posted
Yeah - I remember feeling that way once upon a time. One big extended family, despite our differences.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: natural mystic (and Mucus), I ran back and just grabbed a random thread from the second to last page of the "view all threads" list.
It is actually kind of amazing to me. It discusses religion and homosexuality, and it goes on for three pages. There are times when posters step on the toes of others and then apologize for perceived offense, and there is some real theological/semantic debate/discussion that, while passionate, never rises to the level of personal attack. It was somewhat sad for me to read, though, as many of the names in that thread no longer post here.
I would request that no one actually post in the thread to "bump" it, but instead just take a read through. I'm afraid of what opening that particular discussion might lead to in January of 2010 instead of August of 2003.
You know, I don't think it's just Hatrack that doesn't talk like that anymore.... I think it's a lot of people, politically speaking, in this day and age.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know, I don't think it's just Hatrack that doesn't talk like that anymore.... I think it's a lot of people, politically speaking, in this day and age.
Surely - but I think hatrack lived in a nice bubble away from that for a while, and we prided ourselves on that. Respect other posters, take care to craft your arguments and language, apologize if you offend, keep disagreements civil... etc. That bubble is gone, and has been for a while.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: natural_mystic: Thats an intriguing idea actually, to me anyways.
I hope someone makes the attempt. However, I'd be surprised if the change in tone the veterans mourn is so easily demonstrated.
So, what do you think? Do you perceive a difference in tone between that thread and current threads dealing with issues of religion, homosexuality, and so forth?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference that jumps out at me on first reading is the participation of dkw and the fact that even people who might otherwise get nasty weren't foolish enough to get nasty with dkw.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a lot more going on than that, Kate. Check out the interaction between kat and Elizabeth, for example.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, "jumps out at me on first reading".
I think there was a tone set that was in danger of disintegrating once dkw stopped posting in the thread. The "splinter" conversation got close to being contentious.
ETA: What do you think was going on there?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another sign of the times is the disappearance of Landmark threads. These were generally heartfelt posts about something personal, shared with the community. They were an opportunity for the community to get to know the members more deeply, or for members to reach out to the community for support.
From the start of 2003 until the end of 2005, there were 311 threads with "Landmark" in the title (2003 had 131, 2004 had 75, 2005 had 105). Since then, there have been only 68 (2006 had 37, 2007 had 15, 2008 had just 12, and 2009 had only 4).
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread makes me incredibly sad, and did a great job of reminding me why I never post here anymore.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think there was a tone set that was in danger of disintegrating once dkw stopped posting in the thread. The "splinter" conversation got close to being contentious.
Yet, it didn't. Instead of erupting, the thread lost steam and fell off the main page into oblivion - where we just dusted off its fossilized remains.
There was tension in that thread, and passionate defense. But it never got to the point of name calling, insults, personal attacks, etc, etc. People were engaging in intellectual sparring, really over a semantic point dealing with connotative meaning and word usage. But it was controlled, ultimately.
ETA: At the time, that thread would have been considered quite contentious and heated. By today's standards, it is quite tame. It's telling that we're looking fondly back on such "heated" posts as being the good old days.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: natural_mystic: Thats an intriguing idea actually, to me anyways.
I hope someone makes the attempt. However, I'd be surprised if the change in tone the veterans mourn is so easily demonstrated.
So, what do you think? Do you perceive a difference in tone between that thread and current threads dealing with issues of religion, homosexuality, and so forth?
My two cents:
It's clear that the thread remained civil in the face of disagreements; that doesn't always happen now. The tone is friendlier than one sees now insofar as the participants seem more apt to acknowledge others' good points and suggest that they will adjust their opinions accordingly. That VERY RARELY happens now. If hatrack returned to this paradigm, I suspect things would improve.
There was no massive blow up but I can't tell to what extent that was corollary to the posters' collective restraint or the subject matter. For example, the posters' are not challenging the validity of the theistic position (not even Tom), allowing a somewhat academic discussion on how rigidly one must adhere to specific doctrine. In the contemporary hatrack, kmboots and KoM seem to have this discussion *a lot* without tempers being lost, so I can't be too impressed.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing is that it didn't immediately turn into a "all religion is fake anyway" discussion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ETA: What do you think was going on there?
I think that one of the key features of the community back then was to post without causing offense, and that we were all (or most of us) very conscious of times when we were in danger of offending, and sought to avoid doing so. One of the primary things I see going on in that thread is then-Hatrack's various conflict resolution models (among them sincere apology when offense was given, along with acceptance of that apology, prefacing remarks that might be seen as imflamatory with assurances that they were not meant to be so, and dropping it. There are others going on there too, but I need to click "Add Reply" so that I can log off of this computer and go home).
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...yes. But I think that it may be less a matter of not wanting offend as a case of not wanting to be seen (especially by some people) as being offensive.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's at play too, of course; to a degree, to be offensive back then was to lose. It helped to keep things civil, though.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Another thing is that it didn't immediately turn into a "all religion is fake anyway" discussion.
This seems to me a weakness rather than a strength; it stems from an unwillingness to challenge theistic assumptions. It's worth noting that the thread is old enough that it predates quite a bit of the New Atheist movement, one of whose tenets is precisely that theism should not be given that free respect it's always had. (And that, once you cease giving it such respect, there seem to be a lot more visible genitalia than you would generally expect a sovereign ruler to display.) You'll note that for all the exaggerated nicey-niceness, nobody was convinced by anyone else or came to any actual conclusions. Give me a willingness to actually discuss the dang issue until a decision is reached, over flowers and fluffy bunnies, any day.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Adults who remain theists are unfortunately rather strongly selected for being unable or unwilling to consider evidence in a sensible manner. It does not follow that care taken not to offend them is productive; rather the opposite. I do seem to recall we;ve have a few deconversions on this board, though.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, are you serious about that tenet? Because if you are, I would have to say that it probably violates the "no proselytizing" rule. Whether or not you think Atheism is a religion (I don't) it still follows to me that purposefully attacking a person's religion in an attempt to convince them that they are wrong would fall under the same umbrella as aggressive proselytizing.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it turns out that what you're doing is specifically in violation of the TOS.
"You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs."
posted
I would be interested to see any evidence that those deconversions were a result of any particular conversation and what that conversation was like.
Is it possible for you to refrain from being insulting? That is not a rhetorical question. Given your position, it may not be possible. If not, how do you think it would be best to continue here if the goal is for more congenial, less insulting conversation? Do you think that is even a worthy goal? What is your goal?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with what Noemon said, though I can't attest to the differences now because I rarely lurk much less post. But when I found Hatrack, I was in awe because it was, for the most part, such a civil place. I think I was 13 or 14 at that point, but I had been in enough nasty discussions to know and value civility when I saw it. For the next four years or so I was on Hatrack a lot, sometimes lurking, sometimes posting. My underlying goal though was to learn how to emulate the level of discussion that went on here, both in civility and clarity. Even when their were stark disagreements it usually remained civil. And unlike in most places I had been and have been since, when the occasional nastiness did come out, it often failed to spread. I wanted to learn how to hold a conversation like that.
And, those of you who remember me, should be pleased to note that by my estimation at least, I came away from my time at Hatrack a much better person. I'm still not the most wise, eloquent, or level headed of individuals, but I can without a doubt attest to the fact that I have Hatrack to thank for a great deal of the positive aspects of the man I have become.
Like I said, I rarely even lurk anymore. I'm sure getting married, going to grad school, and my Xbox are to blame for much of that. But I've been around long enough to know that Hatrack goes through highs and lows, and I really hope that if 13 year old me came across this place today, I would end up learning the same lessons and become the same person I am today.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would be interested to see any evidence that those deconversions were a result of any particular conversation and what that conversation was like.
:shrugs: Everything is input. Is your theism due to any particular conversation? I cannot show that a confrontative style causes deconversions at a higher rate than the softly-softly approach; but 300 years of the latter does not seem to have produced a whole lot of atheists.
quote:Is it possible for you to refrain from being insulting?
If you do badly on an exam and are given a low grade, are you being insulted? I will not refrain from speaking truth as I see it, including on the rationality of those I speak to.
quote:If not, how do you think it would be best to continue here if the goal is for more congenial, less insulting conversation?
If indeed you want more flowers and fluffy bunnies in religious threads, the simplest approach is to ban me from them, or from the forums.
quote:Do you think that is even a worthy goal?
All else equal, yes. But there are more important goals, such as having people look at the dang evidence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for posting that, Dr. I feel the same way; I learned a lot about civil discourse from this place.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This seems to me a weakness rather than a strength; it stems from an unwillingness to challenge theistic assumptions. It's worth noting that the thread is old enough that it predates quite a bit of the New Atheist movement, one of whose tenets is precisely that theism should not be given that free respect it's always had.
I'm a person who gets around in the online atheist community and KoM is the first person who I have actually heard profess himself to be a New Atheist, rather than being called that by an outsider.
However, KoM is right about this so-called "tenet"-- although I wasn't aware tenets existed. Many atheists are upset that religion tends to get a "back off it's my religion" card that other non-religious ideas don't tend to get. Blasphemy laws would be an institutionalized example of this.
That ToS about religion is tricky because does "disparaging people" mean that religion can't be criticized or that individuals can't be criticized? I suspect that many people would consider those two things difficult to separate. That said, KoM frequently says things that can be paraphrased as, "you're stupid" so this doesn't excuse him.
However, I believe that religion should be criticizable, just as any other ideas are criticizable. I think this is what KoM means. If someone says, "My religion believes that all blue people should be killed" I think that it is our right (imo, our duty) to criticize that religion. Hopefully, we do it in a manner respectful of the poster*.
We can do our best to not involve the religion's follower, but, as I said above, religion and the individual are so intrinsically linked in many people's minds that it's very hard to say, "homeopathy is dishonest" without it being heard as "homeopaths are dishonest".
*EDIT: I changed this from "respectful manner" to what it says now.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly think that atheists should be allowed to give their opinion on a religion. However, there's something to be said for leading a horse to water. You can't make it drink, and forcing its head under won't result in swallowing, it'll result in drowning. And possibly a kick in the face to the one doing the forcing.
It's the same for religious proselytizing. Let me put this another way; for years there have been people on this board who have believed that they know, for example, the only way for a person to go to heaven after they die. But they didn't bring it up in every single religious thread out of respect for the TOS, the Cards, and the other posters. And also because they know you can't bludgeon someone over the head with religion until they "get it." Why should atheists behave any differently? Why should they get a free pass to bludgeon?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why some people get so worked up over challenges to the presumed hegemony of belief in evolution is a mystery to me. Do evolutionists care more about truth than Jews and Christians care about the truth they believe in? It does not seem possible.
Well, it seems to me that we have only one Christian Creationist on the board, and he's said that he will "not allow" any put-downs of Creationism to go unchallenged. So 100% of Christian Hatrack Creationists get worked up over challenges to Christian Creationist belief.
Assuming 100 other non-Creationist regulars (which is probably a lowball number), we have only about five or six who will reliably criticize Creationism and defend the theory of natural selection when given the opportunity. So only 6% of "evolutionists" care as much as you.
Does that seem possible to you?
Stop quoting facts, you'll just confuse the "issue". Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Another thing is that it didn't immediately turn into a "all religion is fake anyway" discussion.
This seems to me a weakness rather than a strength; it stems from an unwillingness to challenge theistic assumptions. It's worth noting that the thread is old enough that it predates quite a bit of the New Atheist movement, one of whose tenets is precisely that theism should not be given that free respect it's always had. (And that, once you cease giving it such respect, there seem to be a lot more visible genitalia than you would generally expect a sovereign ruler to display.) You'll note that for all the exaggerated nicey-niceness, nobody was convinced by anyone else or came to any actual conclusions. Give me a willingness to actually discuss the dang issue until a decision is reached, over flowers and fluffy bunnies, any day.
Feel free to do it elsewhere, then, and leave the rest of us alone. Your arguments will always be influenced by your tone and attitude, and that makes it far less effective than those arguments would be otherwise, IMO.
As you have already said, your tone failed to be productive in at least one OTHER forum your frequent, and got you subject-banned.
Perhaps there is a lesson there for you as well. Perhaps it is "Scientist's who fail to understand the basic principles of good, effective communication will fail to influence anyone other than themselves.
Not every people who believes in a religion is a moron, nor are they unaware of the scientific method. It IS possible, no matter how much you deny it, to be both religious and intelligent.
As it is obviously possible to be intelligent and incapable of common respect and decency.
THIS type of crap is why the board isn't what it use to be, nor will it recover. Not any specific poster, but on the exact attitude demonstrated here in this every thread.
When other people's thought, feeling, and emotions don't matter, why even bother reading this crap, let alone post in a thread of it.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will not refrain from speaking truth as I see it, including on the rationality of those I speak to.
Well, heck, that's not true at all. I mean, the truth is that every word I say drips with insight and brilliance, and yet you make dozens of posts a month that fail to praise me at all.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was there, you weren't. The existence of moderators who think "You're going to Hell" is a valid argument while "That works just as well for the IPU" isn't, does not convince me of anything in particular regarding posting styles.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will not refrain from speaking truth as I see it, including on the rationality of those I speak to.
Well, heck, that's not true at all. I mean, the truth is that every word I say drips with insight and brilliance, and yet you make dozens of posts a month that fail to praise me at all.
Nu, fair enough, when someone demonstrates the ability not to drool nonsense all over the keyboard I rarely point out that their minds are working at an acceptable level. As a general rule I also refrain from pointing out that "We're all using the Internet" and "Hey, there's a keyboard on this thing, I can type stuff". The absence of these things is a bit more notable than their presence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would be interested to see any evidence that those deconversions were a result of any particular conversation and what that conversation was like.
:shrugs: Everything is input. Is your theism due to any particular conversation? I cannot show that a confrontative style causes deconversions at a higher rate than the softly-softly approach; but 300 years of the latter does not seem to have produced a whole lot of atheists.
quote:Is it possible for you to refrain from being insulting?
If you do badly on an exam and are given a low grade, are you being insulted? I will not refrain from speaking truth as I see it, including on the rationality of those I speak to.
quote:If not, how do you think it would be best to continue here if the goal is for more congenial, less insulting conversation?
If indeed you want more flowers and fluffy bunnies in religious threads, the simplest approach is to ban me from them, or from the forums.
quote:Do you think that is even a worthy goal?
All else equal, yes. But there are more important goals, such as having people look at the dang evidence.
The simplest solution would make me a little sad. Is there any possible compromise? Say, you get one thread where you can be as insulting as you want - I'll even post there so you have a punching bag - and you refrain from smashing every thread about religion?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with KoM's arguments on religion. But if I had to power to subject-ban people he and Lisa would be the first clicks I made. That's how counter-productive I find his tone and presentation.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A sort of fenced-in "Free Speech Zone"? I seem to recall you were rather down on those when Bush wanted his detractors kept in cages.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is helpful or productive to go around bashing religion in the manner that KoM does. However, I have often found that a lot of "atheist aggression" boils down to:
1. People are having an academic discussion, in which one's religion might influence your opinion. Theists make an argument that only really makes sense if you've already accepted their religion as an axiom. 2. Atheist calls the theist on the fact that there is no particular reason to accept their religion as axiomatic. 3. Theist offers some reasoning that is, frankly, not logically sound. The atheist points this out. The exchange continues and escalates until it degenerates into name calling.
A variation on the above for a theist to make an argument about something that DOESN'T have to do with religion, criticizing someone else's bad logic. An atheist points out that the theist used that same logic in a thread discussing religion.
One hand, religion is such a big, ingrained part of many people's lives that fighting about it in every other conversation is not productive and contributes to a hostile atmosphere. And it's perfectly possible for an atheist to have an interesting, civil discussion where they take a religious precept as a given for the sake of argument. But it does get grating, after a while, to ALWAYS have to do that.
There's a difference between going around proselytizing atheism and going around saying "No, I'm not going to accept your religion at face value, if you want to use it as evidence in the discussion you have to prove it from the ground up."
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A sort of fenced-in "Free Speech Zone"? I seem to recall you were rather down on those when Bush wanted his detractors kept in cages.
This brilliant piece of hyperbole coming from the same guy who brought you "I want all theists put in concentration camps"
honestly, here, kom. you're only doing more to convince everybody that you should be the test case for subject bannin'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me apologize in advance that this post won't really contribute much to the discussion, but I'll definitely state that when I first joined the forum I was very impressed by the civility of the discussions here (even on very touchy subjects) but concur that it has recently steeply declined into most "interesting" discussions devolving within a page into something I don't see the point in getting involved with.
This disappoints me for multiple reasons. 1) I'd like to be involved, but have been pushed even further into lurker status because I don't feel that my voice will be heard over the melee led by the very caustic posters. 2) Many of those caustic posters have a lot of valuable things to say on other topics 3) Many of those caustic posters have a lot of useful information on the controversial topics, but can't seem to disengage fact from emotion
the only reason I'm posting this is to confirm that there's definitely a population of folks like me who would want to be involved in old-school discussions on any number of topics if they were civil like they once were. I'd love to have intelligent debate on religion, abortion, homosexuality, politics of the middle east, politics in the US, development of China etc. but lately all I am comfortable reading and commenting on are threads involving book suggestions and the like...
hopefully I'm not too bold in speaking for the mostly silent masses. Even if no one remembers it, I enjoyed meeting the ketchup and squoose clans as well as rivka and a few others when I became "real" a few years ago, and wish things had stayed at a level where I'd be happy to participate.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A sort of fenced-in "Free Speech Zone"? I seem to recall you were rather down on those when Bush wanted his detractors kept in cages.
There is a difference between public property and a private forum. There is also a difference between restraining oneself and being restrained.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone says, "My religion believes that all blue people should be killed" I think that it is our right (imo, our duty) to criticize that religion. Hopefully, we do it in a manner respectful of the poster*.
The thing is, the reasoning for "my religion says blue people should be killed" is often the same as the reasoning for "my religion says killing people is wrong." It's okay to call people on bad logic when that logic results in something that modern society has determined to be terrible, but less acceptable to call people on the same logic when used to prove something socially acceptable.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I understand the purpose of subject-banning. If someone is dead-set on preaching their religion or lack thereof, so much so that they are willing to cause hurt to other posters and degrade the community, why would an order from the mod make them change?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may be worth pointing out that the incident that caused this latest discussion didn't have much to do with religion, as such, at all. I don't know what specifically caused PJ to push the delete button, but in the thread about dog-foxes, I think the most probable issue was my posting on Ron's honesty and responding to his resulting challenge to "answer to him"; a personal attack, which didn't have any direct connection to religion. Now, once one participant says "You're dishonest", there is clearly no purpose to further discussion; whether the accusation is true or not, its mere utterance prevents any serious conversation, for how can one argue with a liar? What you say, he'll merely come up with some lie to contradict you. Thus, I do not intend to respond to Ron in the future. (Unless of course he wishes to arrange for that duel, which he can do through seconds; I feel convinced that Blayne would be willing to act as my friend in this matter.) So the immediate difficulty is unlikely to come up again, at least with Ron and me as the principals.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: I'm not sure I understand the purpose of subject-banning. If someone is dead-set on preaching their religion or lack thereof, so much so that they are willing to cause hurt to other posters and degrade the community, why would an order from the mod make them change?
Subject banning is enforced by the threat of forum banning. It is intended for posters who, as it were, are only difficult on one subject, and are otherwise contributing in a reasonable way.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Even if no one remembers it, I enjoyed meeting the ketchup and squoose clans as well as rivka and a few others when I became "real" a few years ago
Not only do we remember, I'm pretty sure it was discussed a few months ago at a more recent gathering.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When KoM first came here I accused him of being a member of alt.atheism, because his arguments were repeated verbatim from arguments that I'd heard repeatedly over there.
It upset me, because KoM was bringing the same tone into Hatrack that had caused me to leave a.a. and he was getting away with it. Other posters who got insulting were told that it wasn't acceptable here, and they either changed their tone or left. KoM was told repeatedly that his tone was not acceptable, but he made it his work to push the limits to the point where either the forum changed to accept his behavior, or he was kicked out. We know which one happened.
Now we are in a thread where we discuss the possible future of Hatrack and most of us are trying to reach agreement, yet KoM's posts offer the same ultimatum: Either accept my behavior, even though it defies the TOS, or ban me.
Before KoM came we had many arguments over the validity of religion, and sometimes it got intense. I know Tom Davidson and I didn't give "theism that free respect it's always had." We openly voiced our views as just that: OUR views. Which we were entitled to, even if you didn't agree with them. We did not assert that theism was stupid, but we did assert that if theistic belief systems deserve respect then so do atheistic belief systems, and for precisely the same reason: because it is what we believe, and our beliefs are as deserving of respect as those of theists.
Therefore, if we can discuss religion on this forum, then we can discuss atheism. Actually, I think one of the major reasons this forum has lost it's appeal is precisely because this issue has largely been settled.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It may be worth pointing out that the incident that caused this latest discussion didn't have much to do with religion, as such, at all.
Yes, yes, but don't forget that at hatrack soul-searching is a hobby. Since the most recent instantiation was not caused by Kat vs Rabbit round XIII, another scapegoat must be found. With 30 seconds worth of deep thought I have decided that you have been selected over Ron because your average post is more strident; Ron is an amicable poster until one of his 'facts' are challenged.
Anyways to other matters - my joke from the previous page - is physics not sufficiently similar to math in the public consciousness that in casual conversations (on airplanes and the like) you have not encountered the type of reaction that the joke plays upon?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which we were entitled to, even if you didn't agree with them. We did not assert that theism was stupid, but we did assert that if theistic belief systems deserve respect then so do atheistic belief systems, and for precisely the same reason: because it is what we believe, and our beliefs are as deserving of respect as those of theists.
Well, there's your mistake then. Or, to put it differently, that's necessary groundwork, but you need to put a building on top or you'll be stuck with having a construction site instead of a house. Having established that atheism may be discussed, you should next have gone on to argue that it is the only view with any actual evidence backing it, and that (teachable moment here: Before I came to Hatrack I would not have believed that this was necessary to say) looking at evidence is the correct way to evaluate religious claims.
Atheism and theism are not of equal worth; one is correct, the other isn't. It's not a question of respect, any more than heliocentrism versus geocentrism is.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Anyways to other matters - my joke from the previous page - is physics not sufficiently similar to math in the public consciousness that in casual conversations (on airplanes and the like) you have not encountered the type of reaction that the joke plays upon?
Oh, now I get it. I thought it was a nerds-don't-have-sex joke. But honestly it's not that funny anyway.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, you can tell yourself that all you want, but whether your assertion is true or not does change the fact that your being disrespectful is damaging both the forum and atheism as a whole.
Edit: I'm referring to his assertion that religion does not deserve respect, not that the joke wasn't funny. In case it was unclear. For the record I'm still not sure I get the joke but I think I'll be okay anyway.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
