livius drusus

Wish to learn from us? I'm no rabbi. This is a discussion board. The purpose of this discussion board is discussion. I don't need to "muster up" honesty and sincerity to have a discussion here.

In your rush to bare-knuckle action, you forgot the part about respecting the rules of this board and the larger mission of the Secular Web (see Shake's post above) which, after all, pays for this thin slice of heaven.

Starboy

I was giving the theist the benefit of the doubt. There are only two reasons for them to visit, curiosity or proselytizing. If its curiosity then they are here to learn, if it is proselytizing then their intent is aggressive. If I went into their home and started arguing against theism and for atheism most would take offence. These same people see nothing wrong with doing the same to us. Such people do not deserve respect.

As for the muster part drusus, make a note of this. There are some atheists that think theists, and in particular Christians suck. Not because of their beliefs but because of what they constantly say and do in our society. If someone steps on my toe and I do not holler ouch then if they keep stepping on my toe it�s my problem for not speaking out. If they step on my toe after I have yelled ouch and they know they are hurting me, well that is another matter entirely. Here is a place where atheists can cry ouch. You got a problem with that then ban me. For many Christians their religion is just a form of bullying. There is only one way to deal with bullies.

Starboy

livius drusus

That is a bifurcation fallacy. There are far more than 2 reasons for theists to participate here just as there are for atheists. Good ol' shooting the shit leaps to mind.

These people, as you so charmingly put it, are not a homogenous group with one sole aim. Besides, if somebody weren't willing to brave the rabid hoards, theological discourse here would be even more of a one note song than it already is. That may be riveting to you, but some of us enjoy an intelligent debate with multiple perspectives.

Oh? All of them? Nomatter what the denomination or philosophical/political position?

I don't really respond well to the emotional vulnerability arguments. They're appropriate for the Lounge or SL but make no sense to me in the Philosophical forums. We're here to discuss topics from every point of view possible. The fact that theists speak from a theistic perspective is hardly a slight or an act of violence.

Besides, I've been treated far worse by fellow atheists on these boards than by theists. The verbal battery tactic is deployed quite liberally by those who consider it reasonable. The theological stance of its targets is more often than not hardly a factor.

IIDB users can only be banned by consensus of the administrators, as you know.

Become a bigger one? No thanks. I don't play the ends justify the means games.

Starboy

That is not what I am advocating. Standing up to bullies is not bullying.

Starboy

Titanpoint

Can I throw in my 2 cents?

1. As a former fundamentalist Christian myself, I can perfectly understand why Christians have a hard time with the reality of atheism. Unbelief and unbelievers are constantly reinforced as the key boogeymen of most Xtians lives. Unbelievers are IN DENIAL of God's love and forgiveness...and so on. Unbelievers are driven only by their natural instincts (which lead to destruction) and blinded by the god of this World, who is the person who besieges Xtians with nasty sinful thoughts as well as give them reality shocks from time to time.

With such a siege mentality, the fundamentalist is unable to separate sin from sinner, unbelief from arrogant denial, satanic belief from sinful outsiders. It IS a siege mentality which is constantly reinforced. I've visited churches across several countries (why? Jeebus only knows) to discover the exact same dynamic over and over again.

2. People who mock Xtianity with profoundly insensitive and scatalogical references, to me seem mostly to be the ones mostly repressed in their real lives. It's like blowing off steam from too much pressure to conform. That's what it seems like. (There's also the obvious competitive element in this place as well - something like "Unholier Than Thou").

I did not leave Christianity by choice so much as I found it more and more unworkable. I backslid (in the Xtian terminology). BUT When I discovered (or rediscovered) science, the scales fell away and I was back to reality.

I will amplify something someone else said earlier in this thread. The primary motivating factor in evangelism is false guilt. Its actually easier than you'd think to get someone to feel guilty over something they could not control. False guilt is the unifying reason why a lot of Xtians stay with their religious beliefs - they'd rather blame themselves for their failures rather than realise that it is their beliefs which condemn them and keep them enslaved. Religions spend a great deal of time both before and after conversion projecting false guilt as "conviction by the Holy Spirit" or something like it.

Religions set people up to fail: they present an idealised life/work ethic/world that should be which is totally unworkable. Practically every natural instinct of a person, every working of evolutionary biology, is made out to be evil or sinful or both. Thus the treadmill of false guilt is begun and this is what powers the "religious life". To be an Xtian is to know false guilt from beginning to end - because the religion sets you up to fail.

This is why fundamentalists spend such time and effort to try to debunk evolutionary biology - because if you knew what powerful instincts were a result of biology, you'd never be able to be controlled by false guilt. Why does Christianity spend such time trying to regulate and repress the sex drive? Because the sex drive is a key part of what it is to be human and once you've convinced people that their sex drive is evil or sinful, you've got them. I'm sure that if Christianity needed cars as recruits, it would first condemn petrol/gas as the work of the Devil.

Biff the unclean

It might be a telling fact that HD and I are both from countries where religious differences are commonly discussed over machine guns and bombs. I've lost a grand father, an uncle and two cousins because they did not believe "correctly."
When met with hostility from the religious the wisest tactic is not to be intimidated.
Being intimidating ones self I readily admit does not lead to converts. But then I have no interest in converting anyone. It does however deter such aggressive behavior on the part of the Theist.
Telling someone who is clueless of the workings of science but wants to do science anyway is more informative than it is insulting. Surely it's less insulting than being told that you are moral-less, a fool and fully deserve to burn in the fires of Hell for all eternity

livius drusus

It is when you see anyone who speaks from a theistic point of view during an open discussion as bullying you. I could understand if you were talking about people who preach in SL, but you're not.

As I said above, the upper forums are here for discussion of topics from every possible point of view. Theists speaking from a theistic perspective is no more bullying than anyone else speaking from their ideological perspective. If your response to that perspective is harshness because its existence offends you, than the sole purveyor of violence in the conversation is you.

Hugo Holbling

I would also appreciate it.

There are a number of ways to respond to this imagined theist menace. We could engage them here on civil terms and show that moderates of any theological persuasion can get along just fine without combative rhetoric. We could make an attempt to positively influence our communities without bifurcating them, like DigitalChicken does, showing that non-theists can help and support themselves and others. We could each present an example like seebs does here of someone with ideas and concerns of their own but who apparently considers community and shared values of greater import (my apologies if i have you wrong here, seebs). We could perhaps even suppose for a moment or two that not all theists are deluded people with psychological problems that require analysis from those who already assume they are idiots.

(As an aside, if theism and non-theism are straightforwardly incommensurable then all the ill-feeling is quite definitely for nothing and we could instead be asking each other what we have in common. Kennedy's words spring to mind.)

Starboy

Drusus, if you want to accuse me of something then do it. If you don't want me posting on IIDB then just say so. If I am not allowed to express my point of view then edit my posts. Otherwise get off my back.

Starboy

livius drusus

Feel free to call me livius.

What we're having here is a discussion of tactics. You said above that any theist arguing for theism here on IIDB is offensive and not deserving of respect. I am disagreeing with that by pointing out that the upper forums are specifically intended for discussions from all possible points of view and that therefore the mere fact that a theist speaks from a theistic perspective cannot possibly be considered offensive.

I am not accusing you of anything. I am no more on your back than I am on Calzaer's. I simply disagree with you and your position on theist posters as expressed on this thread. I assure you, if I were moderating you you'd know.