Okay. I don't. — S

I'm shocked, shocked!

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) — DingoJones

A forum focused on "intellectual" subject matter, and where we can be anonymous/where there aren't verified prerequisites to participate.

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

My purpose in this thread was to kick those I consider offenders, including Artemis, in the ass. Alas, I failed in my goal, although I've enjoyed the thread and learned something, i.e. never listen to the moderators.

I think both anti-natalists and at least one anti-anti-natalist were pretty insulting. I didn't mean just anti-natalists. But it seems like some issues are more likely to bring out the knives. S seems to enjoy bringing knives to any issue. He does seem to have a sense of humor about it. Even that is rare.

I believe religious beliefs are special — T Clark

Why would you think they're "special" in this regard? (Unless that's an allusion to "special needs.") :razz:

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. — S

@Wayfarer's post was respectful of anti-religionists and proposed peaceful coexistence. I agreed with that sentiment.

I'm shocked, shocked! — T Clark

So anyway, why do think that, for example, the religious belief that Jesus walked on water, or the religious belief that God hates fags, deserve special respect and tolerance over non-religious beliefs such as the non-religious belief that Jesus, being just a human, could not have walked on water, and the non-religious belief that homosexuals are just fine, and God doesn't hate them because God doesn't even exist?

I think that religious beliefs are a combo of absurd, ignorant, and incoherent.

And I think that racist beliefs are a combo of absurd, ignorant and incoherent.

Would you have a problem with someone being treated with disrespect, treated in a condescending way, etc. if they were to post in support of racist views on a philosophy board?

My purpose in this thread was to kick those I consider offenders, including Artemis, in the ass. — T Clark

Um.... Like when? You mean in response here to your purposefully inflammatory thread?

You make no sense. You are purposefully being a jerk and then people call you out on it and you pretend that's proof of your totally unwarranted position.

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? — ssu

When I'm being reasonable and conciliatory, I agree with your attempt to understand where the rabid atheists are coming from. Other times I just want to kick them in the ass. Yes, I know, I'm part of the problem.

You're basically just admitting that this whole thread is just trolling.

Would you have a problem with someone being treated with disrespect, treated in a condescending way, etc. if they were to post in support of racist views on a philosophy board? — Terrapin Station

So, religious beliefs are equivalent to support for Nazism? Am I supposed to take that seriously?

So it's just hypocritical cheerleading for the views that you want to be treated with respect, screw people with different opinions?

Wayfarer's post was respectful of anti-religionists and proposed peaceful coexistence. I agreed with that sentiment. — T Clark

I wouldn't exactly say that it was respectful, because it was patronising in much the same way that you might object to the language used in the comments you quoted in your opening post as patronising.

I wouldn't exactly say that it was respectful, because it was patronising in much the same way that you might object to the language used in the comments you quoted in your opening post as patronising. — S

I don't think it was patronizing at all. Let's not go all "nuh-unh" "nuh-unh" with this.

So it's just hypocritical cheerleading for the views that you want to be treated with respect, screw people with different opinions? — Terrapin Station

So, you do think religious belief is equivalent to Nazism.

So, you do think religious belief is equivalent to Nazism. — T Clark

I think that you'd likely be very hypocritical about treating things with respect.

So it's not patronising to be characterised as having a problem with religion not on any intellectual basis, but because of a 'fear of religion', like a phobia or a prejudice? Or because you aren't open minded enough to explore the matter, or because you're unwilling to do so or not interested? I don't think that that's fair, and I do find that patronising.

So it's not patronising to be characterised as having a problem with religion not on any intellectual basis, but because of a 'fear of religion', like a phobia or a prejudice. Or because you aren't open minded enough to explore the matter, or because you're unwilling to do so or not interested? I don't think that that's fair, and I do find that patronising. — S

Nuh unh. You get one "Nuh unh," then that's enough.

Nuh unh. You get one "Nuh unh," then that's enough. — T Clark

Well, if you still genuinely don't agree, then I think that indicates that you can't see it from the other side because of bias.

Well, if you still genuinely don't agree, then I think that indicates that you can't see it from the other side because of bias. — S

Does this mean you don't want to be our mascot?

Let's face it: T Clark is not actually interested in seeing or understanding the other side here. He's just got it in his head right now that atheists are all wrong and mean to boot and theists/spiritualists/agnostics etc. can do no wrong. No matter how much they do the same things he's accusing atheists of doing.

Does this mean you don't want to be our mascot? — T Clark

Depends. How much are you going to pay me?

If you're going to try to argue, "This view, this challenge, etc. really does deserve respect. That view, that challenge, etc.really does not. It's okay to be disrespectful, condescending towards it," then since we're supposed to be doing philosophy here, you should probably attempt some support for that--support that can stand up to strong objections.

Depends. How much are you going to pay me? — S

It's an honorary position. It means you get to stay on the forum with us even though you should be expelled from paradise with the rest.

I do reckon that if the shoe was on the other foot, and someone like me or you had made those kind of comments about many people with religious beliefs, then he would find it objectionable, and wouldn't be calling them respectful or expressing his general agreement.

It's not even clear what "respect" is supposed to entail here. I think he means, "don't challenge them in honest debate" which is just entirely unphilosophical.

. — Artemis

Yeah, it's a common phenomenon in Phil 101 or Intro to Phil-type classes, especially where they're taken as electives by people with other majors who figure that "philosophy will be an easy A," to see people drop out because they're uncomfortable with having their views challenged.

wouldn't be calling them respectful or expressing his general agreement — S

He only wants "respect" for religious views, not secular ones.

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. — Hanover

:up:

For example, I almost never read the religious (or anti-religious) discussions, so that would be the way to get my attention.

Alas, I failed in my goal, although I've enjoyed the thread and learned something, i.e. never listen to the moderators. — T Clark

Slow learner. ;)

Aside: Much unwarranted generalization going on here. I'd imagine most here would decline a tour of duty in this war.