. You're only hurting yourself.

[seebs]

So would you rather have a place that says "Theists Not Allowed" (so as to have us not bother you with our stupidity), perhaps just so you can rant and rave about how exclusionary theists are?

It's called HeathenHangout.

And I keep thinking that, some day when I'm really depressed and having a long dark night of the soul, I should sign up. (When I'm depressed enough, I don't believe in anything.)

[TomJoe]

Or he could worry less about sucking up to others and find a way to have more fun here.

LOL... I can't remember the last time someone accused me of being a kiss ass.

[Goliath]

*What's the point of debating an issue if you think your opponent is a buffoon and his PoV is a load of manure? IMHO, you must consider your opponent and their PoV worthy of rebuttal... ie: you must respect them.

No, that's not respect as much as taking one's opponent seriously.

[Goliath]

Yes, I know in an ideal world people wouldn't identify with thier beliefs. But, they do.

Not my problem.

[Goliath]

Or he could worry less about sucking up to others and find a way to have more fun here.

LOL... I can't remember the last time someone accused me of being a kiss ass.

I'm not. Seebs brought you up in a hypothetical situation. Read.

[Corwin]

Except that we have considered their PoV and found it not only inadequate, but mindbogglingly stupid.

So would you rather have a place that says "Theists Not Allowed" (so as to have us not bother you with our stupidity), perhaps just so you can rant and rave about how exclusionary theists are?

Never said anything about 'not allowed,' and it's a bad analogy. The sign is 'You're a guest here. You may be as offended by what you see here as we are by your entire belief system.'

[Goliath]

Treating your friends as enemies is just plain stupid.

Unlike many xians I've encountered, when I use the word "friend", it means something.

[Dragar]

Not my problem.

Yes, it is your problem.

You may not care that people are being hurt by your comments, Goliath. I can't change that.

But hurting people only sets them against you. And if they identify you as an atheist, that sets them slightly against all atheists. Your hurting people very quickly becomes not only your problem, but our problem too.

[TomJoe]

I'm not. Seebs brought you up in a hypothetical situation. Read.

JMJ, no need to be so condescending about it. Fine, you don't think I'm a kiss ass, I stand corrected, and now I'll be better able to sleep tonight, knowing someone doesn't think that about me. :P

[Goliath]

Yes, it is your problem.

I can try to explain that beliefs and a person holding said beliefs are distinct entities, but if they refuse to believe me, then that is their problem.

[Corwin]

But yelling at someone who just spent four hours getting the shit kicked out of him by homophobes, because he was sticking up for gay rights, and calling him names, does not make him feel like going back and doing it again tomorrow.


Except that at the end of the day, that someone still believes that gays are going to hell.

[wei yau]

I have to admit that this entire discussion does seem a little silly. I mean, no one can reasonably argue that being a venom-filled asshole is productive in any way. It doesn't even matter who is the target of the venom. I've found that in internet communication there seems to be a tendency to amplify the rhetoric to a degree that would be unreasonable in "real life". Perhaps it is because the written word is the primary means of communication. Perhaps it is because a lot of us like hearing ourselves "talk". But, I can't see how anyone can reasonably behave in such a fashion in "real life"

And that's pretty much the rules I live by when posting. I talk like I would if my audience were in the same room with me. As if I could see their faces, read their body language, listen to their voice....you know...as if they were real people. I mean, after all, that's what they are...they are more than just pixels on your screen.

As for seeking common ground, I'm not sure if I understand the problem. At the very least, the common ground can be established as the forum itself. Most of the time, I don't even know whether or not a poster is theist or atheist. Most of the time, I don't really care. There are many fora that are religiously-neutral areas, in my opinion.

Obviously, when discussing such things as "Existence of God" and "Philosophy", religion becomes more focused. And when there is a discussion between theists and atheists, commond ground is going to be hard to find.

So what?

Argue over religion in the fora dedicated to arguements over religion. Find common ground in the fora that are religiously neutral.

Seriously, I don't understand the problem at all.

[TomJoe]

Never said anything about 'not allowed,' and it's a bad analogy. The sign is 'You're a guest here. You may be as offended by what you see here as we are by your entire belief system.'

First of all, it's pretty much common sense that wherever you go, there will be something that will bring offense. The chances of this happening increase when you're a Christian and you head off to an atheist website (and vice versa).

However, your last comment "as we are by your entire belief system" is probably more than a little erroneous. I doubt every atheist is offended by Christianity.

If this is how you think, no wonder IIDB's stance upsets you.

[Goliath]

JMJ

:?

, no need to be so condescending about it.

I did not intend to be condescending. However, my patience grows somewhat thin when people respond to something that I say without seeming to read what I've written first.

[Goliath]

Find common ground in the fora that are religiously neutral.

Again: why?

[Dragar]

I can try to explain that beliefs and a person holding said beliefs are distinct entities, but if they refuse to believe me, then that is their problem.

It's not a matter of belief. I know my cooking and I are not the same thing at all, but it still stings when someone tells me my cooking is crap. Is that my problem?

Should everyone just abandon all their manners, and say whatever they liked in your 'ideal world' Goliath, irrespective of what suffering it might cause? All because it's 'not the speaker's problem'?

[TomJoe]

JMJ

:?

Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

, no need to be so condescending about it.

I did not intend to be condescending. However, my patience grows somewhat thin when people respond to something that I say without reading what I've written first.

Sorta like what you did to me earlier and seebs called you on? Yah, that's annoying alright. :P

[Goliath]

It's not a matter of belief. I know my cooking and I are not the same thing at all, but it still stings when someone tells me my cooking is crap. Is that my problem?

That depends...are you hurt enough to commit atrocities over such a sting?


Should everyone just abandon all their manners, and say whatever they liked in your 'ideal world' Goliath, irrespective of what suffering it might cause?

Who said anything about an ideal world and manners? Why are you trying to turn this conversation into a personal attack?

[Goliath]

Sorta like what you did to me earlier and seebs called you on? Yah, that's annoying alright. :P

How many fucking times do you want me to apologize? Is anything good enough for you?

[Corwin]

First of all, it's pretty much common sense that wherever you go, there will be something that will bring offense. The chances of this happening increase when you're a Christian and you head off to an atheist website (and vice versa).

Except that the entire basis of this discussion is that IIDB seems to be actively working to make an atheist website inoffensive for theists.

However, your last comment "as we are by your entire belief system" is probably more than a little erroneous. I doubt every atheist is offended by Christianity.


Christianity makes assertions that are in fact offensive to a metaphysically natrualist perspective. (As in 'not only is your natrualism wrong, it's evil and you deserve to be tortured forever just for making the suggestion!')

[wei yau]

Find common ground in the fora that are religiously neutral.

Again: why?

Well, do so only if you want to, I guess.

What I meant was, if there's a thread in "Media and Popular Culture" about Transformers...why bring religion into it? Why should you even care if some of the posters in that thread are theists? There's you common ground, it's not that hard to find and it's certainly not a bad thing.


It'd be more important to note if they were Autobot-lovin' pansies, suckling at the teat of Optimus instead of grabbing the power that rightfully belongs to the Decepticons.

[TomJoe]

How many fucking times do you want me to apologize? Is anything good enough for you?
Where did I ask for an apology, a first or second time?

My point was... no point in taking attitude with people who do things that wear thin on you, especially when you're bound to do the same thing. No one is perfect, and we're all bound to misread people from time to time, but no one needs to be a snot about it.

[Goliath]

Well, do so only if you want to, I guess.

What I meant was, if there's a thread in "Media and Popular Culture" about Transformers...why bring religion into it? Why should you even care if some of the posters in that thread are theists? There's you common ground, it's not that hard to find and it's certainly not a bad thing.


It'd be more important to note if they were Autobot-lovin' pansies, suckling at the teat of Optimus instead of grabbing the power that rightfully belongs to the Decepticons.

Well, I do see your point...I certainly see no need to bring up religion in a discussion that isn't about religion. However in the example that you mention, common ground isn't really sought after, it's merely stumbled upon.

[Goliath]

How many fucking times do you want me to apologize? Is anything good enough for you?
Where did I ask for an apology, a first or second time?

You didn't, but I apologized anyway. I guess you have no intentions of accepting it. So be it.

[Dragar]

That depends...are you hurt enough to commit atrocities over such a sting?

It might not exactly make me sympathetic to your cause. People don't like people who hurt them.

Who said anything about an ideal world and manners? Why are you trying to turn this conversation into a personal attack?

How is it an attack? You made the case that it's 'not your problem' if your words offend. I was asking, in a roundabout way, if that is how you desire everyone to behave?

[wei yau]

Except that the entire basis of this discussion is that IIDB seems to be actively working to make an atheist website inoffensive for theists.


Is that what this is about?

Well, frankly I never though the IIDB was offensive to theists. I mean, sure there probably are some theists that are offended by the mere existence of atheists...but, I don't think that's what you mean. I mean, no matter what IIDB does or doesn't do, these types will be offended.

For that matter, I don't see what IIDB is doing to promote inoffensiveness. There's no forum for "Loving Your Theist Neighbor". The whole "Chuck Fristians" thing was not resolved in a way to placate Christians.

All of this reminds me of a series of discussions here in the political forum. I propose that some people need to be less thin skinned and others need to be less hard assed.

[Goliath]

It might not exactly make me sympathetic to your cause.

:eyebrow2: And what, pray tell, is "my cause"?

How is it an attack?

Because you've brought a more general situation (words that offend that aren't the problem of the one uttering them) and changed the subject to me. For once, I will not stoop that low and flame you in kind.

[TomJoe]

You didn't, but I apologized anyway. I guess you have no intentions of accepting it. So be it.

So why ask me how many times am I going to ask for an apology?

First of all, it didn't bother me... what you said. I was going to respond to clarify my position but seebs beat me to it. I didn't think anyone needed to apologize... I try to save my apologies for when it really counts*, and so I don't ask for them at the slightest turn either.

I guess I just assumed that my silence was acceptance on a matter that I thought didn't even need to go where it went (ending in an apology). If it'll make you sleep better tonight, I accept your apology. :wink:

*making a minor mistake in reading something I wrote hardly qualifies as "counting".

[Zoot]

Dear Everybody,

This is absurd. Shut up.


Yours,

Zoot.

[Goliath]

Dear Everybody,

This is absurd. Shut up.


Yours,

Zoot.

Dear Zoot,

You are not in control of what I do.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Zoot]

Dear Zoot,

You are not in control of what I do.

Sincerely,

Goliath

More like YOU'RE not in control of what I do, NERD.

[Goliath]

So why ask me how many times am I going to ask for an apology?

Because it wasn't obvious at the time that you hadn't missed it.

I accept your apology. :wink:

Thank you.

[Goliath]

More like YOU'RE not in control of what I do,

:eyebrow2: ....Yes, neither of us have any control over what the other does. Your point?

NERD.

Why yes, yes I am. :nerd:

[Dragar]

And what, pray tell, is "my cause"?

Does it matter? I'm hardly going to be inclined to support you if you cause me suffering, am I? Now imagine I'm a theist, and you're promoting a naturalist worldview, or whatever the buzzwords are.

Because you've brought a more general situation (words that offend that aren't the problem of the one uttering them) and changed the subject to me. For once, I will not stoop that low and flame you in kind.

How did I change the subject? We were discussing our approaches to communicating with other humans that share different beliefs, and arguing about the best way of doing so. I pointed out that words may cause suffering. You retorted with 'not my problem'. Note the use of the word 'my' in that phrase.

Anyway, if I misunerstood your language, my apologies.

I'll try again. I'll phrase it generally, so that you won't be offended this time.

This 'not the speaker's problem' notion - is it not theist's problem if they somehow cause offense by misrepresenting atheism, for instance? Should atheists simply have tougher skins?

[Zoot]

Why yes, yes I am.

More like...

Hang on. Let me think.

More like I am, NERD.

Shit, that's no good.

MORE LIKE YOUR POINT.

[Dragar]

:giggles:

Okay, I'm off to bed. G'night folks. Don't get too worked up. ;)

[Goliath]

Does it matter?



:eyebrow2: ...Yes, of course it does. You're the one talking about being sympathetic to "my cause"...I want to know what you're sympathetic to.



How did I change the subject?



By changing the conversation from the IIDB and finding common ground with theists to me in particular.

This 'not the speaker's problem' notion - is it not theist's problem if they somehow cause offense by misrepresenting atheism, for instance?

Of course it is...but we're talking about finding common ground with theists, not misrepresenting them.

[Goliath]

Why yes, yes I am.

More like...

Hang on. Let me think.

More like I am, NERD.

Shit, that's no good.

MORE LIKE YOUR POINT.

Ummm...are you okay?

[Zoot]

More like YOU'RE okay.

[Goliath]

More like YOU'RE okay.

...oooohhhkay...I'll take that as a "No." Whatever's wrong, please get help.

[Zoot]

Ah, Christ, I actually have something to say in this stupid discussion.

It's stupid to want all forums to have happy friendly diversity and tolerance. There will always be a forum where people go if they want to point out that people are as batshit insane as a vice-president's wife to worship an invisible man and they don't want to be all nice and diplomatic about it. And there will be forums where people try to be nice about it. And there will be forums where moderators don't follow the Cult of Being Moderate.

Their call. Who cares.

I often cannot be bothered pandering to people's insanities. I don't go around avoiding the topic of Santa Claus around people too old to believe in it.

[godfry n. glad]

Well, as I've made ever so clear, I'd just as soon that IIDB went into a well-deserved receivership for its piss-poor moderation and administration. They deserve a ruinous lawsuit. If I had the money to throw away, I'd do it myself.

This opinion has nothing to do with theist moderators. It has more to do with their contradictory moderation policies and how they steal intellectual property.

As for theist moderators, I don't question the ability of some theists to fulfill the role, but I wonder at the necessity of placing those who have a PoV contrary view to the majority of infidels. This is because it places non-infidels in places of authority within a structure originally designed to be a community for non-theists. If they wish to "find common ground with theists"...fine. I've no problem with that. But to turn over places of authority to theists in a infidel site seems a violation of the original intent. It's rather like theists allowing atheists to attend their services, but they wouldn't give them the keys to the church treasury or allow them to control the content of the sermon....but that's what's expected of non-theists at IIDB....They have to alter their behavior to accomodate those who would condemn them for who they are and what they think. For eternity.

So... I don't give a rat's ass about IIDB, as I consider it corrupt and rotten. But, with this latest move, they have polluted the community that was once a comfort to those who had very little in the way of supportive community.

I perceive those who do not hold theistic beliefs as being at a disadvantage in terms of building community and activist direction, especially in comparison to the purveyors of theistic dogma. There are no infidel churches, synogogues or temples. Creating cohesive communities where non-theists feel comfortable is far more important than finding any common ground. As far as I'm concerned, the implementation of the theist moderators at an infidel site is an erosion of that community.

As for "seeking common ground", I would note that liv's posting of the "policy" includes the word "might". As I understand it, the objective (and it's a secondary objective, at that) is to explore any common ground theists might have with non-theists....not try to create common ground. And, I don't know why that can't be discussed at IIDB and put into action elsewhere.

So, I guess I'm with Corwin, but he seems to care about what actually happens and I gave up long ago. The only thing I miss is the crowd in Biblical Criticism and History....They should break off the shitty IIDB and create their own free-standing forum.

godfry

[David Gould]

II was a very useful forum for me when I first became an atheist. I learned about what atheism was and I learned why it was the position for me. I also learned that fundamentalist atheism was irrational and annoying. I have moved on from II. Now I much prefer conversing with people who disagree with me - although I prefer to talk with people who disagree with me politely, rather than those who disagree with me impolitely.

I think people might be taking II's supposed transition a little too personally, that's all.

[seebs]

But yelling at someone who just spent four hours getting the shit kicked out of him by homophobes, because he was sticking up for gay rights, and calling him names, does not make him feel like going back and doing it again tomorrow.


Except that at the end of the day, that someone still believes that gays are going to hell.

Probably not. The majority of Christians, anyway, do not believe that all atheists go to hell. Can't speak for other religions, but Christian teachings on the subject, while fairly diverse, are certainly not universally committed to the "everyone else goes to hell" meme. It's a minority (albeit a fairly loud one).

[livius drusus]

The only thing I miss is the crowd in Biblical Criticism and History....They should break off the shitty IIDB and create their own free-standing forum.

Did you know that cweb created a mini-BC&H forum a few months ago? It's still very small, but some BC&H denizens post there. Perhaps you might enjoy it. Judaeo-Christian Literature and Culture (http://neonostalgia.com/bible/forums/)

[Goliath]

The majority of Christians, anyway, do not believe that all atheists go to hell.

Again, this is an unsupported assertion.

[seebs]

Treating your friends as enemies is just plain stupid.

Unlike many xians I've encountered, when I use the word "friend", it means something.

Heh. Okay, "friends" and "enemies" are both bad words in this case.

When you treat people who are natural allies with your personal wellbeing as though they were trying to harm you, it's nonproductive.

[seebs]

Except that the entire basis of this discussion is that IIDB seems to be actively working to make an atheist website inoffensive for theists.

Hmm.

Distinguish between two possibilities:
1. No theist should be offended by IIDB.
2. At least one theist should be unoffended by IIDB.

The former strikes me as a ludicrous goal; the latter strikes me as a plausible one.

Christianity makes assertions that are in fact offensive to a metaphysically natrualist perspective. (As in 'not only is your natrualism wrong, it's evil and you deserve to be tortured forever just for making the suggestion!')

Christianity does not make that assertion.

One of the key things I've found comes up in this time and time again is that non-Christians frequently pick and choose the most offensive remarks they've heard from Christians everywhere, and the stupidest beliefs, and build these into a single, unified, very bad belief system.

The belief that non-Christians go to hell is not universal, and indeed, strictly speaking, it's a minority view.

Seems to me that a little more time spent finding common ground might help a lot, if your views of Christians are that skewed.

[seebs]

The majority of Christians, anyway, do not believe that all atheists go to hell.

Again, this is an unsupported assertion.

Okay, I'll support it.

Worldwide Christians: Right around 2 billion.
Catholics: Just over 1 billion.
Catholic teaching: We cannot say whether non-Christians go to hell, and some of them may be saved.

(The exact wording of this is elaborate, but that's the gist of it.)

Conclusion: A group containing more than 50% of Christianity worldwide explicitly rejects the "all non-believers go to hell" claim, as a matter of formal doctrine.

If you tack on, say, all the other denominations with similar beliefs (about half the Presbyterians, some but not all Baptists, many Lutherans, probably nearly all Orthodox, and a huge number of fringe groups like Quakers), it's way more than 50% who believe no such thing.

[viscousmemories]

Wow. Over five pages of posts while I was eating lunch and grocery shopping... :eek:

Okay well, I obviously can't respond to everything, but let me make a few points:

The owners of IIDB -- the BoD of the SecularWeb -- have decided that seeking common ground with theists is an important step in fulfilling their objective of promoting a naturalistic worldview.*

Corwin mentioned something about the goals and/or interests of "the base" of IIDB earlier, which I think is an interesting notion. I strongly suspect this unidentified "base" of anti-theists is in fact a minority of old-timers (and some newcomers) who want to get back to the "good ole days", when IIDB was all about gangbanging theists into kingdom come.

What this "base" doesn't seem to remember is that IIDB wasn't always a bastion for strong atheist anti-religious crusaders. Sure there used to be a lot less moderation and a lot more opportunities for gloves-off combat with theists, but if you go back far enough there also used to be more theists and some outspoken agnostics. (Including Bill, one of the longest standing administrators who hardly posts at all now.)

No, if you ask me the "base" isn't comprised of the "true Infidels" who love IIDB and hate to see its good name being sullied by coddling theists, it's comprised of a handful of anti-theist extremists who are pissed they can't control how things are run there anymore. In fact not unlike the religious extremists try to force creationism into schools and attack the separation of Church and State in the name of Christianity.

Another point is the common ground thing. One thing that became apparent in debating these various issues there and here, is that many of the IIDB usership really only pay lip service to ideas like Church/State Separation and promoting evolution. Anyone who was serious about these things would take and work with every ally they could find, regardless of race, religion, creed, color, or nationality. In my opinion the willingness to kick allies to the curb for their beliefs belies the truth of their priorities.

Shake mentioned that not all the forums at IIDB are the same as far as how theists are treated. I agree that this is the case in general, but I still think that overall the tenor is still very condescending to theists. But even that aside, what bugs me more than anything is the overwhelming tendancy of the Infidels to give each other a pass on faulty reasoning. When somebody falls prey to fallacious reasoning it does them no good (in the long run) to look the other way. Doing so might give you a chance to get another dig in at the theist, but at what cost to your ally?

And lastly, as I pointed out in the OP and seebs reiterated later, Heathen Hangout exists for the purpose of having a place to hang out and shoot the shit without regard for offending theists. So the fact that the BoD has decided that IIDB will no longer fill that role doesn't prevent anyone who is so inclined from joining there and doing just that.



* Please stop saying "metaphysical naturalism", because as livius has pointed out that wording has been removed from the IIDB Mission Statement. Or if you insist on using it, bump this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=65962) where Clutch argues for its lack of utility, and prove him wrong. :P

[seebs]

(Oh, they changed their mission statement? I guess I should re-read it.)

I used to get flack from Christians for busting bad arguments in Apologetics, but most of them have given up; I will never be persuaded that ignoring crappy arguments is useful.

[viscousmemories]

(Oh, they changed their mission statement? I guess I should re-read it.)

I used to get flack from Christians for busting bad arguments in Apologetics, but most of them have given up; I will never be persuaded that ignoring crappy arguments is useful.
Yeah I'm not sure what their precise rationale was, but I suspect they changed it primarily to go along with the whole "worldview" standard that's become... standard, instead of sticking with the excessively philosophical sounding metaphywhatsits. :shrug:

[Adora]

Random 2 cents, exchange rate varies.

I've never had any problem with II or its moderation and I think the "common ground" policy (if it actually exists, I've never heard that it does until this thread) is non-existent in practice, simply because the majority of users are atheists/agnostics, many of which with a chip on their shoulder. If you don't have the right amount of tolerant users of a forum, it doesn't matter what the top-down policy says, people simply aren't going to follow it. It just doesn't work that way.

And personally, I prefer it like that. I see II as a haven for "Infidels" of all shades on the web that's overrun with bullshit "religious" and Fundie sites thanks to its basic US-centric form and ability for any nutcase with a webpage maker to put their website online. Though sometimes the US-centrism of II shits me off as well, it doesn't quite have the underlying stench of religion to go with it, so I can handle it better. It helps far more people than it hinders, as mentioned in the many threads about it and on it where people say "I found II when I was in my deconversion process".

I like their Statement of Purpose because of this, and I really wish there were more sites like it with a mixture of all kinds of Infidels like II online. It basically says "Don't bring your bullshit here, or not-nice stuff will happen" which is, well, what happens. They don't need heavy-handed policies regarding the arsekicking of any stupid hardcore Fundie that shows up on the board, because the masses do the job for them. And I don't want this to change. II is one of the few stable websites I frequent that hasn't gone through a dramatic negative change in the past year, and it's nice to have a little virtual touchstone like that whenever I'm pissed off that something else I frequent has changed into something completely different from what it was...

Stupid fucking art-account sites...

But that's not to say I don't regularly resist the urge to use the "Stop making my side look stupid" with a lot of the non-theist & atheist members of II. I mean, as seebs said very early in this thread, militant atheism and Fundie-ism are binary opposites, and in many cases feed each other's existence. But I still feel like slapping people around the face who say anything along the lines of "I'm an atheist because I hate Fundies", because it's as stupid as "I'm a Buddhist because Richard Gere is!".

So that's all I can think of saying. Want to get more intelligent theists to show up and start discussing things? Well, you're going have to dump most of the posters, change the name, format, Statement of Purpose, etc etc and change the site so it's simply not II. And then you'll loose most of your other non-vitirolic posters because they were there for II, not an inter/intra-non/faith dialogue.

[Corwin]

Probably not. The majority of Christians, anyway, do not believe that all atheists go to hell. Can't speak for other religions, but Christian teachings on the subject, while fairly diverse, are certainly not universally committed to the "everyone else goes to hell" meme. It's a minority (albeit a fairly loud one).

Ahem....

6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,


10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Christianity does not make that assertion.


6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
6:21
Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.


1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1:19
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1:20
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1:22
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
1:23
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1:24
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1:25
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1:26
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1:28
And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1:29
That no flesh should glory in his presence.
1:30
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
1:31
That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Sometimes it kinda sucks to have your basic tenets listed in a publically available book, huh?

[seebs]

Ahem....

6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

(...)

Sometimes it kinda sucks to have your basic tenets listed in a publically available book, huh?

Not particularly.

No one stays on this planet, except by gravity. I don't think people have to believe in gravity for it to trump inertia and keep them from flying off into space.

Christianity makes claims about the underlying structure of the universe. The claim that non-Christians cannot be saved is popular among newbies and people with a chip on their shoulder, but it's not actually the teaching.

Look at it this way. You don't trust fundamentalists of the sort you're opposed to to tell you about science, mathematics, politics, or economics. Why are you giving them any credence as Biblical scholars?

[Corwin]

Look at it this way. You don't trust fundamentalists of the sort you're opposed to to tell you about science, mathematics, politics, or economics. Why are you giving them any credence as Biblical scholars?

Gee.... I dunno.... maybe the fact that they're READING FROM THE FLIPPIN BOOK?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Rationalize all you like, it won't change what's actually written.

[livius drusus]

Random 2 cents, exchange rate varies.

That one was worth at least a quarter.

[Godless Wonder]

I think there needs to be a place where a person is free to say that stupid is stupid. This isn't such a place, and neither is iidb.

[David Gould]

Gee.... I dunno.... maybe the fact that they're READING FROM THE FLIPPIN BOOK?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Rationalize all you like, it won't change what's actually written.

You understand, though, that 'What is actually written,' is not the same as 'What is meant'. Most Christians are not literalists. It surprises me that many atheists seem to be.

[seebs]

Look at it this way. You don't trust fundamentalists of the sort you're opposed to to tell you about science, mathematics, politics, or economics. Why are you giving them any credence as Biblical scholars?

Gee.... I dunno.... maybe the fact that they're READING FROM THE FLIPPIN BOOK?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Rationalize all you like, it won't change what's actually written.

Yeah, but what's actually written isn't "non-Christians go to hell". That's an interpretation.

Christianity has a lot of terms of art, and really, jargon. If you try to take second-hand translations out of context as if all the words were plain English, you get utter nonsense.

Especially when most of the interesting words come from a man who spoke primarily in parables, analogies, and rhetorical devices.

[Corwin]

Gee.... I dunno.... maybe the fact that they're READING FROM THE FLIPPIN BOOK?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Rationalize all you like, it won't change what's actually written.

You understand, though, that 'What is actually written,' is not the same as 'What is meant'. Most Christians are not literalists. It surprises me that many atheists seem to be.

Sophistry, evasion, and redirection. You redefine the argument as you go.

The difference between fundamentalist and liberal christians is nothing more than which parts of the bible you emphasize and which you ignore.

[seebs]

Gee.... I dunno.... maybe the fact that they're READING FROM THE FLIPPIN BOOK?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Rationalize all you like, it won't change what's actually written.

You understand, though, that 'What is actually written,' is not the same as 'What is meant'. Most Christians are not literalists. It surprises me that many atheists seem to be.

Well, for one thing, literalism makes for a much stupider religion than non-literalism in many cases, and that's an easier target.

For another, many atheists have their primary ongoing exposure to the Bible in the form of Chick tracts and other stuff all based on a sort of surrealistic but mostly literal view, so they're used to prooftexts and assume the book makes some kind of sense that way.

[Godless Wonder]

[QUOTE=Corwin][quote=Seebs]Yeah, but what's actually written isn't "non-Christians go to hell". That's an interpretation.

Christianity has a lot of terms of art, and really, jargon. If you try to take second-hand translations out of context as if all the words were plain English, you get utter nonsense.

Especially when most of the interesting words come from a man who spoke primarily in parables, analogies, and rhetorical devices.
And like much art, it's 100% bullshit. What it is definitely NOT, is a message from any kind of deity, or a message from the tooth fairy. It's fucking stupid <--- testing a hypothesis.

[seebs]

Sophistry, evasion, and redirection. You redefine the argument as you go.

No, I just never made the argument you're complaining about. It's not my problem, any more than it's your problem, as an atheist, that Mao Zedong had ludicrous beliefs about economics.

The difference between fundamentalist and liberal christians is nothing more than which parts of the bible you emphasize and which you ignore.

Hmm. Well, I guess I could argue for that, although I don't think there's any part of the Bible I "ignore". But... Those differences turn out to be fairly huge.

Hmm. No, actually, I think it fails. The question is not one of "emphasize" or "ignore" at all. It's a question of how we see the text. I see the Bible as a record of a lot of people trying to answer big questions, and writing down their experiences and thoughts. A fundamentalist generally sees it as essentially dictated by God. That's not a question of emphasizing and ignoring; that's a substantial question of hermeneutics. I'm not even reading it as the same kind of writing they are.

[livius drusus]

I think there needs to be a place where a person is free to say that stupid is stupid. This isn't such a place, and neither is iidb.

You've said it there (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=105118) already. You can say it here too, only without the benefit of the Greek chorus.

[seebs]

And like much art, it's 100% bullshit.

Er. "Term of art" has nothing to do with "art". Terms of art are words with special meaning within a field of study. So, for instance, when Christians talk about "lust", they (if they have been paying attention at all) don't mean exactly the same thing as the normal English word "lust"; they're talking about a special concept introduced and discussed in Christian theology.

What it is definitely NOT, is a message from any kind of deity, or a message from the tooth fairy. It's fucking stupid <--- testing a hypothesis.

I'm curious, what's the control group?

[Godless Wonder]

I think there needs to be a place where a person is free to say that stupid is stupid. This isn't such a place, and neither is iidb.

You've said it there (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=105118) already. You can say it here too, only without the benefit of the Greek chorus. Haha. ok. I left off the word "enough." Later.

[Corwin]

Gee.... I dunno.... maybe the fact that they're READING FROM THE FLIPPIN BOOK?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Rationalize all you like, it won't change what's actually written.

You understand, though, that 'What is actually written,' is not the same as 'What is meant'. Most Christians are not literalists. It surprises me that many atheists seem to be.

Well, for one thing, literalism makes for a much stupider religion than non-literalism in many cases, and that's an easier target.

For another, many atheists have their primary ongoing exposure to the Bible in the form of Chick tracts and other stuff all based on a sort of surrealistic but mostly literal view, so they're used to prooftexts and assume the book makes some kind of sense that way.

Interpet this:

31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

[godfry n. glad]

Gee.... I dunno.... maybe the fact that they're READING FROM THE FLIPPIN BOOK?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Rationalize all you like, it won't change what's actually written.

You understand, though, that 'What is actually written,' is not the same as 'What is meant'. Most Christians are not literalists. It surprises me that many atheists seem to be.

Well, for one thing, literalism makes for a much stupider religion than non-literalism in many cases, and that's an easier target.

For another, many atheists have their primary ongoing exposure to the Bible in the form of Chick tracts and other stuff all based on a sort of surrealistic but mostly literal view, so they're used to prooftexts and assume the book makes some kind of sense that way.

Hmmm... The problem here that I see is that when I engage anyone who claims that they are "a Christian" and I ask upon what authority they understand themselves to be "a Christian", they will (and do) cite "The Bible, specifically the New Testament." To support their claim that their action or belief is the "correct" one basically resolves to this set of writings....and an interpretation. It's the interpretation of those writings that draws the distinctions amongst sectaries within the fold of christianity itself.

I know it fairly well. Corwin obviously knows it better than most christians with which I've discussed this issue with. I suspect he probably knows it better than I. I find this often to be the case....that unbelievers know the scriptures better than believers. That's because most of them get shovelled to them by some theogogue who's got his own personal bent on the hereafter and righteousness.

If you don't accept the writings which Corwin has cited as authenitic and authoritative...would you be so kind as to explain why and point out where and how he has erred, instead of referring to fairly common christian tracts?

Red herring.

godfry

[seebs]

Interpet this:

31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Okay.

What that passage says is that "believing in Jesus" and not showing compassion buys you less than nothing, and that showing compassion, whether or not you ever use the word "Jesus" or believed anything, makes God like you.

It's an excellent passage to consider in these discussions, because the only thing it says about the beliefs of the "sheep" is the implication that, if anything, they weren't even aware of any implications; they did the right thing because it was the right thing.

In short, this is Jesus arguing for something suspiciously similar to salvation through righteous action; this makes it rather rough on the exclusivists, who simply can't use this passage.

[seebs]

Hmmm... The problem here that I see is that when I engage anyone who claims that they are "a Christian" and I ask upon what authority they understand themselves to be "a Christian", they will (and do) cite "The Bible, specifically the New Testament." To support their claim that their action or belief is the "correct" one basically resolves to this set of writings....and an interpretation. It's the interpretation of those writings that draws the distinctions amongst sectaries within the fold of christianity itself.

Mostly. There's also questions like "how do you feel about other writings", which matter a lot.

I know it fairly well. Corwin obviously knows it better than most christians with which I've discussed this issue with. I suspect he probably knows it better than I. I find this often to be the case....that unbelievers know the scriptures better than believers. That's because most of them get shovelled to them by some theogogue who's got his own personal bent on the hereafter and righteousness.

Right. But what tends to happen, I think, is that people from all over the spectrum fail to distinguish between the actual words and the way they've always understood those words.

If you don't accept the writings which Corwin has cited as authenitic and authoritative...would you be so kind as to explain why and point out where and how he has erred, instead of referring to fairly common christian tracts?

I didn't say I didn't accept them. I said I disagreed with him about what they meant. For instance, I can't imagine anyone thinking the Matthew passage is even compatible with exclusivism, let alone some kind of support for it.

As to the others, I've explained this before, and I suppose one more time won't hurt. I don't see those passages as referring to belief. (There are some which do, but more on that later.) In short, when the Bible says "you cannot be saved except through Christ", I read it the same way I would read a book saying "you cannot be anchored to the earth's surface except by gravity". I don't see it as saying "you must believe this or go to hell", any more than I see a physics book as saying "you have to believe in gravity or fly off into space".

[godfry n. glad]

Hmmm... The problem here that I see is that when I engage anyone who claims that they are "a Christian" and I ask upon what authority they understand themselves to be "a Christian", they will (and do) cite "The Bible, specifically the New Testament." To support their claim that their action or belief is the "correct" one basically resolves to this set of writings....and an interpretation. It's the interpretation of those writings that draws the distinctions amongst sectaries within the fold of christianity itself.

Mostly. There's also questions like "how do you feel about other writings", which matter a lot.

I know it fairly well. Corwin obviously knows it better than most christians with which I've discussed this issue with. I suspect he probably knows it better than I. I find this often to be the case....that unbelievers know the scriptures better than believers. That's because most of them get shovelled to them by some theogogue who's got his own personal bent on the hereafter and righteousness.

Right. But what tends to happen, I think, is that people from all over the spectrum fail to distinguish between the actual words and the way they've always understood those words.

If you don't accept the writings which Corwin has cited as authenitic and authoritative...would you be so kind as to explain why and point out where and how he has erred, instead of referring to fairly common christian tracts?

I didn't say I didn't accept them. I said I disagreed with him about what they meant. For instance, I can't imagine anyone thinking the Matthew passage is even compatible with exclusivism, let alone some kind of support for it.

As to the others, I've explained this before, and I suppose one more time won't hurt. I don't see those passages as referring to belief. (There are some which do, but more on that later.) In short, when the Bible says "you cannot be saved except through Christ", I read it the same way I would read a book saying "you cannot be anchored to the earth's surface except by gravity". I don't see it as saying "you must believe this or go to hell", any more than I see a physics book as saying "you have to believe in gravity or fly off into space".

I'm sorry seebs, but the term "saved" is nonsensical to me. And then, I suppose, we could spend hours arguing about the meaning of "Christ", all of which would refer back to other arcane superstitions embedded in the variant interpretations of other parts of the collection of writings. It's nonsense self-referencing nonsense.

The gist of it, as I understand is that if one believes....blindly....the appropriate thing about "Christ"....and it's the right thing...then they get in good in the hereafter...everlasting life.... Right?

That is the payoff, isn't it?

:qsigh:
godfry

[Corwin]

It's an excellent passage to consider in these discussions, because the only thing it says about the beliefs of the "sheep" is the implication that, if anything, they weren't even aware of any implications; they did the right thing because it was the right thing.

Except that you're using your own personal interpetation of this, when 'sheep' is historically a reference to Christians (regardless of their behavior aside from following their shephard, Jesus) and 'goats' is historically a reference to non-christians of any stripe. (Again, regardless of behavior.) We could go into the historical and etymological reasons for this, (such as the flock symbolism in christianity vs the 'rutting beast' imagery attributed to pagans by christians) but why bother? The passage says what it says.

[viscousmemories]

I keep thinking someone's gonna eventually provide some kind of argument for why IIDB shouldn't have theist mods or why they shouldn't have seeking common ground with theists as part of their mission statement. It's been asserted an awful lot, but the justifications I've seen so far seem to amount to "because it's fun to call theists names".

Did I miss a substantive argument somewhere? Serious question...

[Corwin]

I keep thinking someone's gonna eventually provide some kind of argument for why IIDB shouldn't have theist mods or why they shouldn't have seeking common ground with theists as part of their mission statement. It's been asserted an awful lot, but the justifications I've seen so far seem to amount to "because it's fun to call theists names".

Did I miss a substantive argument somewhere? Serious question...

Theist mods and theist posters I could give a rat's ass about. That's not the problem.

The problem is that I don't like having to watch what I say for fear of being edited or worse when I didn't have to before... and just to avoid offending theists (for whom IIDB wasn't made in the first place.)

IIDB was one of the few places we could go and not actually have to worry about being harrangued by clueless idiots. Notice I said 'was.'

[David Gould]

Sophistry, evasion, and redirection. You redefine the argument as you go.

The difference between fundamentalist and liberal christians is nothing more than which parts of the bible you emphasize and which you ignore.

Perhaps, although interpretation rather than ignore is more accurate. And? This does not alter the fact that most Christians do not believe that all atheists will burn in Hell for eternity, which is the point you brought up and which is being argued against.

[Corwin]

Sophistry, evasion, and redirection. You redefine the argument as you go.

The difference between fundamentalist and liberal christians is nothing more than which parts of the bible you emphasize and which you ignore.

Perhaps, although interpretation rather than ignore is more accurate. And? This does not alter the fact that most Christians do not believe that all atheists will burn in Hell for eternity, which is the point you brought up and which is being argued against.

They don't? Ah... that whole 'lake of fire and fucking brimstone' is just so passe, right?

You don't believe it until the next charismatic, amoral bastard leads you goosestepping down the garden path. Then you switch your interpetations right back.

[viscousmemories]

Theist mods and theist posters I could give a rat's ass about. That's not the problem.

The problem is that I don't like having to watch what I say for fear of being edited or worse when I didn't have to before... and just to avoid offending theists (for whom IIDB wasn't made in the first place.)

IIDB was one of the few places we could go and not actually have to worry about being harrangued by clueless idiots. Notice I said 'was.'
II Moderators are editing posts to remove content that might offend theists?

[godfry n. glad]

I keep thinking someone's gonna eventually provide some kind of argument for why IIDB shouldn't have theist mods or why they shouldn't have seeking common ground with theists as part of their mission statement. It's been asserted an awful lot, but the justifications I've seen so far seem to amount to "because it's fun to call theists names".

Did I miss a substantive argument somewhere? Serious question...

Hey...vm...thanks.

My general impression is that not too many thing that there's much of anything that can be done about IIDB. It seems to me to be set on the inexorable course of its choosing...without me. Because of that, I don't really care much.

Nor do I see why I should....particularly when there's scripture slinging going around you. :giggle:

I'll just step away and try not to derail any further.

godfry

[viscousmemories]

Well just so you know it really was a serious question... I had to read pages 2-6 pretty quickly after getting back from lunch, then break for American Idol. :D I just didn't want to not address any arguments I might've missed. I confess I can't for the life of me figure out why any atheist would want to go on and on about scripture, though. :didi:

[David Gould]

They don't? Ah... that whole 'lake of fire and fucking brimstone' is just so passe, right?

You don't believe it until the next charismatic, amoral bastard leads you goosestepping down the garden path. Then you switch your interpetations right back.

Do they? I have never seen a liberal Christian become fundamentalist. I have seen the reverse happen, but never that. Is it your experience that liberal Christians often become fundamentalists?

You made a claim. It was demonstrated as false.

[godfry n. glad]

Well just so you know it really was a serious question... I had to read pages 2-6 pretty quickly after getting back from lunch, then break for American Idol. :D I just didn't want to not address any arguments I might've missed. I confess I can't for the life of me figure out why any atheist would want to go on and on about scripture, though. :didi:

Yeah, yeah, yeah... I knew it was a serious question. My answer sat on my desk for a couple of hours while I actually worked. When I came back to it, it wasn't a couple messages back....it was five pages! So...my serious answer was late and this thread has derailled about six different ways from Sunday....but then, I might be confused.

As to atheists slinging scripture...usually its because they're so good at it. Many came by it by subjection, others (like me) learned it out of curiousity. I'm not particularly good at it, and it runs through such monotonous patterns that it's almost predictable. But, hey, they know it...might as well use it.
:shrug:

godfry

[Corwin]

They don't? Ah... that whole 'lake of fire and fucking brimstone' is just so passe, right?

You don't believe it until the next charismatic, amoral bastard leads you goosestepping down the garden path. Then you switch your interpetations right back.

Do they? I have never seen a liberal Christian become fundamentalist. I have seen the reverse happen, but never that. Is it your experience that liberal Christians often become fundamentalists?

You made a claim. It was demonstrated as false.

Yeah.... because Germany and Italy in 1938 were full of nothing but fundamentalists.... and it's not as if the US is heading down the garden path or anything..... I mean, it's not like we have an assault on gay rights, abortion rights, women's rights and free speech.... and it's not as if the motivation for that would ever be religious doctrine....

[Corwin]

Theist mods and theist posters I could give a rat's ass about. That's not the problem.

The problem is that I don't like having to watch what I say for fear of being edited or worse when I didn't have to before... and just to avoid offending theists (for whom IIDB wasn't made in the first place.)

IIDB was one of the few places we could go and not actually have to worry about being harrangued by clueless idiots. Notice I said 'was.'
II Moderators are editing posts to remove content that might offend theists?

I've been edited repeatedly.

[viscousmemories]

I've been edited repeatedly.
You've been edited repeatedly for making comments that might be offensive to theists in general, without directing them at a particular person?

[pzmyers]

However, I'm not a fan of moderation and I tend toward the belief that adults don't need to be censored, so I'm not one of those people who believes that the moderators make discussion possible. In fact I think they often inhibit discourse more than help it.
We agree on one thing. I was getting very exasperated with the nitpicky rules and the absurd policies of trying to avoid all personal conflict on iidb. I would have preferred a simpler, cleaner policy of mods excising spam, attempting to redirect haywire discussions, and simply closing threads that were unsalvageable. With all the silly edition and censorship of certain words and names and references, I was beginning to feel like Yossarian...any longer there and I might have snapped and started getting creative in my editing.

I also believe that IIDB has a very strong, deeply ingrained culture of hostility toward theists and theism (Christians and Christianity in particular) and that nurturing that environment is counterproductive to what I see as much more important goal of seeking common ground with theists on issues of critical importance to everyone. Whether adding theist moderators can help acheive that remains to be seen, but I respect and endorse the effort.
As I've made clear, I think it was a betrayal.

A relatively new member here who has never posted and chose not to identify him or herself to me has informed me via PM that he/she is aware of up to 5 moderators and 1 administrator of IIDB who have resigned or intend to resign over the appointment of theist mods. Included was a not-so-subtle hint that it is people of my ilk who have contributed to forcing good people who love the Infidels to step down in protest.

I was one mod who resigned over the policy, and also over the incredibly ham-handed and offensive way in which the board handled it. I can't share the details, but I lost all respect for the prissy, boutique atheists on the BoD over it.

Someone has already mentioned the obvious comparison with the Democratic party, and I feel strongly that that analogy is appropriate. There are core principles of an organization that should be held firmly; the idea is not that we should be so rigid that we are incapable of working with the opposition, but that there should at least be retention of some identity. Constantly compromising on who we are and what principles we adhere to just makes us look weak and leads to the point where one is unrecognizable from that which one nominally opposes.

The Democrats have done that, chasing votes by abandoning liberal principles, and they've ended up looking like the Republican Lite party...and look at our country now. We're arguing about whether torture is ethical, whether we ought to follow the Geneva conventions.

Similarly, iidb has thrown away its core. Freethinkers ought to be standing up boldly for the ideas that 1) there are no gods, or at the very least no evidence for them, 2) the rejection of all religious dogma, 3) the primacy of naturalism and reason, and 4) the establishment of wholly secular institutions to supplant religious ones. We are supposed to oppose religion, not compromise with it!

Do we need to coexist with religion? Of course. But not by embracing it or by incorporating bits of superstition or members of the unreality-based community into our organizations. That's not coexistence, it is surrender. IIDB has been fighting its constituency for some time, and by coopting the religious, is simply not an atheist organization anymore. It's an irrelevant hodge-podge. An amorphous collection of purposeless chatterers. It might be a place to go for some conversation, but it is no longer (if it ever was) a place with the potential to advance the secular cause.

[Adora]

I keep thinking someone's gonna eventually provide some kind of argument for why IIDB shouldn't have theist mods or why they shouldn't have seeking common ground with theists as part of their mission statement.
Well, I gave my two cents on the latter: because it won't work, and they'll just be banging their head against a wall on all sides. The hostile environment of II simply won't come around, and no smart theist is going to want to stick their arse out in said environment. To then put this in the mission statement would start a whole new shitfight on the site, and if it didn't work, just make them look more hypocritical than normal, which I don't think they'd like. And, considering my comment below- they may start losing money from it. And even if you are a "non-profit org", you still need a flow of capital of some sort to run a site as big as II/SecWeb.

It's been asserted an awful lot, but the justifications I've seen so far seem to amount to "because it's fun to call theists names".
And to make money out of it, and post banners to the sites of companies that make money out of it at the top of your forum.

and it's not as if the motivation for that would ever be religious doctrine....
No, it's not. It's something far more evil and insidious dressed up as religious doctrine, which is what disturbs me more than straight out theocratic revolution which, really, doesn't exist, since there's always more complex motivations behind the rise of theocracies which are glossed over with the religious excuses.

[Ronin]

Having a theist moderator at the IIDB does not surrender to religion, in my view.

The moderator merely keeps topics on track (by assorted means) and warns of rule violations.

Let the subject matter regarding the existence or non-existence of deities speak for itself.

Behavior is the rule of thumb for moderating such a large board, not ideology.

It would be the same as claiming that an atheist cannot be a police officer, because that would somehow undermine an orderly society.

...and I would just as much take exception to such a claim as I would the assertion that a theist could not moderate at the IIDB simply because he/she believes in a God.

[wildernesse]

They don't? Ah... that whole 'lake of fire and fucking brimstone' is just so passe, right?

You don't believe it until the next charismatic, amoral bastard leads you goosestepping down the garden path. Then you switch your interpetations right back.

Do they? I have never seen a liberal Christian become fundamentalist. I have seen the reverse happen, but never that. Is it your experience that liberal Christians often become fundamentalists?

You made a claim. It was demonstrated as false.

Yeah.... because Germany and Italy in 1938 were full of nothing but fundamentalists.... and it's not as if the US is heading down the garden path or anything..... I mean, it's not like we have an assault on gay rights, abortion rights, women's rights and free speech.... and it's not as if the motivation for that would ever be religious doctrine....

And it's not like there are any religious people with religious doctrine on the side of gay rights, abortion rights, women's rights, free speech, church state separation, civil rights, privacy rights, human rights, pro-peace, pro-environment, working to help the poor, the hungry, those left behind and left out of our political power structure, etc. I'm always, always shocked to learn that groups like the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Planned Parenthood, the Feminist Majority, etc. are made up completely of atheists, agnostics, or the general areligious.

I will tell you that if I were not married to a person who is a kind, loving, brilliant, generous and generally sensible person (who happens to be an atheist) that after my time on iidb I would not ever want to participate with self-identified atheists, agnostics or the general areligious. I have decided that I personally will never wear the label of atheist, agnostic or areligious, even if I were to become convinced of their arguments, many of which have merit. I came to iidb with the naive idea that atheists as a group would resemble my sweetie--and left thinking that he truly is an exceptional person.

Of course, I fall into the same trap that most of the people who annoy me do--inflating the negative to the majority and basing my ideas about the group (areligious) on those negative experiences. Which is a very human and irrational response--and which does not serve me well, because that response ignores and belittles the many wonderful people that I have met through iidb and irl and chat--wade, so-hy, jobar, ashaman, putney, jacey, WinAce, blex, pretty much everyone here, and lots more people who I can't even begin to name. They far outnumber the bastards who are being just as irrational as I am, but who prance around pretending to be paragons of mature rational thought.

[David Gould]

Yeah.... because Germany and Italy in 1938 were full of nothing but fundamentalists....



Completely and utterly false, and irrelevent to boot.



and it's not as if the US is heading down the garden path or anything..... I mean, it's not like we have an assault on gay rights, abortion rights, women's rights and free speech.... and it's not as if the motivation for that would ever be religious doctrine....

Not in dispute, and completely irrelevent. Your claim was that most Christians believe that atheists are going to hell. Your claim has been demonstrated as false.

[FormerFundie2004]

Well, this has a very high-probability of turning into yet another shitfest flamewar, but what the hell...

IMO, the IIDB isn't nearly as anti-xian* as it was, and that's very sad. In fact, theists and theism are downright mollycoddled there. That site is closer to being a xian site than I could've ever imagined.

Alright, Goliath, spill your gut; why are you so against Christians (or Christianity) anyway? What have they done to you. I want to read all about it. Were you once a Christian?

[viscousmemories]

Alright, Goliath, spill your gut; why are you so against Christians (or Christianity) anyway? What have they done to you. I want to read all about it. Were you once a Christian?
Oh, man. Please, please, please take that discussion to another thread. Please? :praying:

[pzmyers]

Having a theist moderator at the IIDB does not surrender to religion, in my view.

The moderator merely keeps topics on track (by assorted means) and warns of rule violations.

Let the subject matter regarding the existence or non-existence of deities speak for itself.

Behavior is the rule of thumb for moderating such a large board, not ideology.

It would be the same as claiming that an atheist cannot be a police officer, because that would somehow undermine an orderly society.

...and I would just as much take exception to such a claim as I would the assertion that a theist could not moderate at the IIDB simply because he/she believes in a God.

If the moderator is only to be a neutral referee, not a participant in secular advocacy, then you are correct. Theists can be fair and objective. But turning the moderators into simple censor-bots is also a dilution of the function of the secular web.

To use your own analogy, it's like claiming that a police officer's job is not to enforce the law, but to make sure that law-abiding citizens and criminals are each given an equal chance to carry out their activities. Do you go out of the way to make sure that bank robbers, muggers, murderers, and drug dealers have representation on the police force?

[Goliath]

why are you so against Christians (or Christianity) anyway?

I hate xianity, but I do not hate xians. Are you able and willing to understand the difference?

What have they done to you.

And for that, you can fuck right off. I'm sick and fucking tired of condescending xians and their "You're an atheist? Awwww, poor baby! Someone must've been a meanie to you!" attitude.

So, until you become capable of not being so unbearably condescending, you can fuck off. Fuck right off. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

[Ronin]

If the moderator is only to be a neutral referee, not a participant in secular advocacy, then you are correct. Theists can be fair and objective. But turning the moderators into simple censor-bots is also a dilution of the function of the secular web.

My view is that secular advocacy is advanced by allowing theists to participate and allowing the the subject matter regarding the pros and cons of religion stand or fall on the arguments presented.

Not, on the other hand, of squelching the examination of all claims at a moderator level which seems to be what you are suggesting.

To use your own analogy, it's like claiming that a police officer's job is not to enforce the law, but to make sure that law-abiding citizens and criminals are each given an equal chance to carry out their activities. Do you go out of the way to make sure that bank robbers, muggers, murderers, and drug dealers have representation on the police force?

Your analogy fails in reality because both theists and atheists can be law abiding citizens and also police officers (your earlier assessment that theists can be fair and "objective" applies here).

When either of them harm or prevent the liberty of others, however, either of them become criminals.

The BSA is missing out on good people because of a similar view. I see no reason for a group such as the II to behave likewise and with much the same mentality.

[Ronin]

Oh, man. Please, please, please take that discussion to another thread. Please? :praying:

Nothing fails like...well...you know.

:wink:

Let me try...

:voodoo:

[Goliath]

Both of you relax...like I said, I refuse to have said conversation with FormerFundie2004 until she takes out that huge stick lodged in her ass (wasn't there a bible verse about that...? :D) and is capable of not being so irritatingly condescending.

[livius drusus]

Oo! I can use of the new ones! :bait2:

[Goliath]

Oo! I can use of the new ones! :bait2:

:clap: Perfect!

Except...shouldn't there be some bait on that hook?

[David Gould]

I hate xianity, but I do not hate xians. Are you able and willing to understand the difference?



Hmmm. Hate the sin, love the sinner. I have never seen anyone be able to demonstrate hatred towards a sin without demonstrating hatred towards the sinner. Can you tell me what, in practical terms, your hatred of Christianity entails? In other words, what do you do to express your hatred of Christianity that does not appear to express hatred of Christians? I ask because Christians who hate homosexuality seem to me to be unable to recognise that what they do and say actually appear as expressions of hatred for homosexuals. I am wondering how you avoid the same thing.

Oh, but I have seen you saying that you do not care how you come across, and that if they feel hated that's their own fault. 'Not your problem,' was, I believe, the phrase you used. I am wondering how sympathetic you would be to a Christian who, when confronted with the fact that homosexuals felt that he was being hateful to them said, 'I am not being hateful to them. If they feel that I am, that's not my problem'?

[wildernesse]

Technically, FormerFundie2004 didn't say "poor atheist, what ever happened to you", she said "you dislike christians, why, did they do something?" Disliking Christians or Christianity does not equal atheism.

[viscousmemories]

The advocacy angle is an interesting one that came up when this debate first started happening at IIDB. As I recall the final decision was that mods aren't required to advocate a naturalistic worldview, which I've always thought does seem a bit odd at a site where that is their core mission.

At the same time though it seems to me like it would actually be preferable for moderators to be opinion-neutral rule enforcers (as much as possible, anyway).

[Goliath]

Can you tell me what, in practical terms, your hatred of Christianity entails?

Ummmm....well, it would be exactly what hatred of anything else would entail in practical terms, except it's hatred of xianity. Maybe I don't understand the question.

In other words, what do you do to express your hatred of Christianity that does not appear to express hatred of Christians?

Simple: The xians that I associate with irl know that I hate their belief, but that I do not hate them.

[Goliath]

Technically, FormerFundie2004 didn't say "poor atheist, what ever happened to you", she said "you dislike christians, why, did they do something?" Disliking Christians or Christianity does not equal atheism.

But (pay attention here) I do not dislike xians*. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

* - Of course, there are particular xians that I do dislike, but this is not due to their xianity (and in case you're wondering, no, wildy, I'm not talking about you).

[David Gould]

Ummmm....well, it would be exactly what hatred of anything else would entail in practical terms, except it's hatred of xianity. Maybe I don't understand the question.



What do you do to express your hatred? (I know you post on message boards - do you do other things?)



Simple: The xians that I associate with irl know that I hate their belief, but that I do not hate them.

When you post on a message board and Christians are able to read it, do you consider that associating with them? If so, how do you ensure that they know that you do not hate them? The only method I am aware of it by telling them that you do not hate them. I have seen Christians use the same method: after talking about the evils of homosexuality and so forth they say, 'But I don't hate homosexuals,' often along with the classic standard, 'Some of my best friends are homosexual.' Would you agree with these Christians that they do not hate homosexuals?

[livius drusus]

The advocacy angle is an interesting one that came up when this debate first started happening at IIDB. As I recall the final decision was that mods aren't required to advocate a naturalistic worldview, which I've always thought does seem a bit odd at a site where that is their core mission.

Well, back in the metaphysical naturalism days, they couldn't ask mods to advocate it because they could barely define it. I don't think the mods have ever been selected according to any advocacy criteria. Behavioral history and rates of participation have been the standards for as long as I've been around. :shrug:

[Goliath]

What do you do to express your hatred? (I know you post on message boards - do you do other things?)

Other than a seldom rl conversation, no. I used to belong to American Atheists, but they seemed to only want to cater to strong atheists, and not weak atheists (such as myself).

When you post on a message board and Christians are able to read it, do you consider that associating with them?

Yes, but not associating with them irl (irl meaning "in real life").

[David Gould]

Other than a seldom rl conversation, no. I used to belong to American Atheists, but they seemed to only want to cater to strong atheists, and not weak atheists (such as myself).

Yes, but not associating with them irl (irl meaning "in real life").

Fair enough. What about my other questions?

[Goliath]

Fair enough. What about my other questions?

They do not apply, as there is an empty intersection amongst the xians that I know irl and the xians that I converse with here.

[wildernesse]

Technically, FormerFundie2004 didn't say "poor atheist, what ever happened to you", she said "you dislike christians, why, did they do something?" Disliking Christians or Christianity does not equal atheism.

But (pay attention here) I do not dislike xians*. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

* - Of course, there are particular xians that I do dislike, but this is not due to their xianity (and in case you're wondering, no, wildy, I'm not talking about you).

Yeah, I could have known that would bite me--but FormerFundie2004 did say Christians or Christianity, even if I didn't in my paraphrase of her. As for the repeat-ness of your message--either until we remember to be precise, or you stop caring. :P

[Ronin]

Both of you relax...like I said, I refuse to have said conversation with FormerFundie2004 until she takes out that huge stick lodged in her ass (wasn't there a bible verse about that...? :D) and is capable of not being so irritatingly condescending.

:ironymeter:

[David Gould]

Fair enough. What about my other questions?

They do not apply, as there is an empty intersection amongst the xians that I know irl and the xians that I converse with here.


Christians who are opposed to homosexuality attack homosexuality online. They then say, 'Oh, but I do not hate homosexuals.' Do you accept that? Why or why not?

I am trying to see how hate the sin, love the sinner actually works, as I have never seen it do so.

[Goliath]

Yeah, I could have known that would bite me--but FormerFundie2004 did say Christians or Christianity, even if I didn't in my paraphrase of her.

True, but she was assinine enough to presume that I hate xianity because of what xians have done to me. Ever since I became an atheist, I've had to deal with the same condescending, loaded bullshit from xians who want to know why I'm an atheist, and I'm fucking sick of it. Until FormerFundie2004 decides not to be a stuck-up, condescending cunt, I refuse to talk to her about my deconversion and why I hate xianity.

As for the repeat-ness of your message--either until we remember to be precise, or you stop caring. :P

LOL...I doubt the latter will ever happen. When I was a kid, I bought and used a microcassette recorder to replay phrases that my mother couldn't seem to pay attention to...:D

[Goliath]

Again, David, these xians that you're talking about are not the xians that I associate with irl, and that's what our (tangential) topic was.

[Goliath]

:ironymeter:

Nice.

[livius drusus]

Nicer than calling someone a cunt.

[David Gould]

Again, David, these xians that you're talking about are not the xians that I associate with irl, and that's what our (tangential) topic was.

I thought the (tangential) topic was about your hatred of Christianity and your non-hatred of Christians. However, let us assume that you are right. How about we then take another tangent and look at on-line behaviour (which is what this whole thread is actually about, considering that we are talking about an on-line discussion board). :)

[viscousmemories]

True, but she was assinine enough to presume that I hate xianity because of what xians have done to me.
That's how you interpreted her comment. I read it as a question, not an assumption.

Ever since I became an atheist, I've had to deal with the same condescending, loaded bullshit from xians who want to know why I'm an atheist, and I'm fucking sick of it.
And that answers the question in part, doesn't it?

[Goliath]

Nicer than calling someone a cunt.

Fair enough. I apologize for using that word.

[Goliath]

That's how you interpreted her comment. I read it as a question, not an assumption.

If it was a question, it would've had a question mark at the end, now wouldn't it?

And that answers the question in part, doesn't it?

No.

[Goliath]

How about we then take another tangent and look at on-line behaviour (which is what this whole thread is actually about, considering that we are talking about an on-line discussion board). :)

Okay. As far as the xians who do not hate homosexuals go....isn't the answer obvious? If they don't hate homosexuals, then they don't hate homosexuals.

[David Gould]

Okay. As far as the xians who do not hate homosexuals go....isn't the answer obvious? If they don't hate homosexuals, then they don't hate homosexuals.

Tautologies are fun! :) But that is not what I said.

Please note that these are both hypotheticals.


A Christian attacks homosexuality in such a way that comes across to homosexuals as hatred for them. The Christian then says, 'Oh, but I do not hate homosexuals; I hate homosexuality.' Is the problem here in the minds of the homosexuasl?

You attack Christianity in such a way that comes across to Christians as hatred for them. Then you say, 'Oh, but I do not hate Christians; I hate Christianity.' Is the problem here in the minds of the Christians?

[Goliath]

[A Christian attacks homosexuality in such a way that comes across to homosexuals as hatred for them. The Christian then says, 'Oh, but I do not hate homosexuals; I hate homosexuality.' Is the problem here in the minds of the homosexuasl?

That depends on whether or not the xian is telling the truth.


You attack Christianity in such a way that comes across to Christians as hatred for them.

How do you know that?

[David Gould]

That depends on whether or not the xian is telling the truth.



There is no information on that for the homosexual to go on.


You attack Christianity in such a way that comes across to Christians as hatred for them.

How do you know that?[/QUOTE]

I specifically said that it was a hypothetical. :)

[seebs]

I'm sorry seebs, but the term "saved" is nonsensical to me. And then, I suppose, we could spend hours arguing about the meaning of "Christ", all of which would refer back to other arcane superstitions embedded in the variant interpretations of other parts of the collection of writings. It's nonsense self-referencing nonsense.

Well, if it doesn't mean anything, then I don't think it means anything bad.

The gist of it, as I understand is that if one believes....blindly....the appropriate thing about "Christ"....and it's the right thing...then they get in good in the hereafter...everlasting life.... Right?

Nope.

That is the payoff, isn't it?

:qsigh:
godfry

That's the thing they peddle to kids, and that some people mistake for faith. It's not, and it's not even a good approximation.

[wildernesse]

Yeah, I could have known that would bite me--but FormerFundie2004 did say Christians or Christianity, even if I didn't in my paraphrase of her.

True, but she was assinine enough to presume that I hate xianity because of what xians have done to me. Ever since I became an atheist, I've had to deal with the same condescending, loaded bullshit from xians who want to know why I'm an atheist, and I'm fucking sick of it. Until FormerFundie2004 decides not to be a stuck-up, condescending cunt, I refuse to talk to her about my deconversion and why I hate xianity.

Well, "Person hates someone/thing because it's done something to the person" is a more rational assumption than "Person hates someone/thing because it exists and has never affected the person at all"--so I'm not really sure what's condescending about it. Also, it has nothing to do with you being an atheist, but with your hatred of Christianity--a feature which might be central to your atheism (or not) but is not synonymous with it.

I think you're projecting characteristics on FormerFundie2004 that aren't justified. And being rude, which you may not think is your problem--but you don't like people being rude and mean to you, so don't be a hypocrite. Edited to Add: I see that you've apologized for calling FormerFundie2004 a cunt, thanks--although I'm sure it would mean more if you apologized to her as opposed to in general. I will apologize to you for calling you a hypocrite. Dang, I can't see the smilies in quick edit, or I would put a bowing one here.

As for the repeat-ness of your message--either until we remember to be precise, or you stop caring. :P

LOL...I doubt the latter will ever happen. When I was a kid, I bought and used a microcassette recorder to replay phrases that my mother couldn't seem to pay attention to...:D

:chuckle: Did your recorder ever have any mysterious accidents resulting in an untimely demise?

[Goliath]

There is no information on that for the homosexual to go on.

So? The answer to your question is still a function of whether or not the xian is lying.

[seebs]

Except that you're using your own personal interpetation of this, when 'sheep' is historically a reference to Christians (regardless of their behavior aside from following their shephard, Jesus) and 'goats' is historically a reference to non-christians of any stripe. (Again, regardless of behavior.) We could go into the historical and etymological reasons for this, (such as the flock symbolism in christianity vs the 'rutting beast' imagery attributed to pagans by christians) but why bother? The passage says what it says.

Er, no.

Read the passage. What does Jesus say about the sheep? He talks about what they did. What does He say about the goats? He talks about what they did.

The "sheep == Christians, goats == others" thing is not part of this passage, nor is it part of how this passage came to be.

It is based on attempts to say that, since Christians go to Heaven, sheep must be Christians.

But when you ignore the retcons and attempts to make people feel good about themselves, and just look at what Jesus (supposedly, anyway) actually said, well, it's got nothing to do with that.

[Goliath]

Well, "Person hates someone/thing because it's done something to the person" is a more rational assumption than "Person hates someone/thing because it exists and has never affected the person at all"

Exercise for the reader: Find the logical error in the above quoted sentence.

I think you're projecting characteristics on FormerFundie2004 that aren't justified.

I don't think so, no. Rather than asking me why I hated xianity, she presumed to know...why, then, did she ask?

My irritation may look a bit confusing to you, but imagine facing an equally condescending loaded question everytime you tell someone that you're a xian, step into a church or pray.

And being rude, which you may not think is your problem--but you don't like people being rude and mean to you, so don't be a hypocrite.

And, again, I apologized for using the word "cunt". Apparently, my apologies fall on deaf ears around here. I may as well never apologize for anything again on these boards. What difference would it make?

:chuckle: Did your recorder ever have any mysterious accidents resulting in an untimely demise?

Amazingly, no...in fact, I think it's still in an unpacked box in the extra bedroom (ie the jumk room). I did have to buy tapes for it, occasionally, though. :D

[seebs]

Perhaps, although interpretation rather than ignore is more accurate. And? This does not alter the fact that most Christians do not believe that all atheists will burn in Hell for eternity, which is the point you brought up and which is being argued against.

They don't? Ah... that whole 'lake of fire and fucking brimstone' is just so passe, right?

To the best of my knowledge:
1. A majority of Christians do not believe that "all atheists go to Hell".
2. A fairly large number of Christians do not believe that the fire thing is literal.
3. As a result, the set of people who believe that "all atheists will burn in Hell for eternity" is a fairly definite minority of Christian thought. A loud and vocal one, but...

You don't believe it until the next charismatic, amoral bastard leads you goosestepping down the garden path. Then you switch your interpetations right back.

Like the way atheists don't hate all concepts of ethical behavior until the next charismatic, amoral bastard leads them goosestepping down the garden path? Come on, now. These beliefs are fairly stable and developed in most mature Christians, and a lot more people become moderate over time than become fundified over time.

[David Gould]

There is no information on that for the homosexual to go on.

So? The answer to your question is still a function of whether or not the xian is lying.

No, it is not. I am talking about practicalities here. If something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck it is not unreasonable to conclude that it is a duck. Whether you are right or wrong has nothing to do with it being a reasonable conclusion or not.

In other words, given the anti-homosexuality rhetoric is it reasonable for the homosexual to conclude that the Christian hates homosexuals, his statement to the contrary notwithstanding?

[seebs]

and it's not as if the US is heading down the garden path or anything.....

It may be, but insofar as it is, this isn't conversions of liberals; it's conversions of militant atheists (who make wonderful fundamentalists) and children.

I mean, it's not like we have an assault on gay rights, abortion rights, women's rights and free speech.... and it's not as if the motivation for that would ever be religious doctrine....

I see it as like the Jim Crow laws. When society changes, people try to pass laws to keep it unchanged. Then it changes anyway, and if the laws made it on the books at all, they go away.

Anti-miscegenation laws existed, not in the most-racist environment, but when racism started fading.

[Goliath]

No, it is not.

Wrong. If the xian is telling the truth, then the xian does not hate homosexuals. If the xian is not telling the truth, then the xian hates homosexuals.

So, the answer to your question is completely determined by whether or not the xian is telling the truth.

[David Gould]

No, it is not.

Wrong. If the xian is telling the truth, then the xian does not hate homosexuals. If the xian is not telling the truth, then the xian hates homosexuals.

So, the answer to your question is completely determined by whether or not the xian is telling the truth.

You are not answering the right question. You see, I am not asking about whether the Christian does or does not hate homosexuals: I am asking if it is reasonable for the homosexual to conclude that he does.

[Goliath]

You are not answering the right question. You see, I am not asking about whether the Christian does or does not hate homosexuals: I am asking if it is reasonable for the homosexual to conclude that he does.

No, you are trying to shift the goalposts. Such attempts will not work.

You had asked that if the xian says "I don't hate homosexuals, I just hate homosexuality", and if the homosexual in question hears it, then is it the homosexual's problem if he is offended?

The answer depends on whether or not the xian is telling the truth.

[David Gould]

You are not answering the right question. You see, I am not asking about whether the Christian does or does not hate homosexuals: I am asking if it is reasonable for the homosexual to conclude that he does.

No, you are trying to shift the goalposts. Such attempts will not work.



I am not shifting the goalposts. I am asking the same thing I asked at the start.



You had asked that if the xian says "I don't hate homosexuals, I just hate homosexuality", and if the homosexual in question hears it, then is it the homosexual's problem if he is offended?

The answer depends on whether or not the xian is telling the truth.

So if I call you a fucking stupid cunt and I do not really mean it it is your problem if you are offended but if I really meant it then it is not? I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. (Apart from creationism, but there you go. ;))

[seebs]

You are not answering the right question. You see, I am not asking about whether the Christian does or does not hate homosexuals: I am asking if it is reasonable for the homosexual to conclude that he does.

This presupposes the possibility of reasonable false conclusions, something mathematicians are unlikely to buy into easily.

But in any event, I think it's reasonable for people to draw that conclusion, in many cases. It might be less reasonable if it's explicitly disclaimed, but I think there's room for doubting even then.

In short, if someone says sufficiently nasty things, I find it more plausible that they're mistaken about their own state, which I know happens, than that they're really mean without any animosity.

[Goliath]

I am not shifting the goalposts. I am asking the same thing I asked at the start.

In that case, I have answered your question. Multiple times. You just refuse to listen to the answer. If you continue to refuse to listen, you will probably find your way onto my ignore list.

So if I call you a fucking stupid cunt and I do not really mean it it is your problem if you are offended but if I really meant it then it is not?

No. What you have called me is what you have called me. This is in no way related to the discussion at hand.

[David Gould]

You are not answering the right question. You see, I am not asking about whether the Christian does or does not hate homosexuals: I am asking if it is reasonable for the homosexual to conclude that he does.

This presupposes the possibility of reasonable false conclusions, something mathematicians are unlikely to buy into easily.



If that is the case then it would seem to me that mathematicians would be placed in the position of having to conclude many unreasonable things, as they cannot be certain of truth in very many situations.

Bit of a problem, that.

However, I know how hard accepting the joy of doubt can be. :)



But in any event, I think it's reasonable for people to draw that conclusion, in many cases. It might be less reasonable if it's explicitly disclaimed, but I think there's room for doubting even then.

In short, if someone says sufficiently nasty things, I find it more plausible that they're mistaken about their own state, which I know happens, than that they're really mean without any animosity.

This is exactly what I am getting at.

[seebs]

You had asked that if the xian says "I don't hate homosexuals, I just hate homosexuality", and if the homosexual in question hears it, then is it the homosexual's problem if he is offended?

The answer depends on whether or not the xian is telling the truth.

I disagree. I think communication does not depend on perfect knowledge of whether or not others are always telling the truth.

[Goliath]

If that is the case then it would seem to me that mathematicians would be placed in the position of having to conclude many unreasonable things, as they cannot be certain of truth in very many situations.

Bit of a problem, that.

Go to college and take a few years of mathematics courses. That'll clear that ignorance right up.

[Goliath]

I disagree. I think communication does not depend on perfect knowledge of whether or not others are always telling the truth.

This is not a question of communication. This is merely a question of whether or not a xian who says "I hate homosexuality, but not homosexuals" does, in fact, hate homosexuals. If we fix a particular xian X, and let P be the proposition "X hates homosexuality, but not homosexuals", then the truth value of P depends on whether or not X is lying when X states P.

[David Gould]

I am not shifting the goalposts. I am asking the same thing I asked at the start.

In that case, I have answered your question. Multiple times. You just refuse to listen to the answer. If you continue to refuse to listen, you will probably find your way onto my ignore list.



The problem is that I do not understand your answer.

So if I call you a fucking stupid cunt and I do not really mean it it is your problem if you are offended but if I really meant it then it is not?

No. What you have called me is what you have called me. This is in no way related to the discussion at hand.[/QUOTE]

It seems to me to be an exact analogy. If you were offended, is your offence justified?

[David Gould]

I disagree. I think communication does not depend on perfect knowledge of whether or not others are always telling the truth.

This is not a question of communication. This is merely a question of whether or not a xian who says "I hate homosexuality, but not homosexuals" does, in fact, hate homosexuals. If we fix a particular xian X, and let P be the proposition "X hates homosexuality, but not homosexuals", then the truth value of P depends on whether or not X is lying when X states P.

It has nothing to do with whether the particular Christian hates homosexuals or not. That is not, has not and will not be the question I asked.

[viscousmemories]

I think it's pretty cool that this thread is so active, but is there anyone here still interested in discussing the topic of the OP anymore? If so...

I think I'd like to amend something I said in the OP. In truth I don't particularly endorse and support the appointment of theist moderators at IIDB because I think it might contribute to improved relations between them. I endorse and support it because I think the role of moderators needn't be anything other than neutral enforcement of the rules and policies, so I don't think belief in any particular ideology is required.

As for promoting a naturalistic worldview, I honestly don't even see the point. From what I've seen being a naturalist doesn't automatically make someone informed or reasonable, and it doesn't by itself do anything to improve science education or any other political objectives. So it seems like having more of a focus on those things and less concern about the ideology behind it would be more logical.

Probably my final thoughts before bed...