Original Thread: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1176364


Second Thread: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1176503


'Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.' - Ralph Waldo Emerson



DW and I have experienced this on Facebook. We are "not allowed" to post on our beliefs without someone calling us out for it. However, if we comment about a TBM family member posting something "faith promoting," then we are likewise reprimanded.

Seems like a double standard to us. That's why I like RfM: not because it's an 'atheist' board, but because there are no sacred cows. I find the personal attacks to be few and far between (besides being in bad taste).

I think a lot of people (at least most of the ones we know on Facebook) have trouble differentiating between disagreeing/contradicting and persecution.

I generally try to explain that it's religion that I ridicule (because it's so easy,) not religious people. They're usually so tied up in it that they can't distinguish between those two concepts. There are plenty of religious people I love and like! I simply don't have the ability to respect their ridiculous superstitions.

My wife perceives any criticism of the Mormon Church as a direct attack on her personally. My experience had been that many people of other religions react the same when their religion is criticized. I like having some spaces online where I can talk frankly about religion (and the problems I have with it) without being shut down or silenced.

Surely criticism isn't the main fodder here? Hope for many to have a kinder perception of those that post here. Or how can this be a recovery board?

An important part of making an argument is to define your terms.

Posters are left to interpret what the question means before responding to it.

Either the rule about bashing people applies to EVERYONE or it is about holding a class of people as less than another.

Morality, science, education, control and ownership over women's bodies, etc without screaming persecution, then maybe they won't be "bashed" anymore.

Right? Maybe not.

Obligation? Hell yes.

That's a good question. Do atheists possess a mutation that grants them an advantage to their habitat that promotes this mutation to be passed on through their genes?

That sounds like a pretty specific claim that could be either proven or disproven given adequate observational data.

That doesn't sound like religious bashing to me so much as something that should be backed up by evidence.

Perhaps religionists who are skeptical of this claim should demand evidence of such.

He was making a point about discussing and idea like "Is group a more evolved than group b" is not necessarily bashing, he was not answering the question.

Reading many post on the site has been helpful. Have been concerned for others in pain here too. The best post that I appreciate are the people that treat others with respect. I like one person's post where she said still believed in kindness.
Hope some of you can get past the pain you feel and realize that there is much about religion in this world to respect and the people that believe in them (that is not anything like "the Church")!

It is not shared by me and many others.

IMHO there is much more to disrespect about religion than there is to respect.

One that affects me directly:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/gay-life-expectancy-study_n_4810496.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

I have posted a lot of evidence that the ONE thing standing in the way of gays getting equal rights is religion and the devoutly religions.

Yeah, I know that RECENTLY a FEW religions have FINALLY become pro gay, but to me that is like the LDS granting the priesthood to blacks. In both cases it is just religion changing to stay relevant.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2014 12:50AM by MJ.

Always justified by religion or religious views. Just because you haven't seen it does not mean it did not happen. You may not see it because it is quite often deleted by Susan.

BTW, I was not just talking just about gays when it comes to reasons not to respect religion.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, the violence of the Reformation, 9-11, religiously motivated suicide bombers, witch hunts, shunning, burkas, etc..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2014 08:24AM by MJ.

sorry for your pain. But lumping all religions and religious as something to attack is counter productive.
No one can dis prove god with these arguments anyway.

I can lump all religious together in their use of faith as a means of determining truth or beliefs. A bad concept because faith demands closed mindedness.

Basing their beliefs on unproven ideas and concepts like "God"

I can also claim that religion, AS A CONCEPT, is a major negative and not a positive. That is not lumping all religious people together, as your fallacious argument suggests.

BTW, if you want to claim a God exists, it is up to YOU to prove it, not me to disprove it. Saying that I have to disprove it is another logical fallacy, it is called the burden or proof fallacy.

Using faulty logic and logical fallacies is deceptive, and could be considered a lie, making your arguments the ones that are counter productive.

Your argument is like saying "You can not lump all Nazis together So you can not claim the Nazi movement was a bad thing" in other words it is BS.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2014 08:43AM by MJ.

Your arguments do not disprove that a god exists. Nor do I need to prove a god exists.

That which is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Isn't that how the quote goes?

And your problem. The REAL world has a bias against atheists.

I was addressing your point about gays then why my views about religion are formed by way more than what goes on in this board. To deny that experience to protect your fantasy beliefs is BIGOTED.

My points were about legitimate debate about religion, you indicated that was not appropriate for the board. You are trying to suppress legitimate discussion by making it off limits on this board, it is not.

This whole debate comes down to a complete misunderstanding of the "devolved" thread. People took the title and ran with it without even considering the contents of the message. The religious people who were under consideration for being "less evolved" had a qualifier, they had to have a specific behavior. Unless you are engaging in that behavior as a religious person, that thread didn't apply to you, and if you are engaging in that behavior, you are probably a terrible person and the "bashing" from the thread was well deserved. Let me go dig it up and edit in the specifics.

Edit:
The original qualifier by perceptual was the following:
"they end up admitting that if they found out it was all BS they would go out and do crazy things like rob and rape and pillage and kill or whatnot, or just basically not treat humans like humans,"
So, the thing that was posited to make religious people less evolved was this belief. Do you hold this belief? Would it not be a step backward in society to require a supreme being to prevent your personal descent into anarchy? Most people don't need some infinitely powerful invisible being to enforce morality (rather, they are moral regardless, on some level), therefore those who do require this could easily be considered maladapted (or "less evolved"). Is this only thing stopping you from being the next Hitler the fact that you believe in some god? No? Then why do you feel that thread applied?

Edit 2. The point being, the thread wasn't given extra special treatment because it was an atheist bashing religion. There was no special treatment at all. It was not bashing religious people in general, or it would have been deleted. The only bashing was on a more implicit level, the main intent was (from what I can tell) to be a discussion on an asserted fact. As raptor Jesus said, why didn't you just ask for proof, or engage on the intellectual level that the OP tried to keep it on? Instead, we took the implicit level and spun it to be something it was not. I mean, you could go and assert the same thing about Atheists. If you have some support to back the claim, there wouldn't be any preferential treatment. Evidence and proof reigns here. You can't just claim the sky is purple and made of cupcakes and expect to be respected, but if you had pictures and a report on the chemical composition of the air that suggested the contents are similar to cupcakes, then go ahead.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2014 09:12AM by notnewatthisanymore.

+ 100000000.

As Raptor Jesus (and maybe some others) said upthread, I do not know what "bash" means. I might add, this is a mormonspeak term. Nevermos don't really use the word bash.

So, in mormonspeak, I think "bash" means to criticize.

I do not think that criticism is necessarily a bad or negative thing. "Bash" also seems to imply to me, that whatever is being "bashed" is being criticized in an offensive way, as opposed to constructive criticism.

Couple those thoughts with the idea that "contention is of the devil" and what I think we have here is a thought-stopping term. "Bash" shuts down all debate because it implies that one side is wrong and being mean or unkind (or something). Critical debate is healthy. And just because someone has constructive criticism or not-so-constructive, but just flat out criticism, that doesn't mean it's a personal attack. There is nothing wrong with disagreement; we are not all the same; we are not all going to think exactly alike.

I will need a universally agreed-upon definition of "bash" before I think we should continue this discussion. I think the word is too vague and basically meaningless. So far, I don't see what's wrong with "bashing" a thing -- that's how new ideas get teased out sometimes. That's how people develop new insight. "Bashing" seems like a positive exercise. Unless we're talking about fifth grade playground arguments, in which case, there's no place for "bashing" in rational, reasonable, logical adult discourse. By bashing, do we mean name-calling and resorting to logical fallacies, i.e., ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and so forth?

ETA: I see the OP defined "bash" as "mocking." So what constitutes mocking, exactly? Am I mocking religion when I point out factual inaccuracies, e.g., Jesus was a middle eastern jew, and therefore, not white with blond hair and blue eyes. FACT. Am I mocking Christianity? Is that a "bash"? If you love Jesus and believe you have a personal relationship with Jesus (a Pentacostal concept that I cannot wrap my brain around), then perhaps saying something that appears to be critical of the current accepted notion of Jesus's appearance could be construed as bashing.

If we're talking about making fun of the other debater just because we disagree -- taking it to a personal level of insult -- then we're just talking about poor debating skills.

Does anyone have a right to bash anyone?

I suppose that depends on how you define bash, but I believe anything and everything can be subject to criticism. That doesn't mean your criticism will change anything, including other people's minds. We have a right to free speech in this country, barring inciting riots and such; however, that does not mean people are exempt from the consequences of their words. You can say anything you want to anyone, but that doesn't make you immune to the blowback if there is any.

I think atheists have a right to question religion. I think religious people have a right to question atheists. I think "bashing" as defined here ("mocking") doesn't really have any place in intelligent discourse. I think some people need to grow a thicker skin or get over themselves because criticizing or questioning a thing is not the same thing as "bashing" it.

What if I said, "I think anyone who is a Believer in Christianity is foolish and deluded." That is my OPINION. Do I not have a right to my opinions and do I not have a right to express them? A Christian can come along and say, "Well, I think a believer in Atheism is foolish and deluded." I think that Christian certainly has a right to hold and express that opinion. I will not take it personally, aside from not having much respect for people who desperately cling to magical fairy tales. Now, you may not think religion = magical fairy tales. So was that statement of mine a bash? Or was it just my opinion that a Christian disagrees with?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2014 09:19AM by dogzilla.

Yes. So well put.

Athiests seem to want proof. The bible, the world, the human body, the galaxy. the universe isn't enough proof for them.

So what is?

The bible warned us that there would be false prophets aka JS. Just because JS was a doosh, doesn't mean that there aren't people that have connected with their creator. Lots and lots and lots of people have. It really isn't a big deal, but it is a big deal.

God has given me many experiences... feelings, messages, dreams, voices during or just after a prayer, unusual coincidences, dejas vues....

Belief in a creator is something that you can only prove to yourself.

If you want proof then you have to exersize faith and prayer. If you are not willing to do that then don't try to tell me I haven't had the experiences I've had.

Its like trying to convince someone that love exists to someone that hasn't experienced love. You have to find out for yourself. If you are too lazy or proud to exersize humility, faith and prayer, then don't tell us that have.

And this is not helpful to strawberry at all. She asks that atheists not bash, and then a theist comes in calling atheists lazy and proud. Way to miss the boat and water down the argument.

Plus, your argument on love is silly, love can be proven, love is testable, scientific and replicable. We understand a lot of the neuroscience behind it, and it can be explained on that level to someone who hasn't experienced it. Religion, on the other hand is a pseudostochastic process that requires a series of intagibles and prior assumptions in order to achieve inconsistent and nonreplicable results. It is fine that you are happy with it, but exemplifying everything that people dislike about theists in one posts doesn't help your case. There are plenty of other god fearing posters on this thread who are doing it right.

My only beef with the some of the Athiests on this board, is when a question is asked specifically of Thiests, and said Thiests reply, some of the Athiests will then pounce and want proof. There is no proof. That's why it's called "belief" and not "science."