Is a tenet of this group that posts and replies should be respectful of all religions and...

[CurtEastPoint]

not mocking?

Asking for a friend...

[edhopper]

1. No

It is an open free form discussion about religion.
We must follow the general rules of DU with each other.
But in this forum is not a safe space, there are other forums for that.

[NeoGreen]

2. We should be respectful of persons, however ideas...

...are fair game.

You are free to ridicule and mock magical thinking and just plain bad ideas till the cows come home, or pigs fly B-52s, or Thor gets his hammer back, or Sauron comes back and reforges the One Ring.

[Dream Girl]

4. No, just no. Wat is the point of mockin someone's belief.

Because you think you possess the truth. A presumption of intellectual superiority?

[edhopper]

5. Because the beliefs are sometimes worthy of mocking.

You want us to respect creationism? Scientology? What about Flat-Earthers or Climate deniers? You want us to respect all beliefs?

[guillaumeb]

9. That is an excellent question.

When some few here mock theists as being somehow logically deficient, it is difficult to avoid coming to that conclusion.

[Voltaire2]

12. only some theists are logically deficient.

[guillaumeb]

13. "Some" of any category are.

But my point remains, as any analysis of the responses here shows.

[Voltaire2]

19. Your intent was clear.

Please document any of the 'few' here who have categorized all theists as logically deficient.

[guillaumeb]

20. The documentation is abundant.

And has been noted prior to this exchange.

Edited to add:

Please reread #13.

[Voltaire2]

21. So you cannot document one poster here who has claimed that all theists are logically deficient.

Got it. Thanks!

[guillaumeb]

22. No, I cannot document your misrepresentation of what I said.

Mainly because I did not say it.

[Voltaire2]

23. So when you wrote: "When some few here mock theists as being somehow logically deficient"

you were simply observing that theists who are logically deficient get mocked for their logical deficiency. Ok then, I agree, the logically deficient theists do get mocked. So glad to see we agree.

[guillaumeb]

24. If I had said "atl ltheists" your observation would have been correct.

Thank you for admitting your error.

But equating theism itself as prima facie evidence of a logical deficiency would be unprovable.

[Major Nikon]

27. Sometimes it's quite entertaining to watch the logical deficiency in action

Making the obvious inference that "theists" means all theists is a "misrepresentation", but it doesn't mean some theists either. What it really means is "equating theism itself as prima facie evidence of a logical deficiency", which absolutely doesn't mean all theists. This perfectly explains why he used the word "theists" instead of theism.

In order to make sense of this argle bargle, one must consider the possibility of the deist-theist, who absolutely do exist even though it's an oxymoron. The deist-theist is not really a theist at all you see and could potentially not be logically deficient (although it's hard to imagine how that works). So you see this potential exception means we just cannot take this seemingly absolute statement as primitive-fascism.

[Dream Girl]

14. And you get to decide? Who appointed you a arbiter of truth?

Height of arrogance if you ask me.

[Voltaire2]

18. huh? I was merely objecting to the universal categorization that all theists are logically deficient

some are and some aren't.

Generally the logically deficient can be objectively established through displays of, obviously, logical deficiency.

Unless of course you think 'logic' is a subjective quality.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. You know, you could just demonstate the premise wrong, instead of complaining about it all the time.

[Voltaire2]

11. For example: creationists.

How dare anyone mock that shit!

[Mariana]

34. People on DU mock the Republicans' political beliefs all the time

because we think we are right and they are wrong. Are you opposed to doing that, too?

[NeoGreen]

36. Yes, absolutely Yes. Who selects which ideas or issues cannot be assailed...

...who gets to say their idea is the absolute 'truth'?

You?

I say, there is no idea or issue that cannot be debated, mocked or otherwise questioned.

There is no presumed 'intellectual superiority' as there should be no privilege for certain ideas.

All ideas are subject to review.

If an idea cannot stand up to scrutiny, it should fall to the wayside and be cast into the waste pile of bad ideas or maybe kept as mere mythology.

[brooklynite]

45. The same principles apply to any non-religious topic on DU...

Why does religion get special dispensation?

[Jirel]

3. Given that religions...

... are often intolerant of each other, each other’s believers, people who don’t conform to their various bigotries, and nonbelievers, that’s virtually impossible. Ask again when Westboro Baptist, Jim Bakker, and others become tolerant and civil.

[guillaumeb]

25. Allow me to add one thing.

When you said:

Given that religions...

... are often intolerant of each other, each other’s believers, people who don’t conform to their various bigotries, and nonbelievers, that’s virtually impossible. Ask again when Westboro Baptist, Jim Bakker, and others become tolerant and civil.

you also could have added,

Given that humans...

... are often intolerant of each other, each other’s believers, people who don’t conform to their various bigotries, and nonbelievers, that’s virtually impossible. Ask again when Westboro Baptist, Jim Bakker, and others become tolerant and civil.

[trotsky]

35. Here's a question you STILL have yet to answer.

If religion has nothing to do with it, and people behaving badly are always just people behaving badly, then what is the point of religion? Does it have absolutely no relation to human behavior? Is religion worthless?

[guillaumeb]

42. Each person has to answer that final question.

You have your own opinion, and I have mine.

[trotsky]

46. What is your opinion, then?

You claim to want dialog. Prove it. Turn over a new leaf, g. I'm giving you yet another chance. Show that you are interested in constructive discussion.

[guillaumeb]

62. So you ask a question, and then proceed with numerous ad hominem

accusations.

And then you ask for dialogue.

[trotsky]

63. Because you've never given your opinion on this.

Show some behavior that indicates you actually want discussion, and comments about your complete unwillingness to engage in it will stop.

It's all on you, g. Show you are sincere. I bet you won't. I bet you can't.

[guillaumeb]

66. And then you try to distract from the behavior I noted.

And no denial.

[trotsky]

67. Show your sincerity about engaging in dialog...

and I will stop commenting about your lack of sincerity about engaging in dialog.

This is really pretty simple. You are making yourself look foolish trying to pretend it's my fault you won't dialog. No one can prevent you from expressing your opinions but yourself.

So go ahead. Express your opinion. Since people are gonna be people no matter what, is religion worthless? Why or why not?

Or just attack me some more and further demonstrate that you are not here for dialog.

Your choice.

[guillaumeb]

68. Distraction, part 2.

[trotsky]

71. I asked you to express your opinion.

You call it a "distraction."

My earlier claim is that you refuse to engage in dialog.

My claim is thus proven.

Thanks g, for once again demonstrating that you spit in the face of dialog.

[MineralMan]

6. No, it is not a tenet of this group.

Last edited Sat Nov 30, 2019, 10:52 AM - Edit history (1)

I am an atheist. I do not believe that any deities or supernatural entities exist. So, pretty much anything I say is going to be seen by believers as mockery. This is the one place on DU where I can say that openly.

This is the Religion Group, not the Religious Group. There are other groups on DU where people can share their religious faith without seeing arguments against that faith. Only in the Religion Group can those without any faith at all speak their minds. That is the value of this discussion area.

I am respectful of people and their right to believe as they can. However, I am not respectful of religions. I do not believe they are useful nor helpful in promoting human achievement or growth.

So, no, it is not a tenet of this group.

[CurtEastPoint]

7. Thank you for explaining

[Ferrets are Cool]

54. As usual, the voice of reason.

[guillaumeb]

8. I would suggest reading some of the threads here and decide for yourself. eom

[Voltaire2]

10. There are many other groups that have restrictions on opinions.

Not this one. Mock on!

[Iggo]

15. "Asking for a friend."

How respectful of you.

[CurtEastPoint]

16. A joke, of course. Thank you all for responding.

[edhopper]

17. I got it.

What do you do if a foreign object gets lodged up your butt? Asking for a friend.

[whathehell]

26. Yes, but it's rarely observed or enforced

UNLESS the religion in question is something OTHER than Christianity. in which case you will be scolded for being 'culturally insensitive" or worse.

[Major Nikon]

30. You must be thinking of some other group

[Mariana]

31. The SOP of this Group is as follows:

Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome.

You might want to edit your post, since now you know that what you said is false.

[trotsky]

37. Mike Pence? Is that you? n/t

[whathehell]

43. Riiiiight

[trotsky]

47. You and he do share the opinion that Christians are uniquely persecuted.

You poor, poor things.

[whathehell]

48. Nah..

Only on DU.

[trotsky]

49. Wow, the entire world where you enjoy majority privilege...

and you get angry because there's a website where you don't. I'm so sorry.

[whathehell]

52. The "entire world", lol?

You mean except the Near East, Far East, and Middle East?

Expanding your knowledge of "the entire world" may be in order.

[trotsky]

53. Your words: "Only on DU."

I'm glad you admitted your error, but you also are not affected personally by anything happening in those places. It should be noted that atheists, too, face persecution and death in that region, so your religion is not special.

[whathehell]

55. Lol..Literal minded much?

"Only on DU" was my tongue-in cheek response to the absurd attempt to compare me to Mike Pence.

Like some other groups, Christians are, and have been, persecuted in certain countries where they are a minority. It is, for instance, illegal to bring a bible into Saudi Arabia. Add to that the
episodic church burnings in places like Iraq and India. There is nothing "special" about this, it just doesn't suck any LESS than when it happens to other groups.

The only "error" here was yours in claiming them as an "entire world privileged majority". As I said, you may need to expand on that
world view.

[trotsky]

57. Um, if you're going to switch between joke mode and serious mode as it suits you...

then you can't attack people for picking the wrong one to criticize you.

I do not dispute that Christians are persecuted in many parts of the world. But so are Jews. And Muslims. And atheists.

Serious mode on: DU is not a place you are persecuted, no matter how much you really feel you are.

[Voltaire2]

64. there are like two forums where negative opinions about christian beliefs can be somewhat freely

expressed, and even in those forums your opinions can get your posts removed.

[trotsky]

65. ...

[Mariana]

70. That poster has been informed of the several safe haven groups

that exist on this site for the purpose of discussing various religions, including Christianity, in which disrespect, criticism, awkward questions, and the like are not tolerated.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218276177#post92

[Act_of_Reparation]

51. LOL

Last edited Tue Dec 3, 2019, 11:22 AM - Edit history (1)

UNLESS the religion in question is something OTHER than Christianity. in which case you will be scolded for being 'culturally insensitive" or worse.

Kind of interesting that every alt-right YouTube racist has said something similar at some point in their careers. Maybe think on that a bit.

[whathehell]

56. LOL..Yeah, they probably say "hello" and "goodbye" too

"Alt-rigjt racist"??
Last I checked, most PoC belonged to a Christian denomination. Try again.

[Act_of_Reparation]

60. Being charitable...

...a lack of critical self-reflection.

But that's probably not the case.

[trotsky]

59. BTW, I'm not sure, but I would guess more "PoC" worldwide are Muslim rather than Christian.

Feel free to post statistics showing otherwise.

[whathehell]

72. Like the poster speaking of "alt-right racists"

I was referring to the USA.

[Major Nikon]

28. The idea that religion is entitled to respect just reinforces religious privilege

It means that religion should be entitled to promote itself and be free from criticism.

[No Vested Interest]

29. When the Democratic Party nominates for President a believer in a religious sect,

which the Democratic Party has done for most of its history, will that person be respected for his/her beliefs, or will she/he be mocked in this group?

What has occurred in the past in this group re religious and nonreligious Democratic candidates, knowing that most political candidates in the United States profess to be members of religion?

[Mariana]

33. Probably not.

Democratic Party nominees don't generally say ridiculous or evil things on account of their religious beliefs.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Did you see us shitting on Hillary for being a Methodist?

Then no, your question is asked and answered. Have a nice day.

[Act_of_Reparation]

61. How did the Christians here react when the Democratic Party nominated an atheist for President?

Oh...


...


...right.

[Mariana]

32. Have you read the SOP of this Group?

If not, here it is:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1218

[trotsky]

38. No, you're thinking of EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD.

Here, religious ideas aren't protected from criticism or mocking.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Nerp.

[Eugene]

44. On the contrary. The safe space DU groups say to take the contentious stuff here.

When charlatans, con men and nut jobs try to weaponize religion, it is on-topic here to call them out. If a certain universal church insists on running itself like criminal enterprise, DUers, including this one, point them out.

While broad brush generalizations are unfair, it is not disrespect to point out something dishonest, hateful or stupid, done in the name of religion — or atheism for that matter.

[Act_of_Reparation]

50. ...

[Dorian Gray]

73. Don't think that's ever been a tenet.....