HelenM

Personally, I think we should be working towards a world where we laugh with people, not at them or at their beliefs/non-beliefs. In my opinion there's nothing laudable about mocking other people and/or their views.

Helen

pz

I do not consider "gods and devils" to be people, and are thus fair game to be laughed at.

seebs

It is a thing you believe, which is not known to be factual; that's an "opinion".

Hmm.

There is no *evidence* that I have any kind of commonality of experience with any other person, and indeed, you cannot show me evidence that other "people" have conscious experience at all, except by begging the question and/or appealing to circumstantial evidence.

Is anyone who believes that "promoting an unfounded lie"?

It seems to me that you are every bit as rabidly dogmatic in unfounded claims as the fundies.

Hmm. Well, since there's no *evidence* that the word means what you think it means, I say you're promoting an unfounded lie.

You're begging the question. Your argument is, logically, precisely equivalent to "God exists because the Bible says so, and we can trust the Bible because God wrote it". There's no argument at all. You assert religion to be false because you see no evidence for it - and you assert that all of the people who offer evidence are lying, because you know religion is false. It's circular.

You have an opinion. You have no evidence in support of your opinion, but you wish to treat it as fact, so you appeal to logical fallacies to make it sound persuasive.

How, exactly, are you different from the fundies? Your belief system is just as unfounded as theirs.

If other people see the similarity, then it's there, whether or not you find the comparison flattering.

Exactly. Falwell doesn't plan to *kill* atheists, he just knows for sure that they're wrong, and that their beliefs are harmful and destructive.

Pot, meet kettle.

Goose, meet gander. Gander, meet goose.

pz

No. I assert that religion is false because all the people who claim to be presenting evidence for it do not present any evidence at all.

I'm sorry, but when you invent a circular argument and put it in my mouth, that does not mean I'm making an appeal to logical fallacies.

You know, this argument really belongs in EoG. Hmmm. This is a discussion of whether theists are appropriate as moderators. You've taken it personally and gotten so irate about someone who has stated that religion is humbug that you've begun rather casually hurling personal insults. Are you aware that most of the people who frequent iidb think religion is false? Do you think they are all intolerant Falwellian bigots, or is it just me?

I've already suggested once that you avoid the insults. I'll mention it again. You aren't doing yourself a favor with this stuff.

seebs

No, they present evidence that is not the sort of evidence you personally accept. So what?

There are many true things for which no one has ever presented evidence.

True.

Just a few of 'em, you included.

Many people are able to distinguish between their personal disbelief in God, and a Revealed Truth, such that anyone who disagrees is Promoting Lies.

What you have done is state your opinions as truth. Not as the best interpretation available of the data; not as a conclusion reached. Just as "truth". Same as any other fundie.

You may have missed this, but it was you who started saying insulting things about people here.

So? I'm not in life to do myself favors. You're actually one of the examples I have noticed of a person whose atheism creates the exact same biases that are problematic on a lot of theistic sites. You are so utterly, unshakeably, confident that your personal opinions are "truth" that you consistently show a bias against people who do not share them. I've noticed this a few times in the past, and I've noticed people calling you on it, and you're still doing it.

Your derogatory, derisive, and dismissive comments towards theists, show that you are one of the people who will actively disrupt efforts at peaceful coexistance, and this puts you in exactly the same camp as Falwell & Co.; you will not be happy to live and let live, and while you're welcome to feel this way, it's sure not a qualification I would have picked in a moderator.

The Other Michael

Gentlemen, can we skip the tit for tat and move back to the main topic?

thanks,
Michael

pz

There you go again, turning this into your personal complaint with me.

Calm down. You're getting abusive.

seebs

Okay, a topical question:

What would you do if one of the non-theist mods currently active were to acquire theistic belief?

Jennie

I haven't read the whole thread, so I may be repeating something; but it seems to me that there is a confusion here between "immoral" and "discriminatory". Frequently discrimination is used to mean something which is also immoral; but discrimination itself is not necessarily immoral. For instance, I discriminate in my love life: my husband is the only one I sleep with; few people would argue that it is immoral to discriminate like this.

Thus also with the requirement for atheist/agnostic/non-supernal believers for moderators. It is unquestionably discriminatory, but I don't feel it is immoral. This is a place for unbelievers and there are other places for believers and still other places where belief or non-belief is neutral; we are not repressing anyone else by expressing ourselves or by having our own place.

HelenM

It seems to me that laughing at "gods and devils" often includes mocking those who believe in them.

But you didn't say you meant it that way so I won't assume you did.

Helen