You said religious ideas are not special. I described why they are, at least in the US. You can argue they should't be, but they are. — T Clark

He actually said that religious ideas aren't special in the sense that a bad idea is a bad idea, and he's right. You just seem to be talking past him rather than arguing against him on that point.

I think it is a part of a larger issue. Much of the problematic behavior can be seen, for example, in antinatalist threads or even with metaphysics (admittedly as least considered family to religious threads) and likely with political threads, though I read these less. Basically there is a kind of team play with the goal of winning. On some topics, even people who disagree can be exploratory, together, making clear their areas of disagreement, but generally not trying to score points, not going ad hom, conceding things, etc. IOW having a discussion. But on many topics, and in fact, I would say in general, there is a back to the wall, no more being victimized by Team X, barely held rage that infects many of the posts. I don't think the answer is to eliminate the discussions wehre people disagree. Because with the trends in society, this will likely end up that we can only discuss symbolic logic here, and who knows, perahps even that topic will at the end of the decade bring out the knives.

Segregation is wrong, but if you're going to do it, it's anti-religionists who should be segregated because they are the primary cause of conflict and disruption. I stand by that judgment. — T Clark

I stand by what Artemis said, which is that people opposed to those conflicted conversations can just self-segregate themselves from the offending threads.

The first forum I signed up to was the Dawkins forum. That was an absolutely seething hotbed of 'fear of religion'.

My feeling is, many people believe the whole 'religion' thing has been settled, 'science has shown that God is dead', and they really don't want to re-open the whole can of worms. Either that, or they're just not interested in spiritual and/or religious ideas. But since then, I have gotten over the need to persuade people of my views. I put the arguments, but past a certain point I desist.It's like the little old lady who rings the television station to complain about a risque television show - the advice is 'just don't watch it'. ;-) — Wayfarer

The irony is that you're just as bad as those people on the other side in terms of the patronising way that you view them.

The first forum I signed up to was the Dawkins forum. That was an absolutely seething hotbed of 'fear of religion'.

My feeling is, many people believe the whole 'religion' thing has been settled, 'science has shown that God is dead', and they really don't want to re-open the whole can of worms. Either that, or they're just not interested in spiritual and/or religious ideas. But since then, I have gotten over the need to persuade people of my views. I put the arguments, but past a certain point I desist.It's like the little old lady who rings the television station to complain about a risque television show - the advice is 'just don't watch it'. ;-)
— Wayfarer

Generally I agree. — T Clark

Ha. Straight from the horses mouth. So you're just as bad as those "anti-religionists". You too are a hypocrite. You see the other side as prejudiced, closed minded. Yet in your opening post you quote what we're apparently supposed to see as offending material consisting of someone calling the other side illogical and so on. So it's only wrong when they do this sort of thing, because... they're "anti-religionists"? When it's coming from your own side, you have no objection and generally agree.

It is a thread to discuss the disruptive and disrespectful behavior of atheists and anti-religious posters on this thread. — T Clark

Well, those kind of threads where the views of others are respected and cordial manners dominate are few and far between. More typical is the disrespectful ranting. I don't think this an issue of just this topic, but it is quite general. F*ck the internet and it's algorithms.

For some reason the anti-religious and atheists view themselves to be somehow under attack and act if they have to be on the defensive. Perhaps it's the example of the few public atheist media celebrities who share their atheism to the World and seem to be on a crusade against the remnants of obsolete beliefs in hokus-pokus magic like...religion. Because, from their point of view, what other stance could a modern progressive thinking person have towards such backward ignorance?

To summarize - this problem would go away if atheists and anti-religionists would just keep their mouths shut. — T Clark

This is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I see where you're going with it. You seem to be arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) that there is some unpleasantness in religious threads but that most religious threads are anti-religion, and even those which are not, the nastiness tends to be from the anti-religious. Therefore, if anti-religious posters simply stopped, the nastiness would go away.

I can't fault your logic, and certainly over the last few weeks, I think your evidence is sound, but don't you think you're at risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why can't we just put an end to the nastiness? Yes, putting an end to the anti-religious posting entirely help would do that (that being where most of the nastiness is contained), but it seems unnecessarily broad.

Personally I think all religious matters are bad philosophy - for or against. With regards to God, I'm basically of the opinion "you tell me what your 'God' is and I'll tell you whether I believe in him or not", so discussions which attempt to address 'religious belief' amorphously are just utterly misguided. We do, however, have a politics section and a science and technology section, so I think banning religious discussion (though my personal favoured option) would not be consistent. What we should be harder on is bad philosophy but we only have so many mods with only so much time. In case any are reading though, I'd like to add my vote to banning these Gnostic Christian Bishop rants - we've had enough now.

On a separate matter that was brought up in this thread though, about whether religion should be protected from abusive criticism above other ideas. I see where you're coming from, similar to the principle that Germany uses to ban Holocaust denial, the matter has lead to some persecution in the past, but essentially this has been the result of a lack of ability to express beliefs contrary to the mainstream religion, not contrary to secularism. I also think you have to accept the other side of the coin. Most commonly religion is, even if only peripherally, a set of rules, stuff you must and must not do. I understand that the whole matter at it's core may be much deeper than that, but you'd be blind to deny the real-world outcome is very often a set of rules. So children brought up in that world have had their autonomy constrained by these institutions for the first 18-20 years of their life. This builds up a lot of resentment and I think we need to be sympathetic (if not ultimately tolerant) of that. No-one has ever been told they can't have a relationship with whomever they love because God doesn't exist. No-one has ever been told they can't listen to the music they like because God doesn't exist. Atheists may well constrain people's autonomy all the time for any number of reasons, but never (to my knowledge) simply because God doesn't exist, whereas the opposite cannot be said of the religious, who have sought to constrain even adult behaviour, but certainly that of children in their care, simply on the grounds of religious texts.

So yes, I think we need to be cautious around religious intolerance lest we end up with persecution, but we also need to accept that religions do seek to constrain the autonomy of those who may be too young or too meek to actually decide for themselves to follow their rules - we need to allow such people to express their anger over this without incidentally sweeping them up in the attitudes designed only to avoid persecution.

↪T Clark As you know, I'm trying my best to be a nice and considerate philosopher. So, perhaps you can help me. If someone has a religious belief which is stupid or ridiculous, what should I do? Should I give them a hug? — S

You could be skeptical, focus on their justification or lack of it. Point out logic flaws or unsupported assumptions. Avoid calling them or their ideas stupid. IOW role model rational thinking for people you think are being irrational about whatever the issue is.

If someone is pressuring you to hug people, just ignore them.

I'm a quasi-god-mongerer. That means I monger God in a quasi way, not that I monger quasi-gods, although maybe I do that as well. Anyway, this forum is way less religion-bashing than the last one (Paul's forum) it seems to me, and I actually miss the rabid attacks a bit, although they did go too far sometimes. I think crappy ideas should be strongly criticised. I miss getting my panpsychism bashed. Apo was the last person to have a go and he seems to have fucked off. Nobody gives a shit that I'm wrong any more. Worse, panpsychism may be becoming popular, which means I may have to adopt another view.

Why do you find religious intolerance more offensive than say free will intolerance or capitalism intolerance or the various other intolerances pervasive throughout this forum? Why demand special respect for the religious (a group I tend to often actually align with)? — Hanover

If I have understood correctly, this topic is an appeal for the atheists to stop trolling religious threads. I.e. not preventing atheists from posting in these threads, but preventing atheists from trolling these threads, with the express intention of derailing the thread, preventing serious discussion.

To the extent that believers also troll religious threads, they should also be opposed. I haven't seen as much abuse from believers, but it would be rash to think that only atheists are guilty. All thread-trolling is unhelpful, and not supportive of grown-up discussions of any/all types. It should stop, or be stopped. :up:

Personally I think all religious matters are bad philosophy — Isaac

:yikes:

Well, those kind of threads where the views of others are respected and cordial manners dominate are few and far between. — ssu

And isn't that the problem this thread complains about? It may be aimed at religious threads, but it surely applies to all of them? We can approach it from a number of directions, but what it comes down to is a lack of courtesy. There is an unwillingness to oppose the argument without insulting the arguer. This is bad philosophy. VERY BAD philosophy.

Why don't we make this better? We can, if we choose to.... :chin:

In case any are reading though, I'd like to add my vote to banning these Gnostic Christian Bishop rants — Isaac

:up:

It seems to me that there is no problem with threads that argue for atheism. When you're tired of an argument, you can drop out. Where there is a potential problem is when one cannot discuss any other topic in philosophy of religion without being diverted into a fruitless existence argument. The existence or non-existence of the triple goddess is one of her least interesting features. But if threads on the relation of the fates and the furies and the muses are interrupted by demands for proof and suchlike Apollonian nonsense, then the forum loses interesting debate in favour of tedium and repetition.

We do not argue about the existence of justice; whether it is rare, fleeting, ephemeral, entirely made up, or extant in the realm of forms is of little importance. Do you believe in it? If not, I think an instant ban would be appropriate.

You could be skeptical, focus on their justification or lack of it. Point out logic flaws or unsupported assumptions. Avoid calling them or their ideas stupid. IOW role model rational thinking for people you think are being irrational about whatever the issue is.

If someone is pressuring you to hug people, just ignore them. — Coben

I hear you loud and clear: threaten them with extreme violence.

I'm a quasi-god-mongerer. That means I monger God in a quasi way, not that I monger quasi-gods, although maybe I do that as well. Anyway, this forum is way less religion-bashing than the last one (Paul's forum) it seems to me, and I actually miss the rabid attacks a bit, although they did go too far sometimes. I think crappy ideas should be strongly criticised. I miss getting my panpsychism bashed. Apo was the last person to have a go and he seems to have fucked off. Nobody gives a shit that I'm wrong any more. Worse, panpsychism may be becoming popular, which means I may have to adopt another view. — bert1

I'm still here. I'm always willing to give panpsychism and other crappy ideas a good bashing.

But if threads on the relation of the fates and the furies and the muses are interrupted by demands for proof and suchlike Apollonian nonsense, then the forum loses interesting debate in favour of tedium and repetition. — unenlightened

Yes, I think this is a problem, distinct from the trolling that this thread centres on. Demands for proof, and for precise definitions (often of vague concepts that have no precise definition), derail many threads here in this forum, and elsewhere. I don't think it's deliberate. The people who do this actually can't imagine discussing something - anything - that can't be precisely described and defined. But, deliberate or not, it's still a problem, and I'm not quite sure how we might best overcome it. :chin: Any suggestions, anyone?

If I have understood correctly, this topic is an appeal for the atheists to stop trolling religious threads. I.e. not preventing atheists from posting in these threads, but preventing atheists from trolling these threads, with the express intention of derailing the thread, preventing serious discussion. — Pattern-chaser

I don't interpret this thread as you, which is to proclaim many of the anti-religious on this board as trolls. If there are instances of trolling, the remedy is to flag the post and alert the mods to remove the post and warn the troller. It's not to create a thread and discuss the problem generally. In the discussions with the other mods that we have, I really don't recall there being any instances of moderation of the anti-religious posts that are being referenced in this thread.

What I do think is that religious views are deeply personal to people, and in general civil society we are very careful not to insult or even criticize the religious views of others. In fact, I would suspect that very few of the deeply anti-religious people here would offer their opinions in a face to face setting.

But, IMO, this setting is unique in that it is not a face to face setting and it is specifically designed to offer questions and debate about all sorts of otherwise off limits topics. So I am completely in favor of the anti-religious crowd offering their thoughts, even if occasionally they are poorly formed and not terribly logical. If they are trolling, though, that is another matter.

But, just as I think it's perfectly fine for the anti-religious to offer their views in an aggressive manner, I see this thread as equally reasonable, calling them out for their unreasonable views.

It seems to me that all religious arguments start off with a spoken or unspoken series of "given that"s.
I have nothing against re-living the eighteen-fifties if that's what people want to do, but the 'God' idea as expressed in the Bible and such documents seems a bit distant from what we know about the nature of things currently, and I wonder how useful such re-enactments now are.

I hear you loud and clear: threaten them with extreme violence. — S

:lol:

I didn't say it was offensive. I said it was annoying and it pisses me off. So, why pick on religious intolerance 1) The main culprits in the anti-religionist brigade are hypocrites. They cause the problem and then vent their spleens about how terrible it all is. 2) Those bozos are so fucking self-righteous 3) Anti-religious arguments tend to be the nastiest on the forum. 4) Most of the anti-religion threads are poorly thought through. Bad philosophy. 5) It's not the only thing that annoys me, it's just the one I'm talking about now. — T Clark

I'm not unsympathetic to your position here because I have seen pointless injections of generally "religion sucks, religious people are stupid" sorts of non-sequiturs within otherwise interesting threads about religion. I have in mind those posters who do that, and my general response has been to cease responding to them. They offer very little to the debate. They strike me more as agenda driven, thinking they have arrived enlightened upon a village of idiots, delighting they can proclaim the emperor wears no clothes, as if anything they have to say isn't something already considered.

I can see complaining about negative attitudes, disrespect, etc. towards posts or towards posters in general, but (a) that's not at all limited to religious or phil of religion-oriented posts , and (b) given the sorts of personalities a board like this attracts, it's probably impossible to avoid the problem without effectively just killing all activity on the board.

Boards like this attract people who tend to be big intellectual fish in whatever small pond they come from. Posters generally consider themselves intelligent and well-read. And probably most of them have had many people in their personal lives tell them as much more or less. That leads to at least a slightly inflated head.

But most likely everyone here is in a similar boat re background, and we have all sorts of different views. Unfortunately (almost) everyone winds up having a problem with having those views challenged, or having the influences of those views challenged--whether those influences are (in)famous philosophers or other authors, intellectuals, etc., or some well-established, consensus view or other.

Folks especially have a problem when something is challenged even after an attempt at a defense of what was challenged. It's like "How dare you continue to challenge this when I've responded with an explanation I consider good enough!"

Of course, that attitude has little to do with doing philosophy.

But this all rather quickly leads to disrespect, condescending attitudes, etc., because it's a defensive ego-protection mode and it's easier than dealing more in-depth and/or longer-term with a sustained challenge. And things just snowball from there. People hold grudges, they engage in tit for tat, they automatically respond disrespectfully to certain people who do the same right back, and so on. Even if it's someone who'll respond respectfully to someone who doesn't challenge their views too strongly, people know that they'll respond disrespectfully or at least not thoughtfully to a challenge, if they respond at all, so there will be disrespect due to anticipated problems.

You're not going to change the personalities of the sorts of folks attracted to a board like this, especially where we're anonymous, etc. You're not going to be able to enforce respect, thoughtful replies, etc. without effectively killing the board--and it's already relatively slow, with a relatively small collection of long-term regulars as it is.

So it's unlikely to change. But if it could change, it needs to change in general, not just with respect to religion-oriented posts.

I think that's a fair paraphase of my post, yes.

Well said, though I wonder what exactly you mean by “a board like this”. You mean a philosophy forum, discussion forums in general or something specific to this forum in particular (that puts it in some other category than the two aforementioned ones)

So I am completely in favor of the anti-religious crowd offering their thoughts, even if occasionally they are poorly formed and not terribly logical. — Hanover

Well yes, but...

If they are trolling, though, that is another matter. — Hanover

...this is the important bit. This thread is not complaining about people expressing and arguing for their views. It's about those who troll such threads, with the intention of preventing the discussion of (what they see as) 'nonsense'.

Isn't the solution of supporting multiple threads (as this forum currently does) sufficient to task? — JosephS

Sure it is. I don't support any control beyond enforcing the guidelines with a pretty light hand. The moderators generally do a pretty good job.

After getting annoyed at an atheist poster who suggested segregating the religious members, I set out to write a rabble-rousing post. As I wrote it, I had two working titles - "First thing we do, let's ban all the atheists" and "A Modest Proposal - ban all the atheists." It was much more inflammatory than what I ended up posting and was intended to be ironic.

After talking to the moderators, I decided to tone down my rhetoric and take out the irony. I should have stuck to my original plan. It would have been more fun. Not that this one hasn't been fun.

It's about those who troll such threads, with the intention of preventing the discussion of (what they see as) 'nonsense'. — Pattern-chaser

That doesn't really make any sense. How can they prevent discussion?

He actually said that religious ideas aren't special in the sense that a bad idea is a bad idea, and he's right. You just seem to be talking past him rather than arguing against him on that point. — S

I was trying to be pointed and direct. Apparently I wasn't clear. I believe religious beliefs are special and deserve special respect and tolerance.

I was trying to be pointed and direct. Apparently I wasn't clear. I believe religious beliefs are special and deserve special respect and tolerance. — T Clark

Okay. I don't.

I think it is a part of a larger issue. Much of the problematic behavior can be seen, for example, in antinatalist threads or even with metaphysics (admittedly as least considered family to religious threads) and likely with political threads, though I read these less. Basically there is a kind of team play with the goal of winning. On some topics, even people who disagree can be exploratory, together, making clear their areas of disagreement, but generally not trying to score points, not going ad hom, conceding things, etc. IOW having a discussion. But on many topics, and in fact, I would say in general, there is a back to the wall, no more being victimized by Team X, barely held rage that infects many of the posts. I don't think the answer is to eliminate the discussions wehre people disagree. Because with the trends in society, this will likely end up that we can only discuss symbolic logic here, and who knows, perahps even that topic will at the end of the decade bring out the knives. — Coben

I agree with what you've written. And, yes, the anti-natalists drive me crazy. We can stick them in the ghetto with the atheists. We'll keep going till it's just you and me. And we'll keep @S around as our mascot.