Members leaving -- and religious debate.

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Okay, so if I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying is that it's okay to accuse me of something that I didn't actually do because I'm a theist, and other theists may have done it.

Interesting logic there.

Cool. Now you stay here, I'm going to go look for statistics to see how many Canadians are serial killers and child molesters.

Be right back.

Surely you can take another look at what I wrote in that first sentence, and see that I accused you of nothing at all. And if you came back and said, "there have been quite a few Canadian serial killers," that would likewise not be accusing me of being one. And yet, you would also know, having been around here for a while, that my statement was, in fact, a perfectly true one: many theists, right here on RF theists have very mischaracterized "non-belief in God" with "belief in no God." It has been, in fact, a very regular theme -- one that I myself have made considerable effort to refute.

Okay, so if I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying is that it's okay to accuse me of something that I didn't actually do because I'm a theist, and other theists may have done it.

Interesting logic there.

Cool. Now you stay here, I'm going to go look for statistics to see how many Canadians are serial killers and child molesters.

Be right back.

Oh wait a minute, I said that already.


Maybe you should go ask somebody who's actually made that assertion.

And you repeat yourself, warming up for the real swings you are going to take at me.

Still not understanding why this makes it okay to accuse people of doing something they haven't actually done.

Is it like a revenge thing or something?

And no matter how many times you repeat it -- I did not accuse you of anything. You can, if you like, tell us all again how many Canadians are serial killers, and you will still not have accused me of anything, either.

The fact is, you have done exactly what was being discussed when I started this thread (in a serious effort to have a serious discussion on the topic of debate) -- you have taken a statement not addressed at you, and taken it personally as if it had been addressed AT you.

I just want to congratulate you on being nominated spokesman for all atheist everywhere, by the way.


Holy crap! I'm learning so much here! Do me a favor and tell me about the rabbits next okay?

And now you are beginning to make slurs, as would be expected if you had decided that I was deliberately dissing you, which I was not.

The one I was talking to apparently does. See, this may seem strange to you? But I don't hold entire groups responsible for what one of their members does, or vice versa.

Maybe you can explain the logic in that kind of thinking to me after you're done telling me about the rabbits.

And the slurs continue...

Oh good, because we can never hear enough about the invisible pink unicorm.

I brought the IPU up, quite deliberately, because the whole point about the invention of the IPU was not to pretend that there is such a beast, but to show a very real truth: there is no more valid argument to be made either for or against the IPU (or the FSM, for that matter) than there is for God.

That's super. But I still don't understand why all that makes it okay to accuse somebody of something they never did.

Am I going to have to take this class over?

I'm afraid you might. If I had started my post by saying "Many atheists don't like theists," would you have assumed that I was calling you a theist-hating atheist? No, of course you wouldn't. But because I made a true statement -- one that a little research through the forum's posts will show, that many forum members have said that "non-belief in God" is the same as "belief in no God," I must, somehow, be referring to you personally. And if you were to examine closely the tone of my whole post, you would see that you really had no reason at all to make such a false assumption. I never referred to you, nor to anyone. I referred, thoughout, "many (not ALL) theists" and "many (not ALL) atheists." And such statements are very often quite true. Many Americans are Christians, and many Canadians weren't born in Canada. Neither says anything about you, or about me.

 

[Quagmire]

Surely you can take another look at what I wrote in that first sentence, and see that I accused you of nothing at all.

No, you were defending somebody who accused me of something. How is that any different?

And if you came back and said, "there have been quite a few Canadian serial killers," that would likewise not be accusing me of being one. And yet, you would also know, having been around here for a while, that my statement was, in fact, a perfectly true one: many theists,

Yes, it's also true that Boise the capital of Idaho and that kicking puppies is wrong.

Should I post a 20 paragraph dissertation about the history of Boise at you in this thread? Or maybe a 20 paragraph post explaining what's wrong with animal abuse?

Just because something's true doesn't mean it's irrelevant to the conversation.

The moon is round. Let's talk about that for the rest of the ****** thread.

right here on RF theists have very mischaracterized "non-belief in God" with "belief in no God." It has been, in fact, a very regular theme -- one that I myself have made considerable effort to refute.

And you repeat yourself, warming up for the real swings you are going to take at me.

And no matter how many times you repeat it -- I did not accuse you of anything. You can, if you like, tell us all again how many Canadians are serial killers, and you will still not have accused me of anything, either.

The fact is, you have done exactly what was being discussed when I started this thread (in a serious effort to have a serious discussion on the topic of debate) -- you have taken a statement not addressed at you, and taken it personally as if it had been addressed AT you.

And now you are beginning to make slurs, as would be expected if you had decided that I was deliberately dissing you, which I was not.

And the slurs continue...

I brought the IPU up, quite deliberately, because the whole point about the invention of the IPU was not to pretend that there is such a beast, but to show a very real truth: there is no more valid argument to be made either for or against the IPU (or the FSM, for that matter) than there is for God.

I'm afraid you might. If I had started my post by saying "Many atheists don't like theists," would you have assumed that I was calling you a theist-hating atheist? No, of course you wouldn't. But because I made a true statement -- one that a little research through the forum's posts will show, that many forum members have said that "non-belief in God" is the same as "belief in no God," I must, somehow, be referring to you personally. And if you were to examine closely the tone of my whole post, you would see that you really had no reason at all to make such a false assumption. I never referred to you, nor to anyone. I referred, thoughout, "many (not ALL) theists" and "many (not ALL) atheists." And such statements are very often quite true. Many Americans are Christians, and many Canadians weren't born in Canada. Neither says anything about you, or about me.

Here you go:
"The Boise metropolitan area, also known as the Treasure Valley, includes five counties with a combined population of 749,202, the most populous metropolitan area in Idaho. It contains the state's three largest cities: Boise, Nampa, and Meridian. The Boise–Nampa Metropolitan Statistical Area is the 77th most populous metropolitan statistical area in the United States.

Downtown Boise is the cultural center and home to many small businesses alongside a number of high-rise buildings. The area has a variety of shops and restaurants. Centrally, 8th Street contains a pedestrian zone with sidewalk cafes and restaurants. The neighborhood has many local restaurants, bars, and boutiques. The area also contains the Basque Block, which showcases Boise's Basque heritage. Downtown Boise's main attractions include the Idaho State Capitol, the classic Egyptian Theatre on the corner of Capitol Boulevard and Main Street, the Boise Art Museum on Capitol in front of Julia Davis Park, and Zoo Boise on the grounds of Julia Davis Park"

Boise, Idaho - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And from chat GPT:
"Animal cruelty is fundamentally wrong because animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, fear, and suffering. They have emotions and social structures similar to humans, making their treatment a matter of ethical concern. Inflicting harm on animals reflects a lack of empathy and compassion, which can erode our moral fabric and lead to a society that tolerates violence and neglect.

Additionally, animal cruelty has broader societal implications. Studies have shown that those who engage in animal abuse are often linked to other forms of violence, suggesting that addressing animal welfare can also contribute to reducing overall societal violence. By recognizing the interconnectedness of all living beings, we can foster a more compassionate community that values kindness and respect.

Finally, promoting humane treatment of animals benefits the environment and public health. Practices like factory farming not only cause immense suffering to animals but also contribute to environmental degradation and health issues. By advocating for animal rights and ethical treatment, we can encourage sustainable practices that protect both animals and the planet, leading to a healthier future for everyone."

Let me know if you need more.

 

[Ebionite]

The only times I find anyone to be "toxic" is when they try to refute valid arguments using nothing but unsubstantiated claims. Because they have not supported their claims with anything, it makes it impossible to have a civilized discussion -- all one is left with is "is not," "is too," "is not," "is too!" Which is, as I'm sure you know, perfectly designed to lead to nowhere.

Unsubstantiated claims are the bread and butter of religion. You can avoid the repetitive back and forth by talking about the debate instead of participating in it. For example, you could identify the idea or ideas that that are not being addressed by your opponent, eg, that relevant facts are essential if you're arguing about reality rather than models of reality.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, you were defending somebody who accused me of something. How is that any different?

You are aware that my very first sentence in the post that set you off, I said: "Of course, I cannot answer that for @It Aint Necessarily So, but I can say, from my own experience..." How can that be accusing you of anything? If anybody, I was accusing myself.

Let me know if you need more.

No, I won't need more. This thread was meant to be an honest attempt at understanding religious debate, and why it makes people want to leave. You've demonstrated the theme perfectly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nah. I see it more as if you aren't gay why hang out in a gay bar and argue with them about their life.

You realize that RF was founded by an atheist, right?

It was always meant as a place where anybody could discuss religion, not just a private club for religious people.

 

[Sumadji]

Even now, there are questions that are being answered by religious people about non-religious subjects in a political way: the most obvious being whether LGBTQ+ people should have the same rights as everyone else.

I don't think the question is whether minority groups should not have the same rights as everybody else. It's whether the rights of minority groups should dictate the rights of the rest of society, forcing the use of personal pronouns in the workplace and college, forcing the inclusion of LBGTQ+ education upon young children encouraging them to question their sexuality at an age too young to do so, the mis-management of puberty blockers at gender clinics by LBGTQ+ activists and so on.

It ends up with the tail wagging the dog?

And as @Rival observes, just saying this here will likely produce a storm of abuse

 

[Revoltingest]

And as @Rival observes, just saying this here will likely produce a storm of abuse

Are you anticipating becoming a victim?
Far far too often, people confuse argument with a "storm of abuse".
Note also that those who complain of abuse tend to heap heap it upon others.

 

[We Never Know]

You realize that RF was founded by an atheist, right?

It was always meant as a place where anybody could discuss religion, not just a private club for religious people.

Discussion is great. The personal attacks have became worse than politics.

 

[wellwisher]

When began to visit online discussion forums, I used just read the topics, but would never participate. The first site where I started to participate and write was called the Physics Forums. Back then; 2004, most science discussion forums were associated with some University and the Staff were volunteer Professors or Professor Assistants. These site were open, but also used to assist their students.

The Physics Forums, covered all area of science, but specialize in Physics; many subtopics. They were very open to criticism and to new ideas. The professors did not wish to stymie curiosity and new ideas from students. The only place you could run into trouble was if someone came in expressing, preaching a religious view. That person was open game to insults, by the caretaker members of the science traditions. The staff would stay out of it and focus on their specialty.

One time, I try to defend an otherwise nice person, who was trying to discuss religion. He was the victim of a pack of self appointed jackals who would gang up on him, insult and try to drive him out. I would beat back the jackals, but after that, it made me a target, and the jackals stereotyped any new idea, as being called religious. Typical Liberal tactic to avoid discussions. This still happens and must be a tactic taught to this extended Liberal family.

However, I did have some moderators, who liked hearing my original ideas, who eventually compromised the situation by adding another topic area called alternate theories, to buffer me from the insulting caretakers of science traditions. This area allowed me to steal the limelight, and get a large following of students, which then morphed into the jackals lobbying the staff to expel me; He is teaching misinformation. This was a pattern in all the Atheist run sights, that I would frequent, where you were accepted as long as nobody smelled religion, but if they did, the goons would come out and use company politics to use the staff to harass me.

Atheists on the Religious Forum do not get the same crap, their own kid will give to others who visit Atheist led sights, not with their program. The Religious people are more advance, when it comes to Democratic free speech. Atheists in power become fascists.

I wrote on other many other science forums and many accommodated my alternate theories, and some even added an areas for religion discussions, to broaden the audience. But in the end, it was the same jackal type MO, that would write one last post, after my new idea, just to hide my name, and then nag the moderators, until it was easier to expel me, than defend my free speech rights.

I even wrote for about a year on Naked Science, which is run by Cambridge University in England. There I was trying harder to maintain the science status quo, but would I still offered some limited scope update idea for theories. But as I grew more comfortable, and expanded on my new theories, that would once again draw out a new pack of Jackals. Often I seemed to tailed by the same people since their approach was so similar.

I am unique and that I like both science and religion. Science is a good way to explain physical reality, while religion is a good way to explain human nature and the operating system of consciousness. Consciousness is the most important tool of science. How can you calibrate this tool of science, if you do not know how it works? The religious bridge was a way to advance this understanding. But tell that to Atheists who have a conditioned hate.

I ended up on a forum called Debate Politics. I figured politics is all about opinions, so everyone is in the same boat. All is alternate theory. But since I was pro-Trump, the same Jackal MO, appeared again, since I was crushing their Liberal arguments with facts; science hat. How can anyone get banned from a political discussion forum? It has to do with it being run by Liberals, via Fascism. If you recite Liberal traditions you were covered, but if you questioned and disproved, that was taboo in that religion. That has not changed.

This is when I found the Religious forums. I assumed that religious people should be the most open and honest; calibrated consciousness. Also RF had enough topic areas for science and other areas of knowledge for me. What I noticed is the Atheists and Liberals, who frequent this site, are not treated the same way their brethren treat others, who are different, who visit Liberal and Atheists run site. The staff here is very patient and allows free speech, and does not practice the same self serving company politics, that is common to Atheist and Liberal run sites.

 

[Revoltingest]

The personal attacks have became worse than politics.

The best way to lessen them is to look
in the mirror, & tell that person to clean
up their act.

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheists on the Religious Forum do not get the same crap, their own kid will give to others who visit Atheist led sights, not with their program. The Religious people are more advance, when it comes to Democratic free speech. Atheists in power become fascists.

As a believer, perhaps you'll see believers
abused by atheists, but not the reverse.
Same goes for free speech & fascism.

Christians have passed laws against blasphemy,
ie, airing our beliefs & non-beliefs about sky fairies.

Blasphemy law in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Christians have also tried to make it illegal
to criticize or boycott Israel.

The Antisemitism Awareness Act will make it illegal to criticize Israel on campus

Raucous pro-Palestine protests have taken over college campuses across the country for the past several days. At UCLA, protesters declared areas of campus

reason.com

When a group of people believe that a sky fairy
created a book that's absolutely true, it's odd
to call that group "advanced".

 

[anna.]

When began to visit online discussion forums, I used just read the topics, but would never participate. The first site where I started to participate and write was called the Physics Forums. Back then; 2004, most science discussion forums were associated with some University and the Staff were volunteer Professors or Professor Assistants. These site were open, but also used to assist their students.

The Physics Forums, covered all area of science, but specialize in Physics; many subtopics. They were very open to criticism and to new ideas. The professors did not wish to stymie curiosity and new ideas from students. The only place you could run into trouble was if someone came in expressing, preaching a religious view. That person was open game to insults, by the caretaker members of the science traditions. The staff would stay out of it and focus on their specialty.

One time, I try to defend an otherwise nice person, who was trying to discuss religion. He was the victim of a pack of self appointed jackals who would gang up on him, insult and try to drive him out. I would beat back the jackals, but after that, it made me a target, and the jackals stereotyped any new idea, as being called religious. Typical Liberal tactic to avoid discussions. This still happens and must be a tactic taught to this extended Liberal family.

However, I did have some moderators, who liked hearing my original ideas, who eventually compromised the situation by adding another topic area called alternate theories, to buffer me from the insulting caretakers of science traditions. This area allowed me to steal the limelight, and get a large following of students, which then morphed into the jackals lobbying the staff to expel me; He is teaching misinformation. This was a pattern in all the Atheist run sights, that I would frequent, where you were accepted as long as nobody smelled religion, but if they did, the goons would come out and use company politics to use the staff to harass me.

Atheists on the Religious Forum do not get the same crap, their own kid will give to others who visit Atheist led sights, not with their program. The Religious people are more advance, when it comes to Democratic free speech. Atheists in power become fascists.

I wrote on other many other science forums and many accommodated my alternate theories, and some even added an areas for religion discussions, to broaden the audience. But in the end, it was the same jackal type MO, that would write one last post, after my new idea, just to hide my name, and then nag the moderators, until it was easier to expel me, than defend my free speech rights.

I even wrote for about a year on Naked Science, which is run by Cambridge University in England. There I was trying harder to maintain the science status quo, but would I still offered some limited scope update idea for theories. But as I grew more comfortable, and expanded on my new theories, that would once again draw out a new pack of Jackals. Often I seemed to tailed by the same people since their approach was so similar.

I am unique and that I like both science and religion. Science is a good way to explain physical reality, while religion is a good way to explain human nature and the operating system of consciousness. Consciousness is the most important tool of science. How can you calibrate this tool of science, if you do not know how it works? The religious bridge was a way to advance this understanding. But tell that to Atheists who have a conditioned hate.

I ended up on a forum called Debate Politics. I figured politics is all about opinions, so everyone is in the same boat. All is alternate theory. But since I was pro-Trump, the same Jackal MO, appeared again, since I was crushing their Liberal arguments with facts; science hat. How can anyone get banned from a political discussion forum? It has to do with it being run by Liberals, via Fascism. If you recite Liberal traditions you were covered, but if you questioned and disproved, that was taboo in that religion. That has not changed.

This is when I found the Religious forums. I assumed that religious people should be the most open and honest; calibrated consciousness. Also RF had enough topic areas for science and other areas of knowledge for me. What I noticed is the Atheists and Liberals, who frequent this site, are not treated the same way their brethren treat others, who are different, who visit Liberal and Atheists run site. The staff here is very patient and allows free speech, and does not practice the same self serving company politics, that is common to Atheist and Liberal run sites.

You used "jackals" seven times and "goon" one time in referring to atheists, then, in your last paragraph you said you "assumed that religious people should be the most open and honest."

Do you not even hear yourself?

 

[We Never Know]

The best way to lessen them is to look
in the mirror, & tell that person to clean
up their act.

Does it work for you?

 

[Augustus]

How exactly is calling somebody 'fragile" an attack on their beliefs?

And how is telling somebody who's been here for more than 12 years, and who spent most of that time working for the place for free that they don't belong here an "attack on their beliefs"?

For that matter, how is going into someone's farewell thread and basically spending an entire post poking them with a stick and going, "nayh, nayh, nayh, nayh, nayh", anything but a lot of adolescent gloating over the suffering of someone who's only crime against you was to adopt a belief system that you don't "approve" of?

Btw, @Rival is anything but fragile.

Maybe you should take a look at your own reactions.
(I'll sit here and hold my breath

Funny that some folk who are insistent they are the epitome of reason and probity are so devoid of self-awareness and humility that they can’t fathom why joining a farewell thread simply to patronise and preen is a bit of a **** move, yet are so precious they see it as a grave personal insult to have someone simply point out that it’s perhaps not the nicest thing to do.

It’s funny that this thread and the last have illustrated exactly the problems Rival was talking about, while also highlighting the hypocrisy of some of those doing it.

Seriously now, it's pretty obvious to me at this point that you're the kind of person who believes their own b*******.

It's impossible to have a constructive conversation with somebody like that, especially when they are the topic.

Speaking as a former “rationalist” myself, Michael Oakeshott’s observation that “The rationalist finds it difficult to believe anyone who thinks honestly and clearly can think differently from himself” is always useful to remember when talking to such folk.

As anyone who disagrees is thus failing to think either honestly and/or clearly, and pointing out their failings is simply a factual statement rather than a personal attack. On the other hand, questioning their motives is an attack on reason itself and further evidence of their mendacity and weakness.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Discussion is great. The personal attacks have became worse than politics.

The personal attacks are the norm now, aren't they? They have absolutely nothing to go on , so they just do nothing but attack people's character all the time.

At least you know the true colors of these people as well with everybody else who reads their childish personal attacks.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Twilight Hue

Personal attacks probably are the norm for the contingent that supports a POTUS candidate that builds his proposals - such as they are -around them. It may be argued that it is the willingness to reduce what should be politics to name-calling and worse that made him viable.

 

[Twilight Hue]

@Twilight Hue

Personal attacks probably are the norm for the contingent that supports a POTUS candidate that builds his proposals - such as they are -around them. It may be argued that it is the willingness to reduce what should be politics to name-calling and worse that made him viable.

All that and absolutely no real plans or strategy to speak of so, it would probably surprise you that I agree mostly with what you're saying.

 

[anna.]

Funny that some folk who are insistent they are the epitome of reason and probity are so devoid of self-awareness and humility that they can’t fathom why joining a farewell thread simply to patronise and preen is a bit of a **** move, yet are so precious they see it as a grave personal insult to have someone simply point out that it’s perhaps not the nicest thing to do.

That farewell OP was loaded. I'm not surprised there was pushback.

 

[F1fan]

The personal attacks are the norm now, aren't they? They have absolutely nothing to go on , so they just do nothing but attack people's character all the time.

Assuming any given person has a normal and traditional standard for character. This norm and tradition is that virtues are valued, and vices are avoided. As an illustration it's unacceptable to support a criminal candidate, who is also a chronic liar and has plans that will dismantle the norms of government in regards to agencies being independent from the executive branch. Yet many in the USA have decided it is acceptable. Character is is like a credit card, it is a trust that if abused it loses value and credibility. Credit is maintained by valuing standards and rules. The same goes for character. Those whose character is ruined with anti-social and abnormal attitudes and comments will suffer criticism and being ostrasized. As we see with the evolution of MAGA as Trump gained attention and followers they formed their own tribe, and in doing so their low standard of manners and decency has caused more strife in society as a whole. Racism has increased. Anger is more prevalent. With the worsening mental state of Trump, and his growing fear of the justice system, he has gotten nastier, and his followers have mimicked him. When Trump dies, or is in prison, it will be a healing time for American society as this negative influence will no longer cause problems. MAGA will hopefully phase out.

At least you know the true colors of these people as well with everybody else who reads their childish personal attacks.

True colors are quite evident. Some don't seem to think their faded color is a bad thing. Or know, and just don't care (which is part of the fading). Caring, compassion, honestly, truthfulness, integrity, and virtue are all bright colors.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That farewell OP was loaded. ....

You don't know that it is the case.