Why is it ok to bash Christianity but not Atheism?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Baby Tea:
That being said: If only, or mostly, anti-atheism posts are being reported, and not anti-theist posts, then that shows a problem/bias with the user-base, not the MOD staff.

What about when anti-Christian/anti-religious abuse does get reported, and yet the mods do nothing about it? This happens frequently on this board.

If the mod staff support a biased user base, then their actions are biased. I read a lot of forums, and TheEscapist is the only one I've read in my entire time on the Internet that has had this problem. It's also the only forum I've ever read where the mods exclusively rely on reporting to identify problem posts- i.e. they don't proactively search the forum for problems.

If you feel that I or the other MOD staff are inconsistent in our issue of bans/punishment based on how you have, essentially, got away with it, then please point me to where you did, and I'll rectify that for you!

That's a pretty gross misrepresentation of what I said. The problem is that on several instances I have been falsely reported and falsely punished. As in, I was not "being a dick", but expressed an opinion someone did not like and received warnings for it. And in multiple instances I've had to privately email the mods to get the warnings taken away, including one case where I was falsely suspended. I'm not "getting away" with anything, I'm being forced to jump through extra hoops just because I sometimes have an unpopular opinion.

Just saying. Im happy they wanna save me, sure thats quite noble of them, but my issue is this:

To think torture of an infinite kind is a just punishment in ANY situation is creepy as hell. I dont really give a shit about "intentions" as long as this holds true. You cannot refute this. You keep utterly ignoring the fact that even though these christians think Hell exists, in its current form to infininately hurt people for numerous crimes, they never question the justness of this infinitely heavy punishment.

You have a good point here. When I read Anne Frank in school and then realized that she would be sent to hell and tortured for eternity by god under the rules I had been taught were silly and unbelievable, at least when combined with the concept of a loving (or even sane) god/parent figure. I believe that even if there is any validity to the Christian religion, they must have gotten that part totally wrong.

I wont lie youre starting to win me over with your first point though. Id say any bible passage that claims to "stone people to death" for a crime tends to incite hate or anger toward said people commiting that "crime". Like adulterers, people who take part in gay sex and "heretics".

Right, and people that light fires on saturday or trim their bushes on saturday or a bunch of other things.

Stoning was just the standard "death penalty" method in those days in that part of the world. They have no concept of jail, so things either got a monitary fine or death or exhile. I don't think that it makes you hate people who garden on saturday, it just means that the penalty for breaking that law is death. You can debate the death penalty as wise method of justice, but then that's a debate that is still happening to this day throughout much of the world.

Isn't desirability subjective anyways? Not to get away from what you're trying to say. Anyways, there is not going to be a scientific link between being religious and being a "better person", sure, because isn't that kind of subjective as well, the idea of a "better" person?

The best I can see is links to the religious being more well-adjusted, more charitable, and less anxious , which are pretty good traits.

Katatori-kun:
What about when anti-Christian/anti-religious abuse does get reported, and yet the mods do nothing about it? This happens frequently on this board.

Well then I can no longer speak for all MOD staff. All I can say is that I, and a few other MODs I know, do not do this. Some might, and if you feel it's a serious problem then please (And I'm being quite honest) contact the our community manager Nasrin. She's the boss of us MODs, and if MODs are acting inappropriately, she'll put a stop to it. She's pretty great that way.

If the mod staff support a biased user base, then their actions are biased. I read a lot of forums, and TheEscapist is the only one I've read in my entire time on the Internet that has had this problem. It's also the only forum I've ever read where the mods exclusively rely on reporting to identify problem posts- i.e. they don't proactively search the forum for problems.

Again: I cannot speak for all MODs. However, and yet again, speaking for myself and a few mother MODs I know: Of course we proactively search. We browse random threads and just read things over, generally lurk, and dish out punishment when we see it. We don't exclusively rely on reporting, but it's a great tool for a proactive community to help mop up.

That's a pretty gross misrepresentation of what I said.

You're absolutely right. I went back and re-read your post, and misread what you wrote. My mistake.

The problem is that on several instances I have been falsely reported and falsely punished. As in, I was not "being a dick", but expressed an opinion someone did not like and received warnings for it. And in multiple instances I've had to privately email the mods to get the warnings taken away, including one case where I was falsely suspended. I'm not "getting away" with anything, I'm being forced to jump through extra hoops just because I sometimes have an unpopular opinion.

Looking back over your current ban history, I don't see anything that was unjustified. Perhaps all of the unjustified bans were removed? I'm not sure. If what your saying is true, and so far I can't see that it is (Not saying it is or isn't, but all I've got is the info in front of me and your word), then (again) contact the community manager. MODs are meant to be impartial, and if you think you're being singled out because of an 'unpopular opinion', that's something worth looking into.

Baby Tea:
snip

Alright, I'll try that the next time there is a problem. Thank you for making the effort to communicate. This is honestly the first time I've heard of Nasrin. In past experiences with the mods their advice to me has not been this clear.

Jonluw:

Helmholtz Watson:

Jonluw:

Do we agree that irrational beliefs are undesireable traits in a person?
If so, do we agree that believing the supernatural (def. what can't be proven by rational means) exists is by definition irrational?

No we don't all agree on that. Seeing as how a negative can't be proven, and thus it can't be proven that theism and deism is "wrong" in the belief in the divine, I wouldn't call irrational. If anything I guess I would call it optimistic.

Something doesn't have to be wrong to be irrational.

ra·tion·al (rsh-nl)
adj.
Consistent with or based on reason; logical:

If a belief in gods was rational, that would mean you could prove it.
If you could prove a god's existence, we wouldn't be arguing over it.
Supernatural beliefs are by definition irrational because they can't be proven with reason or logic.

You don't have to remove irrational as an adjective to describe theism as optimistic by the way. They're not mutually exclusive. Something can be both.
Personally, I don't find faith in gods particularly optimistic, as I think the whole idea of eternal life and people watching over us at all times and stuff rather a negative thing.

that would be nice, but rationality is subjective, a theist feels there beliefs are rational, based on reason and are logical. proving a belief doesn't make it rational, it just makes it grounded. besides i have a feeling most people are attributing traits to reason and logic that do not exist for those two things. logic is a tool used for argumentation and debate. heck they even apply logic to metaphysics, so so much for it being able to prove something. Reason is the capacity human beings have to make sense of things, it can also be used to verify facts and change or justify behavior, institutions and beliefs. there is no objective set of reasoning so this one goes into a field where a theist can back up his belief in a deity multiple ways.

Well you are on the internet. It hasn't been ok to bash Christianity, as in, socially damning for multiple centuries in the past though. Heck just during the cold war an athiest had a social stigma that he might as well have been wearing a, "The USSR is my best buddy" sign.

I think it's more that Christianity has taken for granted getting a free pass for pretty much the entirety of this country's history and they aren't used to it.

Jonluw:
snip

The existence of the divine can't be disproven either because you can't prove a negative.

I think it's generally because Christians and other religious folk are taught to be more tolerant, for religions sake. Not to say atheism doesn't get bashed, because it does. Just not on the internet so much.

Helmholtz Watson:

Jonluw:
snip

The existence of the divine can't be disproven either because you can't prove a negative.

Missing the point there, it's not about whether or not a deity could exist despite no evidence, it's whether or not it is rational to believe a deity does exist despite no evidence.

thaluikhain:

Helmholtz Watson:

Jonluw:
snip

The existence of the divine can't be disproven either because you can't prove a negative.

Missing the point there, it's not about whether or not a deity could exist despite no evidence, it's whether or not it is rational to believe a deity does exist despite no evidence.

And I would direct your attention to this comment.

I think it's just a matter of acceptable targets. Say something negative about Islam, it's religious discrimination. Say something wrong about Judaism, it's religious discrimination. Say something bad about atheism, you're discriminating against peoples rights to NOT be religious. But if you want to knock Christianity, that's okay because they're the privileged majority and they oppress all the other religions anyway

ShadowKatt:
I think it's just a matter of acceptable targets. Say something negative about Islam, it's religious discrimination.

You're shitting me.

The degree of unfounded, ignorant things that it is socially acceptable to say about Islam in western countries is staggering. Most critics of Christianity simply choose to ignore moderate Christians, but when people criticize Muslims often they aren't even aware the moderate Muslims exist.

Hell, it was perfectly acceptable to boycott an American television show about Muslims because the show was insufficiently negative in its portrayal, i.e. it didn't say exclusively negative things about Muslims.

ShadowKatt:
I think it's just a matter of acceptable targets. Say something negative about Islam, it's religious discrimination. Say something wrong about Judaism, it's religious discrimination. Say something bad about atheism, you're discriminating against peoples rights to NOT be religious. But if you want to knock Christianity, that's okay because they're the privileged majority and they oppress all the other religions anyway

I don't know what you're talking about, mods on this forum let slander against Islam and Judaism happen all the time.

Probably because as far as numbers go they're kind of the underdog.

ShadowKatt:
I think it's just a matter of acceptable targets. Say something negative about Islam, it's religious discrimination. Say something wrong about Judaism, it's religious discrimination. Say something bad about atheism, you're discriminating against peoples rights to NOT be religious. But if you want to knock Christianity, that's okay because they're the privileged majority and they oppress all the other religions anyway

Yeah, I don't know what you're talking about. Islam's, like, the second biggest religion in the world, and it's not as if they don't oppress all the other religions too. I mean, if you're a woman, try going to an Arabic/Islamic nation without wearing a hijab. Better yet, try kissing your partner in public.

On the other hand, in nations such as the UK and USA, you don't have to abide the majority religion's rules that, for some backwards-ass reason, are legally enforced. The USA's Christian-dominated, yet you can wear a turban or a hijab, and have gay sexual activities or relationships, without getting arrested for it.

Whether or not it's against Christianity or Islam, it's still religious discrimination. That's going by the strict definition of the word.

Say anything about Them, and it's called persecution. Say anything about Us and it's deemed fine.

thaluikhain:
Say anything about Them, and it's called persecution. Say anything about Us and it's deemed fine.

Neither Kendarik or Katatori-kun have said that. Stop exaggerating.

erttheking:
Probably because as far as numbers go they're kind of the underdog.

Who is the underdog, who has the fewest numbers? Atheist?

Helmholtz Watson:

thaluikhain:
Say anything about Them, and it's called persecution. Say anything about Us and it's deemed fine.

Neither Kendarik or Katatori-kun have said that. Stop exaggerating.

Didn't mean to imply they (or any other person or faith in particular) were, but when we are talking about bias like this, sooner or later that's how it ends. If the bias is against you (generic you), it's a reasonable fair (if simple) statement, and if it isn't against you, you'll still want to claim it is (again, generic you).

Helmholtz Watson:

erttheking:
Probably because as far as numbers go they're kind of the underdog.

Who is the underdog, who has the fewest numbers? Atheist?

Christians massively outnumber atheists, I think it's 33% of the planet vs around 5%, but those numbers probably aren't exact.

erttheking:

Helmholtz Watson:

erttheking:
Probably because as far as numbers go they're kind of the underdog.

Who is the underdog, who has the fewest numbers? Atheist?

Christians massively outnumber atheists, I think it's 33% of the planet vs around 5%, but those numbers probably aren't exact.

And Atheist outnumber Jews, look at my previous post for the information. I guess if we are talking "underdogs" that would be Jews, not atheist.

Helmholtz Watson:

thaluikhain:
Say anything about Them, and it's called persecution. Say anything about Us and it's deemed fine.

Neither Kendarik or Katatori-kun have said that. Stop exaggerating.

No, I get what thaluikhain is saying and he's right on the money. When people are part of a group, they often struggle to see things objectively.

Katatori-kun:

Helmholtz Watson:

thaluikhain:
Say anything about Them, and it's called persecution. Say anything about Us and it's deemed fine.

Neither Kendarik or Katatori-kun have said that. Stop exaggerating.

No, I get what thaluikhain is saying and he's right on the money. When people are part of a group, they often struggle to see things objectively.

Hmm.... I get what your saying. That said, he should have phrased it better because it came off like a accusation against the people on the thread.

Helmholtz Watson:

erttheking:

Helmholtz Watson:
Who is the underdog, who has the fewest numbers? Atheist?

Christians massively outnumber atheists, I think it's 33% of the planet vs around 5%, but those numbers probably aren't exact.

And Atheist outnumber Jews, look at my previous post for the information. I guess if we are talking "underdogs" that would be Jews, not atheist.

True, I'm just saying that compared to Christians they probably consider themselves an underdog.

erttheking:

Helmholtz Watson:

erttheking:

Christians massively outnumber atheists, I think it's 33% of the planet vs around 5%, but those numbers probably aren't exact.

And Atheist outnumber Jews, look at my previous post for the information. I guess if we are talking "underdogs" that would be Jews, not atheist.

True, I'm just saying that compared to Christians they probably consider themselves an underdog.

Fair enough, as long as the comparison remains only a comparison between Christianity and Atheism, and doesn't develop into a comment about all forms of religion and Atheism, I have no problem with such comments.

Helmholtz Watson:

erttheking:

Helmholtz Watson:
And Atheist outnumber Jews, look at my previous post for the information. I guess if we are talking "underdogs" that would be Jews, not atheist.

True, I'm just saying that compared to Christians they probably consider themselves an underdog.

Fair enough, as long as the comparison remains only a comparison between Christianity and Atheism, and doesn't develop into a comment about all forms of religion and Atheism, I have no problem with such comments.

Yeah, that's pretty much my train of thought about them.

Katatori-kun:

That's a pretty gross misrepresentation of what I said. The problem is that on several instances I have been falsely reported and falsely punished. As in, I was not "being a dick", but expressed an opinion someone did not like and received warnings for it. And in multiple instances I've had to privately email the mods to get the warnings taken away, including one case where I was falsely suspended. I'm not "getting away" with anything, I'm being forced to jump through extra hoops just because I sometimes have an unpopular opinion.

To be fair, there have been times when you have blatantly insulted someone because you disagreed with them and got away with it.

Katatori-kun:

We might have an interesting discussion about the future role of religion in society, but I have a feeling this berk is never going to drive it.

That was in your first post in the thread so it's not like you even gave the discussion much of a chance. Just saying.

Matthew94:
To be fair, there have been times when you have blatantly insulted someone because you disagreed with them and got away with it.

Katatori-kun:

We might have an interesting discussion about the future role of religion in society, but I have a feeling this berk is never going to drive it.

Personally insulting a poster here (which happens frequently when people attack an entire religious group) is a different kettle of fish from personally insulting a specific person who is neither a participant on the board nor ever will be. It's the old "in the public eye" distinction. If I say Pauly Shore is a complete waste of space that's not at all the same as if I say you, Matthew94, are a waste of space. Likewise it's different from if I say, "All members of [whatever group Matthew94 is a member of] are wastes of space". The first insult is reasonable criticism of a public figure, the latter two are unwarranted personal attacks. I attacked the writer of a published article (who, let's be fair, was a complete berk who didn't know what he was talking about), not a poster on the board.

Katatori-kun:

Matthew94:
To be fair, there have been times when you have blatantly insulted someone because you disagreed with them and got away with it.

Katatori-kun:

We might have an interesting discussion about the future role of religion in society, but I have a feeling this berk is never going to drive it.

Personally insulting a poster here (which happens frequently when people attack an entire religious group) is a different kettle of fish from personally insulting a specific person who is neither a participant on the board nor ever will be. It's the old "in the public eye" distinction. If I say Pauly Shore is a complete waste of space that's not at all the same as if I say you, Matthew94, are a waste of space. Likewise it's different from if I say, "All members of [whatever group Matthew94 is a member of] are wastes of space". The first insult is reasonable criticism of a public figure, the latter two are unwarranted personal attacks. I attacked the writer of a published article (who, let's be fair, was a complete berk who didn't know what he was talking about), not a poster on the board.

Shiiiiiit.

That's what I get for not rereading the thread. I thought you were referring to the OP when I thought of this thread.

My apologies.

Matthew94:
My apologies.

No worries.

Wolverine18:

You have a good point here. When I read Anne Frank in school and then realized that she would be sent to hell and tortured for eternity by god under the rules I had been taught were silly and unbelievable, at least when combined with the concept of a loving (or even sane) god/parent figure. I believe that even if there is any validity to the Christian religion, they must have gotten that part totally wrong.

Its also the fact there isnt any scale. At all. No scaling dependant on how terrible youve been. By the logic of hell, me, Anne Frank AND Hitler will all recieve the same punishment. I mean cmon. Shes an innocent girl and I have a university place for medical research. Doesnt god have any sense of scale? Or intent? As a negative atheist im willing to consider God, but im not willing to consider a god worth worshipping who uses this system. If he did exist id reject him utterly on principle. The use of hell as a punishment for EVERYTHING actually was VERY well explained by you in terms of "Why would humans write such a thing?"

"Stoning was just the standard "death penalty" method in those days in that part of the world. They have no concept of jail, so things either got a monitary fine or death or exhile."

For people whose justice system worked like this Hell must have seemed reasonable.

To answer the OP:
Commonality.
Christianity is common. Most of us here have been born in Countries that for the longest time have been steeped in Christianity, with other Religions treated more like pariahs than independent choices about belief.
This type of religious "rebellion" - and I use the word pretty loosely here - is a fundamental psychological principal of species. It also ties into aspects of self-deception; arguing for something, hoping to prove it to someone else so thus convince yourself.

Of course, that doesn't really address the "bashing" that takes place, though that's far easier to explain.
image
They say on here what they wouldn't say elsewhere.

BiscuitTrouser:

Wolverine18:

You have a good point here. When I read Anne Frank in school and then realized that she would be sent to hell and tortured for eternity by god under the rules I had been taught were silly and unbelievable, at least when combined with the concept of a loving (or even sane) god/parent figure. I believe that even if there is any validity to the Christian religion, they must have gotten that part totally wrong.

Its also the fact there isnt any scale. At all. No scaling dependant on how terrible youve been. By the logic of hell, me, Anne Frank AND Hitler will all recieve the same punishment.

I think that's what I just said. Except its actually worse than that, under the Christian system (at least most branches) Hitler might in fact be in heaven, as long as he "truly repended" and came to Jesus before his death.

I have more respect for the rest of the religions in that family because they understand and include the concepts of being judged on more than one action.

Stagnant:
I personally find religion harmful because accepting supernatural claims with such weak evidence is essentially saying "Eh, good enough" and abandoning the search for truth right there.

This is one of the things that personally irritates me the most about religion in general. We only continue to grow intellectually and scientifically as a species because people ask: "Why?" and "How?". Even if the answer is far out of reach, the very process of looking for it can reveal new knowledge by itself.

Giving yourself up to religion because not knowing is too hard, or because the search for truth and answers is too difficult, is such a shame in my eyes.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked