Here's to the Religion Group - DU's Most Active Discussion Group!

[MineralMan]

In the past 30 days, this Group has had 2,960 posts and replies written in it.

In the entire history of the group, the total of posts and replies is 303,462.

Those statistics demonstrate that this group is more popular than any other discussion group on the DU website. You can see forum and group statistics at this link:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forums

So, what does that mean? I think it means that people are interested in a forum that invites all, regardless of their religious beliefs, to participate in discussions about religion. Anyone. Even those who have no beliefs at all in deities or religion. It's a lively group, with a considerable range of opinions, beliefs, and non-belief. It's popular, because it's a place where a very sensitive topic is open for discussion, whether or not you are religious.

Some have, in the past, and even now, attempted to make the group uncomfortable for non-believers. They have been successful, sometimes, in driving some away, but not successful in limiting discussion to prohibit disagreement. That's a good thing, and is one of the reasons that this group, which is not protected by limitations on discussion, is so popular with DUers.

May it continue to be an open group that is accepting of all points of view about religion! May it always be what it is and has been - a group that welcomes one and all!

[NeoGreen]

1. Nitpick...

..."most active" is not necessarily the same as "most popular".

If a poll were to be posted in GD and/or Lounge, asking what is your favorite group (i.e. most popular), I would bet that this group would not be #1.

I justify my nitpick because you, sir, have made the point that words matter (and I agree).

[Major Nikon]

5. Hard to parse out the grain from the chaff at the macro level

At the micro level it isn’t that hard to spot, even within this thread.

[NeoGreen]

41. Nice observation/catch...

...and I wasn't even thinking of that perspective, but none the less, it's so true...so true.

[MineralMan]

6. Forums and groups are different.

I'm using the number of posts to measure popularity. Check my link to see the second most popular group.

[NeoGreen]

40. No worries...

...I was in a snarky mood, my apologies.

[guillaumeb]

2. Have any attempted to make the group uncomfortable for believers?

Because I see far more of that than anything else. I have seen a few theist posters here who simply stopped posting.

But yes, an open group that accepts all points of view would be a good thing.

[MineralMan]

8. Not relevant to my topic.

[guillaumeb]

11. Not relevant to your meme.

[MineralMan]

18. ..

[Voltaire2]

42. Lulzd.

[guillaumeb]

47. Expected.

And understood.

[edhopper]

50. It is a group that is open to all discussions

from believers and nonbelievers alike.

It is not a safe haven for people to feel comfortable and unchallenged.
We have those as well on DU.

You are constantly challenging the positions of atheist here.
Should we accuse you of not making it a place where atheists feel comfortable?

[Mariana]

53. Gil, didn't you know? There is already such a group.

The Interfaith Group is a safe haven group. As such, criticism, disagreement, awkward questions and the like are not tolerated. Here is the SOP of the Interfaith Group:

A safe haven that provides opportunities for people of all faiths, spiritual leanings and non-belief to discuss religious topics and events in a positive and civil manner, with an emphasis on tolerance. Criticisms of individual beliefs or non-belief, or debates about the existence of higher power(s) are not appropriate in this group.

There you go, Gil. An open group that accepts all points of view, and it prohibits any content that would make believers feel uncomfortable! I'll even provide a link for you:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1264

[guillaumeb]

54. There is also a safe group for atheists.

But you know that.
So, with that safe haven available for atheists, if they do not like my questions, and they do not like my pointing out that humans are intolerant, these atheists could simply post on the atheist group, and post the exact same articles free from questioning that makes them uncomfortable.


There you go.

[Mariana]

55. And?

You said, "...an open group that accepts all points of view would be a good thing." Such a group already exists as a safe haven group, and you do not participate there. Why is that, Gil?

[MineralMan]

56. Some choose to post in that group.

Others do not. I go there very rarely, and post there almost never. I don't need agreement, and prefer being challenged in my thinking. I suspect that you read in the atheists and agnostics group far more often than I do. Why, I can't imagine, though.

[guillaumeb]

3. Check out #17

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218303433

Is calling someone a troll dialogue? Or is it personal attack?

[MineralMan]

4. What does that have to do with this thread?

Explain that, if you can. Or just stick to the topic. This thread is this thread. I will not let you hijack it.

[guillaumeb]

7. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?

This part:

Some have, in the past, and even now, attempted to make the group uncomfortable for non-believers. They have been successful, sometimes, in driving some away, but not successful in limiting discussion to prohibit disagreement. That's a good thing, and is one of the reasons that this group, which is not protected by limitations on discussion, is so popular with DUers.

I highlighted the relevant part. So, is calling a theist a troll an example of productive dialogue?

Or is it, (wait for the irony here), an attempt to make the group uncomfortable for believers?

[MineralMan]

10. You can't hijack this thread.

Numbers don't lie.

[guillaumeb]

13. Can you respond to the post?

As to hijacking threads, read any of my posts about Chinese authoritarians and explain about hijacking.

[MineralMan]

15. ..

[guillaumeb]

17. Much better. eom

[Major Nikon]

9. That's not what happened

So is your baseless accusation metaphor or hyperbole this time?

[guillaumeb]

12. #17

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #8)
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 02:42 PM
Act_of_Reparation (5,739 posts)
17. It's obviously trolling.

He's presenting as clear a composition fallacy as one can make. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he knows that, but is making the argument anyway just to elicit a reaction for his "audience".

You know, the four or five people who can't post here anymore because they don't know how to behave like adults.

"It's obviously trolling".

[MineralMan]

14. Please do not hijack my thread, Guy...

That's rude.

[guillaumeb]

16. Yes, the rudeness claim.

And the actual accusation against me of being a troll?

Is that rude?


If what you describe as hijacking is rude, I can point out the guilty parties if you wish by linking here to many examples.

And then we can talk about the lack of dialogue.

[MineralMan]

19. Did I accuse you of anything in this thread?

Please do not hijack my thread. Take your vendetta elsewhere, please. Thanks.

[guillaumeb]

23. You made a claim.

And I provided 2 examples of extreme rudeness. Unfortunately for this post, it was theists being attacked.

One being your own reply.

Ironic, is it not?

[LongtimeAZDem]

36. Give it up; all they are trying to do is provoke you, and get others to block them, because that

would hide all comments below theirs.

Just ignore them; they're just trolling:

Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is the deliberate act, (by a Troll – noun or adjective), of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument.

[Major Nikon]

20. #3

Is calling someone a troll dialogue?

“Troll” is a noun or a verb and could potentially be a name if used as a noun, “trolling” isn’t a noun and can’t be used as a name. Look it up.

As an example “decider” is sometimes used as a pejorative dehumanizing name used in this group. Not sayin’ by you, but you know, just sayin’.

[guillaumeb]

22. To enlighten you:

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

[Major Nikon]

25. It's possible one can make a stupid post without actually being stupid

Not sayings yours is an example of that, but you know, just sayin’.

[MineralMan]

27. The master speaks?

[guillaumeb]

29. I cited a source.

I can cite more if you like.

But calling someone a troll is not dialogue, it is designed to attack a fellow member.

[Major Nikon]

31. That's not what happened

It’s also a bit weak coming from the most prolific name caller in this group.

[guillaumeb]

32. tu quoque fallacy in evidence.

[Major Nikon]

34. You don't have any more evidence for that than any of your other baseless allegations

It’s just another example of trolling.

[guillaumeb]

35. On your part?

Is that what you meant?

Here's to the Religion Group.

[Major Nikon]

37. So what's next on your list of canned responses?

I can’t wait for, ‘I know you are but what am I?’

Haven’t heard that one in decades.

[guillaumeb]

38. You just used it.

Up thread. It was not decades ago, not even a decade of minutes.

[Major Nikon]

39. ...

[Lordquinton]

44. Since when do you care about dialogue?

It's funny how you go off on people for some imagined slight and make it real.

[guillaumeb]

48. "Imagined slight" does not mean what tyou think it does.

[guillaumeb]

21. Another example of productive dialogue:

Response to Major Nikon (Reply #36)
Wed Jan 9, 2019, 12:39 PM
MineralMan (115,537 posts)
48. Well, one week it's Islam, or Rumi, or Chinese atheists.

Anything to avoid discussing the ills brought on by organized religion. I have no idea about the religions beliefs or non-belief of Chinese leaders. I have plenty of stuff to think about closer to home.
Let China deal with China. "Sufficient unto the day are the evils thereof." You can find that quote, attributed to Jesus, in Matthew. It's near the one one about the mote in someone else's eye while missing the beam in your own.

Most religious people sure don't seem to know much about the religions they follow, do they?

As to avoidance of harm caused by theists, I have posted numerous "bad news" things here.

[MineralMan]

24. More attempts to hijack my thread, Guy?

Start your own thread, please. This one is about praise for the Religion Group. Do you not like this group?

[guillaumeb]

26. Simply speaking to the substance of your claim.

Is that not the point?

[MineralMan]

28. ..

[TygrBright]

30. This whole thread is just awesomely meta. It should go viral somewhere... n/t

[guillaumeb]

33. +1

[Voltaire2]

43. Well, that sure escalated quickly.

[MineralMan]

46. Sure did.

Still, the Religion Group is the most active and most popular DU Group, which was my point. I think it's because anyone can post here about religion without being blocked from the group. It's not a "protected group," and that's a good thing. It is really the only place on DU where religious topics can be discussed freely from all perspectives.

It's much needed, which is why it's so active. Discussions about religions have an important place on a site that is primarily about politics, because religion affects politics. Only an open forum where all points of view are welcomed can serve that need. I know that is stressful for some, but those folks have plenty of protected groups to use. The Religion Group is the only open discussion area with religion as its topic.

[Lordquinton]

45. Quantity is not always quality

As demonstrated above, but over a long timeline it shows engagement. And all that with almost no moderation, that's the interesting part.

For theists or atheists being made uncomfortable, the pendulum swings back and forth, but I remember starting here actually trying to keep a positive dialogue going and that ended fast. Theists here don't tent to engage in good faith arguments, and many of them have been removed as trolls.

Here's to a new year in thivery active group!

[NeoGreen]

57. Some numerics for your digestion...

...awhile back, I collected a set of data from the DU Religion Group (RG) for two individuals of, shall we say for convenience, divergent points of view relative to the group's topical focus.

Let's call them Poster A and Poster B.

So between March 2017 and June 11, 2018, these two individuals created a total of 435 original posts (OPs).
Which resulted in net values of 801,249 views, 13,289 replies and 1,137 Recommendations (RECs), all as of Jun 11, 2018.

Poster A had: 372 OPs which generated 732,196 views, 12,575 replies and 744 RECs.

Poster B had: 63 OPs which generated 69,053 views, 714 replies and 393 RECs.

Question, which one would you say was more "popular" in RG for that time frame?

You may reply in essay form.



Almost forgot to add, activity of discussion doesn't necessary equate to popularity, or dare I say, agreement let alone acceptance of a given topic:

(sorted by total number of replies in the last 2,400 OPs in the DU RG)

Just sayin'

[Lordquinton]

64. Poster B had more recs per OP

so I would say that to go with what I said.

[Bretton Garcia]

49. "Limiting discussion, to prohibit discussion"?

May I suggest a comma, or a rephrase, to clear up possible ambiguities?

Otherwise, not being able to limit discussion on prohibiting discussion, might mean ....

[MineralMan]

52. Hmm...I think you might have misread.

Here's what it actually says:

"limiting discussion to prohibit disagreement"

I don't see any ambiguity in that.

[True Dough]

51. This thread would be remiss without recognizing MM and guillaumeb

for being the "fuel" for much of the activity here. MineralMan starts numerous threads, spawning discussion. Here's what his DU profile shows:

Favorite group: Religion, 1483 posts in the last 90 days (41% of total posts)

guillaumeb also starts many threads, but he also must be the greatest contrarian in the history of the Religion group. Not only does he tirelessly counter many theists here, he sparks myriad responses. Here's what his DU profile indicates:

Favorite group: Religion, 1417 posts in the last 90 days (45% of total posts)


There are, of course, many other contributors to the Religion group. But if MM and guillaumeb stopped posting here tomorrow, the traffic would nosedive. Of that, I am convinced.

[HopeAgain]

58. But does the same handful of people

arguing back and forth endlessly count as "popular"?

[MineralMan]

59. I'm not sure what you're asking, really.

Popular has to do with the number of posts in the group. That's the only thing measured at the link I provided. It reflects user activity, which is a common measure of popularity in discussion forums.

[HopeAgain]

60. I agree that is a good measure of "activity"

It seems to me that popularity would be measured by the number of participants.

[MineralMan]

61. DU doesn't track that number, so I can't comment on it.

And yet, here you are, participating in my thread. Welcome!

I count 14 individual participants in this thread, which has just 61 posts. I may have missed one or two, since I just counted by looking at the post list quickly.

Some, I recognize as regular participants in this group. Others don't seem to be names I see all the time in threads here.

That seems to be a good number of posters in this single thread, don't you think?

[HopeAgain]

62. 80+ posts

In the thread just before this one from only two people. But Im sure you understood my point all along.

[MineralMan]

63. It's difficult to tell how many people regularly participate here.

I don't keep track of such things. Perhaps you might want to investigate further and report back what you discover.