What does a religious person call somebody who believes something different?

[DetlefK]

What does a religious person call somebody who believes something different?

Believers have different words for such people: schismatics, heretics, pagans, infidels...





What does a scientist call another scientist who thinks that a different theory is correct?

Colleague.

[thbobby]

2. I read about and hear stories about religious people slandering atheists

But I have known many religious people I have told I am an atheist. For the most part, they were not crude or judgemental. Occasionally I have heard "I pity you" or other condescending remarks but most just take it in stride. I once had a person try to convert me and convince me of my evil ways, but they soon gave up.

[elocs]

5. I am an atheist and my last job before retiring was at a Salvation Army homeless shelter.

Nobody knew for a couple of months until I told my immediate supervisor with whom I worked closely and he said he assumed by my actions and how I treated the people there that I was a Christian. And although he was a devout Christian and Evangelical he told me that he respected my point of view and would never try and "save" me.

[democratisphere]

3. Religious intolerance continues to cause more strife than anything else

throughout the world. Maybe a person that believes something different should be called "brother" or "sister".

[ollie10]

46. I suspect that economics, territorial issues and such cause more strife

We haven't had a good old religious war for hundreds of years. But a lot of wars have been caused by economics and territorial grabs

[democratisphere]

54. The wars and problems in the Middle East are largely about Religious

Intolerances. There is a tremendous amount of decention in the US by evangelical Christians and anyone that is not!

[ollie10]

56. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot were not ....er....exactly religious folks

But they sure killed a lot of people!

I would say it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black

[democratisphere]

58. You need to educate yourself on this subject.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/tomek22.htm

[ollie10]

63. Everyone needs education

But are you trying to say stalin was the pope?

Intolerance is wrong, whether it is motivated by religion or secular reasons.

Most religious people are quie comfortable with the idea people have various views....

[democratisphere]

64. I am talking about the intolerance of one religion over another and vice versa.

I am not referring to any individual; people and their religions.

[ollie10]

67. I am talking about intolerance period

Why just talk about one form of it?

Plus which, not all strife is caused by religion.

[democratisphere]

70. Not all, but much of it is.

[ollie10]

72. Still, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of religious people

don't really care that much whether someone goes to a different church or no church at all.

It seems to be an issue mainly with the OP, who has diligently created a straw man to attack.

[democratisphere]

73. This isn't about church, going or not going. It's about religions that have no tolerance

for any but their own.

I get your position and point.

[ollie10]

74. The OP created a straw man

Tried to paint religious people as being intolerant.

Some are. Some aren't.

Next?

[guillaumeb]

81. Correct.

Straw is a much used material here.

[MineralMan]

109. ROFLMAO!

Uff da!

[guillaumeb]

121. Always good to engage in exercise.

Any progress in interpreting and analyzing the Giraudoux quote?

[sprinkleeninow]

176. Hay sweet stuff!

I yam weary of pine straw, pot v. kettle, o'camel's razer, no true scottish person, ad infinity. And ad homarus.

Just sayin'.

It's not you, it's mee.

💙 Bon-Bon

[Major Nikon]

138. Your assertion is strawman

The OP didn’t claim all religious people use those words.

[ollie10]

145. That's your interpretation

[Major Nikon]

151. As was yours

[ollie10]

103. Yup

[zipplewrath]

66. More like an excuse

Religious differences are often exploited to create conflict. But I strongly suspect that the conflict would be created on way or another. As such, I'm not sure that this therefor can be called a "cause".

[Mariana]

106. It is an excuse, of course.

It sure is a damned useful and effective one.

[Act_of_Reparation]

202. It's not an excuse if people actually believe it.

[vlyons]

4. Neighbor, friend

[ollie10]

6. I dunno.....Methodists call Lutherans Christians.

I am afraid you haven't heard of of the word ecumenical?

[Silver Gaia]

8. (Methodists and Lutherans ARE both Christians... just different branches.)

[ollie10]

9. The essential point is there are LOTS of different views in Christianity and other religions

Most of the time, we don't call those who disagree with us heretics

[Silver Gaia]

11. I agree with that.

You might be surprised at the number of people I encounter who are so exclusive in their thinking that they don't even realize that Christianity has MANY branches. They think THEIR denomination alone is Christian. Many think Catholics are not Christian as well because they don't understand the distinction between (nor the history behind) Catholicism and Protestantism. I'm sorry if what I said sounded cross. It's late here. I'm tired.

[ollie10]

13. No problem!

[Docreed2003]

136. Yep...

As a kid raised by Catholic/Southern Baptist parents I had an extremely conflicted childhood in the religion department, mainly because we were taught at a young age at the Baptist Church how all other denominations were wrong and "baptists" were the only true followers of JC!

That nonsense helped to foster my interest in all religions and my own personal spirituality...even though I'm more of an Agnostic Catholic/really shitty Buddhist today... .

[Silver Gaia]

170. I had a similar experience,

except it was a Pentecostal church my grandparents attended. Mom and Dad were what I'd call Agnostic Christians. They didn't attend or believe in any church, but let Grandma and Grandpa take us to church to keep peace in the family. Well, according to the preacher of that church, no one else in the entire world was "going to heaven" but the baptized members of that one tiny church. EVERYONE in the rest of the world was going to "burn in hell" (including my parents, and me, too, unless I let them baptize me, which my parents forbade). Plus, damn near everything any fun was a sin. No TV (we had a TV at home), no movies (Mom & Dad loved taking us to the movies), no music except church-approved gospel (Mom played the radio all day long), no make-up (Mom wore red lipstick). Talk about conflicts! sheesh

[Major Nikon]

171. At some point a church becomes more of a cult

Exclusionism is a pretty good clue the line has been crossed.

[Silver Gaia]

172. Yes, this church was definitely a cult!

The national association of Pentecostal churches kicked them out for being too extreme. This was back in the late 40s to early 50s, I think. I'm sure the church still exists, though. To their credit, once my parents realized how unhealthy this was for their children, they stopped letting us go there.

[Major Nikon]

173. Hard to imagine being more extreme than snake handling

[Silver Gaia]

175. Thank goodness they didn't do that!

[Major Nikon]

127. Have you heard of the word exclusivism?

What you describe only involves a handful of Christian denominations, and even then doesn’t include other faiths and nontheists.

[ollie10]

150. Ecumenism is pretty common

[Major Nikon]

155. Not nearly as common as exclusivism

[Silver Gaia]

7. I get where you are going with this,

but just want to point out that it depends on the religion. Not all religions are intolerant. It depends on whether the religion is 'inclusive' or 'exclusive.' In general, monotheistic religions tend to be exclusive, and polytheistic or nontheistic religions (Buddhism, for instance) tend to be inclusive. Exclusive religions require adherents to belong exclusively to that religion and will often shun those whom they see as different, whereas inclusive religions are generally tolerant and can be inclusive of those who believe differently.
...done now...

[pnwmom]

10. You don't sound like anyone who's ever presented at a scientific conference.

https://thesiswhisperer.com/2013/02/13/academic-assholes/

This sentence made me think about the nasty cleverness that some academics display when they comment on student work in front of their peers. Displaying cleverness during PhD seminars and during talks at conferences is a way academics show off their scholarly prowess to each other, sometimes at the expense of the student. Cleverness is a form of currency in academia; or ‘cultural capital’ if you like. If other academics think you are clever they will listen to you more; you will be invited to speak at other institutions, to sit on panels and join important committees and boards. Appearing clever is a route to power and promotion. If performing like an asshole in a public forum creates the perverse impression that you are more clever than others who do not, there is a clear incentive to behave this way.

Sutton claims only a small percentage of people who act like assholes are actually sociopaths (he amusingly calls them ‘flaming assholes’) and talks about how asshole behaviour is contagious. He argues that it’s easy for asshole behaviour to become normalised in the workplace because, most of the time, the assholes are not called to account. So it’s possible that many academics are acting like assholes without even being aware of it.

How does it happen? The budding asshole has learned, perhaps subconsciously, that other people interrupt them less if they use stronger language. They get attention: more air time in panel discussions and at conferences. Other budding assholes will watch strong language being used and then imitate the behaviour. No one publicly objects to the language being used, even if the student is clearly upset, and nasty behaviour gets reinforced. As time goes on the culture progressively becomes more poisonous and gets transmitted to the students. Students who are upset by the behaviour of academic assholes are often counselled, often by their peers, that “this is how things are done around here” . Those who refuse to accept the culture are made to feel abnormal because, in a literal sense, they are – if being normal is to be an asshole.

Not all academic cultures are badly afflicted by assholery, but many are. I don’t know about you, but seen this way, some of the sicker academic cultures suddenly make much more sense. This theory might explain why senior academics are sometimes nicer and more generous to their colleagues than than those lower in the pecking order. If asshole behaviour is a route to power, those who already have positions of power in the hierarchy and are widely acknowledged to be clever, have less reason to use it.

[DetlefK]

15. Oh, I have presented at scientific conferences.

My point is: Scientists do not have a derogatory term to describe people who think different. Thinking different is considered acceptable.

[ollie10]

22. But it is over-generalizing (and unscientific for that matter) to ignore the FACT

that, although some religious people disrespect people of other views, many others don't do that at all.

What I see clearly is that you are disrespecting people who don't hold YOUR views. Very unscientific, friend

[DetlefK]

25. First of all, respecting people has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Science is a method of exploring nature by testing ideas, keeping the ones that turn out useful and discarding those that aren't useful.
Nothing in the scientific method regulates how you are supposed to treat other people. Science is about ideas, not people.

Second, I made this OP to point that even though theists like to paint scientists as intolerant to their ideas, theists have have multiple terms to describe people who commit thought-crimes while scientists don't consider different ideas as something bad.

And Yes, I am aware that I am generalizing, however...
If a religious person tolerates the belief of another religious person, is that sanctioned by religion?
What do the religious teachings of a particular religion say about the religious teachings of other religions?
Is it possible to have two religions at the same time? Or are they exclusive of each other?

[ollie10]

28. yeah right buddy......

[DetlefK]

29. Did I say something wrong?

[ollie10]

30. you didn't say anything at all....just a lot of gobbledegook

[DetlefK]

69. You remind me of someone I encountered on another forum.

He posted something outrageous and I called him out.
His response was not to defend what he had just posted, but to attack me.
He tried to drag the conversation further and further away from his offensive post and more and more towards me as a person.

You guessed it: He was trolling. He knew that he couldn't win the discussion by defending the indefensible, but at least he could try to save a psychological victory by provoking me into freaking out. He tried and failed.




Goodbye troll.

[ollie10]

71. Well, rather than refute, you just call someone a troll

Figures

And it was laughable that you tried the old guilt by association trick....not exactly logical or scientific thinking on your part. But, then again, you are more interested in attacking religion than thinking like a scientist.

[guillaumeb]

85. On target.

And typical of a very few who try to shut down discussion.

[DetlefK]

177. yeah right buddy... you didn't say anything at all,

just a lot of gobbledegook

[Mariana]

141. I don't think Ollie has ever actually discussed religion in this group.

Pretty much is entire body of posts here consists of him complaining about the posts of (some) others.

[ollie10]

110. 97% of scientists believe in global warming.....

what do you call the 3%?

[thucythucy]

112. Depends on the scientists and the circumstances.

Last edited Fri Apr 20, 2018, 10:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Scientists like Edward Teller, "the father of the H-bomb" was prone to characterizing scientists who didn't favor developing such a ghastly weapon of mass destruction "traitors." He ruined the careers of a number of fellow scientists, including for instance Robert Oppenheimer.

Dr. Teller sure wasn't very tolerant of people "thinking differently" from himself.

[pnwmom]

167. They don't have one term. They have many. For example, they are just as likely

to declare each other WRONG as people of different faiths are to consider each other WRONG.

[Act_of_Reparation]

182. Like that time Dawkins burned Gould at the stake over Punctuated Equilibrum?

Oh, right. That didn't happen.

[trotsky]

184. Ah yes, the brutal NOMA wars.

I think we lost over 20,000 scientists in a single skirmish at a fossil site in Montana in 1993.

All of them screaming "heretic" at each other until their dying breaths.

So sad.

[Act_of_Reparation]

186. Just this year, thousands of Many Worlds-ists were displaced from their native lands...

...by roving bands of murderous Wavefunction Collapsists.

Oh, wait. That was Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar. My mistake.

[trotsky]

187. No worries. Easy to get them confused.

Science is just like religion, you know.

[GulfCoast66]

12. Huh, it has been several decades since I was in the Science World,

But in the 80’s genetic scientists could work up a powerful hate against each other.

People blaming religion for our strife have it all wrong. It is not religion, but humans greed and vanity responsible for our conflicts.

[SkyDaddy7]

14. Im an Atheist...

And I live in the Deep South...I’ve had people I worked with for a very long time SNAP & stop talking to me unless they have to once they find out I’m a GODLESS HEATHEN!😳…And others who also change & clearly take on a persona of trying to act like an adult speaking down to me as if I’m a child ruining my life!! LOL!!! Which I find quite entertaining!!!
I’m not just saying this, 99.99999% of these type of Christians are either HARDCORE CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES or don’t vote & hate politics but at the same time are OUT THERE in terms their religiosity goes!!

However, my experience with what I would personally consider TRUE CHRISTIANS...Or what most people would consider LIBERAL CHRISTIANS. Anyway, to me these people honestly seem to be 100% dedicated to the teachings of Jesus within the Gospels & how they can better themselves by helping others...Not what others are doing! They could care less what I or anyone else is doing in my bedroom or whatever because it is not their place to judge. And what makes me respect them is they tell me this & of course that is what Jesus taught!! The Conservative Christians of the GOP are Anti-Christ in their words & deeds!!

When I was younger I was militant about my Atheism & I still am in ways but I’ve also grown to understand there are plenty of Progressive Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.,

[oberliner]

16. Is this just meant to bash religious people?

If not, what is the point you are making?

[mark67]

18. Exactly...

...the title of the post reads like a punch line.

[guillaumeb]

82. Agreed.

I think that it is obvious.

[Major Nikon]

128. Sure, tolerance demands we must tolerate intolerance

[SoFlaDem]

17. I am new to Democratic Underground

so I am still getting the lay of the land. But I am surprised by the tone of this particular forum which seems not to be about religion, but more about intolerance of it. Is that now considered a progressive value?

[Fix The Stupid]

19. Hopefully -it will be soon...

Yes, it should be a 'progressive value' to denounce BS when you see BS.

We should not be sweeping these things under the "rug" - if you know what I mean

[SoFlaDem]

24. But what about

The millions who quietly practice their religon, who spend their free time manning soup kitchens and thrift stores? I would think if that is what their religion inspires them to do, they shouldn't be shunned because of the actions of other religious folks. My belief is that painting with a broad brush merely allows people to wipe out a whole forest because there are some dead trees.

[trotsky]

34. Who is "shunning" those people?

Please provide specific examples of the behavior you are so concerned about with your brand new experience here on DU.

[ollie10]

36. I guess you missed that!

Doesn't mean it wasn't there right in front of you!

[Major Nikon]

130. I missed it also

Seems like it shouldn’t be hard to support your assertion if there were any merit to it. Where is this allegedly blatantly obvious example?

[ollie10]

148. You missed it

Then you can look again until you find it. Report back

[Major Nikon]

157. Id just as soon assume you cant or wont support the assertion

If it’s all the same to you.

[Voltaire2]

78. And quietly vote for hatred bigotry war

and the dismantling of what’s left of the new deal?

Those religious people?

[Heddi]

79. heh

[FailureToCommunicate]

20. Welcome to DU! The 'lay of the land' here can be hilly- at times. But the bumpy

patches are worth getting thru for the broad areas of genuine support and especially for the wicked smaart people here.

[ollie10]

21. It's not a progressive value

I used to wonder the same thing. Then i realized that this is not typical of DU posters. Rather, there are about a dozen or so posters who hover around religious discussions who seem to be more anti-religion than anything else. Oh well, to each his own. But they speak only for themselves, not for DU.

[DetlefK]

23. It is progressive to speak truth to power.

Atheists get politically sidelined and prejudiced as morally inferior. This forum is the chance to finally have honest and open debates about religion WITHOUT the usual deference protecting it from criticism.

You will find that we indeed do discuss religion. The intolerance you perceive is atheists pointing out things about religion that religious people would rather not talk about.

I made this OP in response to another OP where a patently false argument was used to paint atheists as less tolerant than theists. I made this OP to point out that religion has multiple terms to describe people who commit thought-crimes, while science has no such term.

[SoFlaDem]

26. I haven't been in a church or synagogue or church

other than weddings and funerals since ai was a child. I profess no religion and have not experienced any prejudice or having been treated as morally inferior. In fact, I have religious friends who treat me quite the opposite. It seems to me the problem arises when one group, religious or atheist, tries to force their views on the other.

Progressive, to me, is being tolerant of others views and not coloring everybody in a group with the actions of others.

[trotsky]

33. What atheist group is trying to "force" views on anyone here?

I'd really like to understand what you are seeing. Can you elaborate?

[SoFlaDem]

38. I didn't say that

I said that I'm surprised by the negative generalizations of all things religious on here. I said that both religion and atheism go wrong when they try to force their beliefs on another, but that we can't generalize all religion or atheism with those that do.

[trotsky]

40. OK, I will continue to ask for examples.

Who is generalizing ALL religion?

Be specific.

[SoFlaDem]

42. The OP

Very broad term, "religious."

[trotsky]

43. Followed by "Believers have different words for such people"

Clearly indicating that not all religious people are alike.

Any other examples, please?

[SoFlaDem]

48. you're being factitious

or so I hope. Because not all believers use such terms for non-believers and many of them call such people friend, colleague, aunt, or whatever they are.

Anyway, I'm quickly learning that I shouldn't have posted that I find this Forum disturbing, that's my perception and everyone else is entitled to theirs.

Happy posting.

[trotsky]

50. Some indeed do.

That's the point.

The OP made it quite clear that not all believers are the same.

Your "broad brush" claim is therefore false. If you're going to make false accusations against people, then I'm glad you find this forum disturbing. Enjoy your time on DU.

[SoFlaDem]

53. Wait...

then please explain to me the point of this post, without unilaterally changing "believers" to "some believers."

[trotsky]

59. First off, the entire post is clearly intended to be humorous.

Disagreement in religions has historically led to holy wars, fighting, and/or schisms. Disagreement in science is expected and part of the process.

But the poster clearly did not say that ALL believers do the SAME thing.

You are adding that interpretation - it's on you to justify it, which you haven't.

[SoFlaDem]

60. "Believers" without a qualifier would be all inclusive.

That is how our language works. Many cruel and bigoted things are said in jest. This does not necessarily rise to the level of cruel, but it attacks believers, not their beliefs. If this OP was not meant to imply moral superiority of scientists over believers, then there would be no point to it.

I'm not looking for an argument, I just think there are kinder ways to discuss beliefs. That's all. By the way, I have seen atheist treated the same way and I've only been reading DU for less than a week.

[trotsky]

62. Well then I suggest you berate and lecture the OP for their horrible abuse of all believers.

For now, here's some reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing

[SoFlaDem]

68. Calling my post "berating"

Is a good example of tone policing, thank you.

[trotsky]

95. Yes, it is, isn't it?

Dwell on that for a bit.

Also, if you are truly interested in eliminating broad brush attacks, I'll remind you I'm still waiting...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280329

[guillaumeb]

86. And how about this bit of dialogue?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280335

Interesting bit of nuance and debate, is it not?

[trotsky]

94. Sure does remind me of someone, gil.

Just can't quite put my finger on it.

[guillaumeb]

118. And do you see that a excusing this instance?

Whataboutism?

[trotsky]

183. Uh, it's actually you engaging in whataboutism again, gil.

It's the same as when you supposedly "talked" about religious privilege. You simply said "what about" all those other kinds of privilege.

I excuse nothing. What's your excuse?

Why can't you just be decent?

[guillaumeb]

194. Another accusation?

Typical.

[trotsky]

199. Nope, just observation.

Because yeah, your behavior is typical.

[trotsky]

65. Oh BTW, could you please visit the following thread as well?

It refers to "atheists" as a broad brush group. If you are truly interested in kinder ways, you'll correct the individual who started this thread as well:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218275958

I eagerly await a demonstration of your sincerity!

[ollie10]

113. Humerous? What's the punch line?

If you have to say it is humerous, it probably isn't......

[ollie10]

55. No....it was not made clear.

It would have been more clear if the OP had included the word "some"

[Major Nikon]

131. Tolerance doesnt require me to agree or STFU

You can be assured privilege is in full effect when one side is allowed to freely promote their views while the voices of dissent are muted.

[SoFlaDem]

135. So if someone were to say something

broadly negative about atheists, you would have no issue because you won't want them to agree or STFU. That's fine as long as it works both ways, right?

[Major Nikon]

137. If atheists had a dictionary full of disparaging names for believers

...I would have no issues with someone pointing that out. Also it’s worth understanding that lack of tolerance for an idea isn’t the same thing as being intolerant of people who subscribe to those ideas.

Just so you know, I am evidently not an atheist because I’ve been told atheists must have a belief system I do not share. Therefore I can be more accurately described as an unaffiliated apatheist.

[guillaumeb]

83. Amd which post was that?

Is posing one patently false argument in counter to another an example of what you want to see?

[edhopper]

31. This forum

is for an open, no holds barred, religion discussion.
Membets can post anything about religion they want without deference or privilege.
There are many other forums under the Religion banner that are safe spaces for people of like minds to discuss their religion, or lack of, without criticism.
But here no belief or idea is unexamined or uncontested.
Its a forum ABOUT Religion, not for the Religious.

[SoFlaDem]

35. Sure, I guess I'm just surprised

by the content for a progressive site.

[edhopper]

37. Why?

Do you think progressives can't criticise the nature of religion?

What part of religion should progressives not discuss?

Are there ideas and concepts that even though aprogressive finds absurd, inane or just plain wrong and without validity, they shouldn't debate?

This forum is a little different from others on DU. It's not about our progressive agenda.


BTW, I grew up in North Miami.

[SoFlaDem]

44. I was taught to avoid broad generalizations

this forum surprises me when a title pops up on the recent threads. It strikes me as a lot of condemnation of religion, one of the liberties deemed special enough to be granted protection from our government in the First Amendment. I mean, if you want to talk about the shit Falwell does, I'm there. But when people make broad ant-religion claims, I think of my aunt who spent hour after hour working to help clothe the poor in her church's thrift shop.

Maybe it is about me, and maybe I should have kept my being disturbed to myself.

I live in Broward, by the way and love Miami

[trotsky]

47. Still waiting for specific examples.

Hope you provide them to substantiate your claims. Because until you do, your claims seem more like smears.

[guillaumeb]

87. Speaking of smears:

There was this one:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280335

[trotsky]

96. Were you offended by DetlefK's remarks?

Do you feel they applied to you?

Why is that?

[edhopper]

49. I am an atheist I don't accept the existence of any gods,

people who believe in a God do so without any evidence.
Further there is much evidence that much if not all the Bible is not true.

Is that a broad brush or just a statement of my views which I am willing to discuss.

But yeah, that is the nature of this forum. Many people don't want to discuss religion, and that is fine.
There is plenty to talk about on DU without it.
General Discussion is great, and actually things like Religion, Guns and some other topics are not allowed there.

[SoFlaDem]

51. I'm totally cool with that because I don't believe any different

But I don't think that is what the OP says at all. It makes a broad implication that all religious people look down on those who believe differently, which has not been my experience for many. That's all.

[edhopper]

57. One thing to know about this forum

we have a number of regulars, and often a new thread is in response to another thread.
It can be very meta at times and look different to those not active in this forum.

[guillaumeb]

90. But THIS is not discussion:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280335

[edhopper]

91. you really want to go that route

finding single quotes where someone refuses to answer or discuss.

Really? You want to do that?

I mean really?

[guillaumeb]

92. It is one of many.

And the responses here clearly speak to the 11th Commandment and its adherents.

[edhopper]

93. Yes one of many

posts where the member is not discussing.

I can think of one poster where that is quite frequent.

God might be dead, but at least irony isn't.

[sprinkleeninow]

162. Guillaume, Mon cher!

Comment dites-vous 'Oy veh' en Français?

Très amicalement,
Bon-Bon 🤗

[Accent grave ou aigu?]

[guillaumeb]

191. Ca y est!

[sprinkleeninow]

203. 😉

[Major Nikon]

174. Well said

Nothing more intolerant than the failure to tolerate intolerance. That’s a sure fire way to get the 11th commandment waaaambulance rolling.

[Mariana]

105. Remember what Gil is doing here in the Religion Group.

He isn't here for discussion, but to entertain his fans. This is apparently what pleases his legions of groupies. This is the kind of thing that keeps the numerous personal messages coming in, asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts here.

[trotsky]

32. Can you provide specific examples of this "intolerance"?

I'd like to know exactly what you think constitutes it, new person. And welcome to the DU experience for what is undoubtedly your first time ever!

[Heddi]

80. I'm always so interested

in folks who first time posters and who are able to find the most obscure groups on DU, so hidden in the miasma. Not GD, or the lounge....but religion?

ah well. Why comment on politics, when you can find one of the two groups/forums where Atheists are allowed to freely discuss religion and come and smear atheists? We're, what, 1% of site members? The true oppressors of Democrats. WE MUST BE PUT IN OUR PLACE.

[guillaumeb]

88. Is this discussion of religion, or is it name calling?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280335

[Heddi]

100. Hi. I'm heddi. I don't answer for other people's posts

If you have a questions about what DetlefK said or why, you'll need to ask that poster.

A neat trick to know who you're responding to is to look in the upper left hand corner. That shows the USER NAME of the person to whom you are replying.

In this instance, you are replying to heddi. That is my USER NAME

The link you posted goes to a post from DetlefK You can tell this because in the upper left hand corner shows the name DetlefK . That is the USER NAME of the poster who is making the post you're referencing.

Thusly, I (heddi) cannot get into the operation of DetlefK's mind regarding what was or wasn't post, or why it was posted.

I hope this clears this up. I know that message boards can be terribly confusing in their operation. I'm surprised it's taken you this long to get the hang of how to use them properly. I'm glad I could help you navigate how to know which poster you are asking a question of, so when you ask me, HEDDI a question, it's not about something that another poster wrote.

hope this helps!

[guillaumeb]

120. I am aware of who you are, and how you respond.

Interesting that you apparently have no opinion whatsoever on this issue.

Alternatively, I and others might infer that you agree with the original poster that insult is dialogue.

And to help you, you can read the entire thread, not just the replies to you, and if you had, you would have seen that I posed the same question to the original poster.

I hope this helps you in your journey here. And, if you do have an actual response to the actual question, feel free to write again.

[MineralMan]

139. But, all atheists are the same, and so are interchangeable.

Heck, we may all be the same person, with many screen names...

[Mariana]

142. This isn't the first time Gil has done this.

It's a handy way to dehumanize atheists.

[trotsky]

117. Ya know it never seems to be any of the rude religionists getting called out, either.

After enough time they eventually show themselves the door by getting enough posts removed, or finally exposing themselves as homophobic bigots, or whatnot.

But no, only the atheists get chided... and for not using enough delicate, conciliatory, precise language. Go figure.

[Mariana]

143. Indeed.

A religionist poster dismisses Christian death threats to atheists, including children, as unimportant, and mocks the recipients of said threats? Silence - except, perhaps, for numerous personal messages asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts here.

[Mariana]

39. Welcome to DU!

The Religion Group is for discussion of religion, and criticism of religion and of the behavior of some religious people is permitted here. Criticism is not intolerance.

There are some groups on DU in which various religions are discussed and criticism or questioning are not tolerated. Over to the left, you can go to Topics > Religion and Spirituality, and you'll find about a dozen Groups. If you select one, you can click on "About this Group" at the top to find out if there are any such restrictions for people posting in that group.

[SoFlaDem]

45. Thanks but I'm not religious

and I probably should havd kept the fact thar I find this Forum disturbing to myself.

[Mariana]

52. Well, you aren't alone.

Many people consider criticism of religion to be disturbing. For the most part, arguments about religion are confined to this one Group, and you'll see very little if any on the rest of the site.

[guillaumeb]

89. Quite the opposite.

Ignoring behavior normalizes it and makes it acceptable.

[Major Nikon]

161. Good reason not to ignore unnaceptable behavior

Some seem to have a lot of stock in dismissal

[guillaumeb]

76. Welcome to DU.

In any forum there are many opinions. You have seen a few.

[SoFlaDem]

98. I guess since I believe

that atheists are no smarter, no more ethical or no better generally than believers, and vice-versa, I don't have much opinion to offer on here. It's a shame, because religion is an interesting topic.

[ollie10]

107. yes, religion CAN BE an interesting topic

However, on this board, it rarely gets interesting. It seems to always get dragged down to the same old thing: god is bad, religion is bad, religion causes everything bad in the world from wars to athlete's foot, believers are fools and they have no right to their stupid opinion which is nothing more than chasing unicorns.

Same arguments, different day. But still nothing even remotely as interesting as it could be if the so-called progressives had even one ounce of respect for those with whom they disagree, or even an ounce of a clue that when you attack someone's religion you ain't exactly living up to being a progressive except in name only.... I mean, what's next? Making fun of Amish clothing? Burkas? Mormons? Jehovah Witnesses?

[HopeAgain]

116. Been my experience too

and people just busting for a fight.

[guillaumeb]

119. Your opinions are welcome here.

Some show that welcome in a different way.

For the record, I agree with you, and I suspect that most at DU do.

[Act_of_Reparation]

97. "I am new to Democratic Underground so I am still getting the lay of the land."

Of course you are.

[SoFlaDem]

99. What is that supposed to mean?

Man, this is one nasty forum.

[Heddi]

101. well

[guillaumeb]

123. How welcoming.

All part of following the 11th Commandment?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=277262

[Heddi]

125. uh, so when was I critical of religion?

now we're not allowed to criticize anything?

Here's a poster, here for a short amount of time, bellyaching about something or someone. No one is forcing this person to stay. Don't like it? As my dearly departed mother used to say, "Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya."

As as been pointed out numerous times before, there are COUNTLESS other areas of DU where one can have a much rip-roaring, God-loving conversations as one wants without a single HINT of Atheistic influence. Why? because the SOP's for those forums/groups don't allow it.

This group ain't one of them

As also has been pointed out to you (and others) numerous times before, an 11th commandment isn't what is needed, just a thorough reading and understanding of the SOP of the rules of this site, and SOP of this group.

I know you *hate* the fact that you (and others) aren't allowed to post in this group without being challenged but, as my dearly departed mother also used to say, "too fucking bad."

[guillaumeb]

126. Wonderfully illustrative of your true feelings on dialogue.

And, an excellent example of how the 11th Commandment looks in practice. Not that we needed another example. They are literally everywhere.

[Lordquinton]

180. The 11th commandment in use

To shut down any discussion. I see you've moved on to not even pretending to cover it up any other way.

[guillaumeb]

192. It is an accurate observation.

Unlike the overuse of the word privilege, which is also often designed to stop any real discussion.

[Lordquinton]

195. They are one and the same in your hands

A refusal to engage in dialogue.

[guillaumeb]

196. I am open to dialogue,

but in my view dialogue is not likely with those few who constantly attack religion and all who post in a positive way about religion.

[Lordquinton]

197. There are several open questions to you

go answer them and prove your claim correct.

That you choose to define dialogue as you wish doesn't change the outcome, either you are open to it, or not. So, balls in your court.

[guillaumeb]

198. Dialogue implies a willingness to lsiten.

But a very few here seem interested only in attacking.


Many people here ignore questions. One I have been frequently asked is to list which specific verses of the Bible I take as allegorical. That is not a question, it is diversion.

[Lordquinton]

205. So you admit you don't answer questions?

Many theists refuse to answer questions, and instead only attacked when asked. There was a poster who I asked many times simple questions and he viciously attacked in response.

Something about simple questions triggers that in theists.

What is it about the question "which parts of the Bible do you take literally?" Is a distraction? It's relevant because you accuse anyone why speaks about any part of the Bible in a non-metaphorical manner of being a literalist. The only reason I can see for being too scared to answer is because it would open you to the same claims.

So you go to the usual pattern of deflection, reframing, and then accusing everyone else of doing all that instead.

You're right, atheists should stop trying to have a dialogue, but it's useful for revealing the true motives of those they are trying to have dialogue with.

[guillaumeb]

207. An answer much in harmony with the few and their agenda.

And as I pointed out in the post about the 11th Amendment, the attacks come with every single post that speaks positively about religion, as well as the questions about motivation.

And, believe it or not, that tactic speaks volumes about motive.

[Lordquinton]

208. Harmony.. 11th commandment

If you said something about reframing it would be the G-man trifecta.

As you said "believe it or not, that tactic speaks volumes about motive"

[Mariana]

146. I like your dearly departed mother!

I said recently in another thread, I think this is the kind of dialog some want to see:

OP: "The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator..."
Good: "You're absolutely right!"
Good: "That's so profound!"
Good: "Praise the Lord!"

These kind of exchanges are unacceptable:

OP: "The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator..."
Bad: "Please describe this creator."
Bad: "Whose human mind?"
Bad: "How do you know this?"

There are groups on DU that were set up specifically so religious people can have the first kind of conversation, and avoid the second type altogether. This one lone group permits the second kind, and it's unbelievable how resentful some people are over that fact.

[Major Nikon]

164. If you point out anything bad about religion you are intolerant

That way those who wish to promote religion may do so without any hindrance whatsoever. Kinda funny how that works.

[ollie10]

108. I was wondering when he would show up. Like moths to a flame

[guillaumeb]

124. All part of following the requirements of the 11th Commandment.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=277262

[guillaumeb]

122. Calling another poster a liar?

[Act_of_Reparation]

181. What other poster?

[guillaumeb]

193. #97

[Act_of_Reparation]

200. I can't see #97

Odd. I wonder what happened.

[guillaumeb]

204. I have an idea.

[Iggo]

206. Sometimes, when a guy gets a new toupe, it takes me a minute to recognize him.

[wryter2000]

111. Welcome to DU

You nailed it. This is not a forum for rational discussion.

[HopeAgain]

114. Thank you for the affirmation

I was starting to wonder if it was me

[wryter2000]

147. It's not you

This group is toxic.

[HopeAgain]

115. Welcome, this is a unique forum

It's mostly like 10 people constantly at each other's throat.

[pnwmom]

168. Sadly, it seems that most of the people who come to this group do so in order

to disparage people of faith -- any faith.

[TBA]

27. They call them - Going to Hell

[sprinkleeninow]

163. You forgot the handbasket.

Yours truly,
Folksy Country Bumpkin🤠

[ollie10]

41. What does a religious person call somebody who believes something different?

I call them Mike or Mary or if it is a formal occassion Mr Jones.

Most religious people do the same.

[Major Nikon]

133. Im not convinced you speak for most religious people

The names described are also often used in private rather than public as most of them are fully intended to be derogatory.

But even if we were to assume you speak for most believers, those words still exist along with countless others in dozens of languages and they are quite often used to invoke very strong emotional actions. The question still remains as to why intolerance of those with different religious views is so much different than differences of opinion in other areas.

[ollie10]

144. I don't speak for anyone

Who do you speak for?

[Major Nikon]

149. Most religious people do the same

— ollie10
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280296

[ollie10]

152. You are extremely rude

Please don't hesitate to stop being that way

[Major Nikon]

153. You contradicted yourself which I pointed out matter of factly

If that’s what counts as being rude in your book, so be it.

[ollie10]

156. Then let's end this. I see no point to continue

[Major Nikon]

160. Agreed

[yallerdawg]

134. That sounds about right.

I know nothing particular about the religious or not-religious affiliation of almost everyone I know.

I have no names to call them except the one they give me.

[MineralMan]

61. Fred or Susan?

Or, perhaps, "Hey, you!" if you don't know the person's name.

[guillaumeb]

75. Far too simplistic.

But if it fits a perceived need...................

[TEB]

77. I call them

Evangelical trump and republicans supporters

[guillaumeb]

84. Why the name calling?

Like here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280335

[sarisataka]

104. I call many of them

"My friends"
I call one "my wife"

[yallerdawg]

132. Exactly.

[Major Nikon]

140. Not exactly

All of the alternatives folks came up with can also be used for those who share the same beliefs. So they didn’t really answer the question.

They also conveniently ignore the point which was our vernacular is full of perjoratives for those who do not share the same beliefs while terms of endearment are basically non-existent.

[yallerdawg]

158. I would call you Major Nikon.

I have no other name for you, regardless of what you reveal regarding religion or not religion.

On most subjects I'd probably call you friend and compatriot - I would never call you heathen, pagan, infidel. Do you really think people do that as a rule?

[Major Nikon]

159. No

[Ferrets are Cool]

154. What religion?

Christians with whom I have had contact call those people "sinners".

[sprinkleeninow]

165. I've been called:

"HEY LADY, MOVE YER CRATE!"

[k8conant]

166. Heterodox!

[pnwmom]

169. What do scientists call another scientist who thinks a different theory is correct?

Sometimes colleague.
Sometimes husband.
Sometimes mother.

Other times:

Lightweight.
Asshole.
Idiot.
Moron.
Cretin.

Scientists are as varied as people everywhere. And so, depending on the individual, they might use the same kinds of names that some DUers might be tempted to call each other.

P.S. My family is full of scientists and engineers. I love them all -- but I don't idolize them.

[DetlefK]

178. Did scientists invent those words?

My point is that religion is so obsessed with thought-crimes that they invented several new words, just to deal with it.

As you have pointed out, scientists care so little about thought-crimes that they use words that already exist in common language.

[pnwmom]

179. And my point is that scientists can be just as vehemently certain of themselves,

to the point of disparaging those who disagree with them, as any person of a faith.

[edhopper]

185. And there are often wars and fighting

among scientists of different camps as well, right?

I remember the terrorists who followed Steven J Gould's idea of punctuated evolution.

[Act_of_Reparation]

189. Once we determined DNA carried the genetic information of cells...

...the streets ran red with the blood of those believed proteins the likelier candidate.

Oh shit, that didn't actually happen. I was thinking of the Crusades. Easy to confuse the two.

[edhopper]

190. And Einstein's refusal to accept Quantum Mechanics

led to the bloddy Quark Wars.

[Act_of_Reparation]

201. When I was in school...

...a Nurture psychologist accused a Nature psychiatrist of blasphemy, so the department chair had him burned alive.

[Angry Dragon]

188. +15,000