I meant to say that religious belief deserve special respect and tolerance over and above non-religious beliefs. — T Clark

Can you offer a reason or reasons why?

These days, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, but back in the day, atheists were a particular target for the armchair and comfy cushions. So think of their tedious threads as reparations, and tick each one off as a karmic debt repaid. — unenlightened

For what it's worth, I include atheism as one of the religious beliefs that deserves protection.

For what it's worth, I include atheism as one of the religious beliefs that deserves protection. — T Clark

I count broccoli amongst my favourite fruits.

Point of fact, the crusades and inquisition were akin to viking raids. Kill and pillage.
They weren't religious.
They weren't christian.
They were political.
If they had a religion, it would be the religion of money.
And the religiom of money is something attributable to the Romans.

The Romans with all their Deus ex Machina are the then equivalent of atheists.
And they had a religious war with Christians, and lost.
How did Christians fight? The same way Socrates did - they died for their belief.

Let's not pretend like the so-called 'religious motives' aren't a false flag, abused today under the guise of 'freedom and democracy'.

I have no problem with criticism of religion. I don't even want there to be any official action against the worst perpetrators by the moderators. I just want to call them out on their misbehavior. — T Clark

All fine and dandy.
But why the thread? Was calling them out to the authorities not enough?

For what it's worth, I include atheism as one of the religious beliefs that deserves protection. — T Clark

They won't thank you for that, armed as they feel themselves to be, with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of fair play.

Wrong. You dont even like vegetables. Meat is no ones friend but for the devils forked feet.

(I think that's right, not sure exactly how to play but that makes as much sense as any two thoughts T Clark has expressed. Do I win anything?)

Can you offer a reason or reasons why? — praxis

Here's what I wrote previously:

Throughout history people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs. Tortured, killed, enslaved. Yes, I recognize that, in many cases, the persecution has come at the hands of followers of other religions. That is why the foundational protections for religious belief in the US Constitution are so important. The first amendment, the first and most important of the rights in the Bill of Rights, protects religious belief and freedom of speech. In truth, they are the same thing.

Rabid attacks by atheists on religion have a goal - to exclude religious believers and their values from public life. Not torture, death, or slavery - just disenfranchisement. It's worth resisting that goal. — T Clark

But why the thread? Was calling them out to the authorities not enough? — Shamshir

I don't want the moderators to be involved. We should be able to handle this ourselves.

Wrong. You dont even like vegetables. Meat is no ones friend but for the devils forked feet.

(I think that's right, not sure exactly how to play but that makes as much sense as any two thoughts T Clark has expressed. Do I win anything?) — DingoJones

You're right, I don't like vegetables. I like fruits, such as apples, oranges, bananas, strawberries, and broccoli.

You win a shrubbery.

And here we see the truest evil of religion, how it makes a virtue of the abominable, how a good man can do, say and believe something evil and not even notice...indeed carry on believing himself not only good but better than others for have doing so. — DingoJones

You're not saying I'm a good man, are you. Now that would be offensive.

His mother was a hamster. — S

Stop these dastardly attacks!! Haven't you heard. I'm a good man.

Okay, if you don't have problem with the criticism of religion, what are we handling and how?

Can you offer a reason or reasons why?
— praxis

Here's what I wrote previously:

Throughout history people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs. Tortured, killed, enslaved. Yes, I recognize that, in many cases, the persecution has come at the hands of followers of other religions. That is why the foundational protections for religious belief in the US Constitution are so important. The first amendment, the first and most important of the rights in the Bill of Rights, protects religious belief and freedom of speech. In truth, they are the same thing.

Rabid attacks by atheists on religion have a goal - to exclude religious believers and their values from public life. Not torture, death, or slavery - just disenfranchisement. It's worth resisting that goal.
— T Clark — T Clark

I can't seem to read between the lines very well today and can't find a reason or reasons why religious belief deserves special respect and tolerance over and above non-religious beliefs in what you previously wrote.

Do you withdraw the suggestion?

The only reason that religious beliefs might deserve special respect is because they're so personal. Telling someone their religion is stupid is like telling someone their mother is stupid. Their mom may be stupid. You're just not supposed to tell them that. They're supposed to think their mom is worth a shit. She's not.

@S, your mother is stupid.

Broccoli isn't a fruit. It's a fungus.

Carrots.

Your name is Gerald.

Peas.

It seems to me - outside the US at least - a bit odd to define yourself in terms of a belief you don't hold. As I have rather tediously reiterated, I do not put myself down as an anti-phlogistonist or an a-flat-earther.

I do not put myself down as an anti-phlogistonist or an a-flat-earther. — iolo

Because you do not live in a time or culture in which such a large group of people do believe in those things.

Worst – most of it is bad philosophy.

I quite enjoy the polemical approach to philosophy. Though we should strive to be cordial, the sparks from such battles often reveal more than calm reticence ever could.

Actually yes. I think if the person espoused racist views by presenting arguments in favor of their positions, other people should respond by pointing out the weaknesses in those arguments. Further it's not really an exact parallel. yes, you classify them the same, but a racist will have as conclusions that insult and demean a group of people, perhaps dehumanize. A theist might, but a theist might not in making their arguments or discussing their beliefs or religion.

It seems to me - outside the US at least - a bit odd to define yourself in terms of a belief you don't hold. As I have rather tediously reiterated, I do not put myself down as an anti-phlogistonist or an a-flat-earther. — iolo

I find it much more odd to decide to refrain from using the term which is most commonly used just because you have a chip on your shoulder.

Also, you're deliberately picking funny-sounding terms which aren't actually in use. Would you also have a problem calling yourself an ethical anti-realist, an anti-fracker, an anti-natalist, or an anti-establishmentarian, if you were of those positions?

When we begin asking questions about religious matters, we are really asking for the truth in the name of the highest authority. So what happens when we find the answer? We either have to accept it or reject it. What happens in that moment, unbeknown to us, is that we choose to follow the spirit of truth or the spirit of a deceiver. The path we choose, the spirit we yield ourselves to, continues to take our thoughts into a direction of greater understanding (to it's respective objectives). That is why you see so much hypocrisy among Christians where they have believed false doctrines - the false doctrine does not come from the spirit of truth, and when they think that way, they behave according to what they have been led to think is appropriate. The same happens for people who aren't religious, btw. So eventually you see them end up being deplorable, as @Hanover mentioned here.

The only real problem is that people actually engage with them, rather than allowing them to dry up and disappear as they naturally should. (What that means is that the noble people are giving their strength to the reprobrates). I could offer you Proverbs 26:4-5 to consider.

It seems to me - outside the US at least - a bit odd to define yourself in terms of a belief you don't hold. As I have rather tediously reiterated, I do not put myself down as an anti-phlogistonist or an a-flat-earther.

It’s more so the adoption of a religious-invented slur that irks me. They now view themselves as the religious have always viewed them, as atheists.

I think if the person espoused racist views by presenting arguments in favor of their positions, other people should respond by pointing out the weaknesses in those arguments. — Coben

I'm glad that the owner of this site, along with the rest of the site staff, do not agree with you insofar as this forum is concerned. That would be against the guidelines, and I would expect to see the racist views deleted and the member expressing them to be banned, or at least dealt with as the site staff see fit.

Wait, you're saying you disagree with me in this polite, rational manner? I feel diminished. God is real! God is love!

:

I don't see how that is relevant to the question at hand. — T Clark

When you claimed that:

For that reason, protection of religion is built into the foundation and superstructure of our institutional protections, in particular our Constitution. — T Clark

it became a question at hand.

You raised it as evidence that religion is "special". But it was not simply a matter of protection of religion but a protection from religion. It is in part a statement of the awareness of the power and danger of religion.

Some recent Supreme Court cases have been about religious exemptions, all of which are predicated on the notion that religion is a special case, and so, behavior that is otherwise questionable is protected.

Just how special religion is becomes a question at hand.

As to the problem raised in the OP, yes some members behave badly, but you single out only those who do so on topics dealing with religion. And that raises another question at hand: is the problem bad behavior or only bad behavior is matters you regard as special?

Wait, you're saying you disagree with me in this polite, rational manner? I feel diminished. God is real! God is love! — Coben

Damn, I must have lost concentration for a moment there. It's all Baden's fault. I don't know why it's Baden's fault right now, but I'll think of a reason later.

Do you withdraw the suggestion? — praxis

No.

But I just gave you a rea...oh, damn. This new style of yours, now including humility...it's cruel, brutal. I've never felt so weak and ineffective.....

I quite enjoy the polemical approach to philosophy. Though we should strive to be cordial, the sparks from such battles often reveal more than calm reticence ever could. — NOS4A2

I enjoy raising a ruckus, but I get more done when I'm nice.

Actually yes. I think if the person espoused racist views by presenting arguments in favor of their positions, other people should respond by pointing out the weaknesses in those arguments. — Coben

I'm glad that the owner of this site, along with the rest of the site staff, do not agree with you insofar as this forum is concerned. That would be against the guidelines, and I would expect to see the racist views deleted and the member expressing them to be banned, or at least dealt with as the site staff see fit. — S

I agree with you, Coben. I don't have any trouble having civil discussions with people who espouse ideas I find distasteful. On the other hand, S is right. It won't ever happen here, which is fine with me.

You raised it as evidence that religion is "special". But it was not simply a matter of protection of religion but a protection from religion. It is in part a statement of the awareness of the power and danger of religion. — Fooloso4

The first amendment to the US Constitution does not protect anyone against religion. It protects against government intrusion into religion. That includes preventing government from establishing or promoting a religion. That's the danger - not religion, but religion combined with government.

Whatever, I don't see how that has anything to do with the issue at hand.