So I've been very hesitant to ask about this because I don't want to come off as whiny or complaining. I get that this is an atheist forum, this is yall's place, and I'm a guest here. I appreciate that people here have accepted me and treat me well. And I want to make it clear that I have respect for the staff here and this isn't meant to be criticism or challenge. 

I'm just curious as to why this thread doesn't break the latest forum rule about no provocation and no unflattering generalizations about entire groups of people. I guess I don't understand the new rule very well and would like some clarification. (I didn't report it because the fact that it's been up for a while and was kudosed by some members of staff, tells me already that it isn't against the rules, so there's no point in reporting it. I just want to understand why it isn't.)   

The rule says this: 

Quote:1. Avoid false equivocation. Making generalized statements about a person or groups of people almost never goes well. Rather than making blanket statements like "all X are Y", make an argument for why "X has some attributes of Y" and present it for discussion.

2. Be accurate. Check your sources before posting, ensure that you have the facts. If you are presenting someone else's opinion, use quotes and don't editorialize what they are saying unless you make it clear that this is your interpretation rather than what they have said specifically.

3. Add some discussion to your post. Rather than just posting a link and your opinion, try to encourage discussion. Ask whether people agree or disagree, pose questions, ask for clarification from people rather than assuming something. In short, be open about discussing a subject rather than being provocative from the get go.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-51928.html


Below are the claims being made about all theist people who were taught religion since being children: (which includes me and billions of other people in the world)  


- They "are taught that the consequence to their actions are irrelevant because only a non-existent god ca truly judge them." 

- "They are not taught to think through the morality of their actions but to accept the morality without question that some person wearing a pointy hat gives them."

- "They are conditioned to obey authority and to have faith rather than to ask why."

- "This means that they do not have to accept the responsibility of their actions because they were only following orders, which ultimately came from their god and are not to be questioned."

- They "grow up dependent upon a system that tells them how to act, think, believe and what to value or hate."


Below are the claims being made about all people who converted to theism in adulthood: (which also includes millions of people) 


- "They were not properly raised to begin with."

- "They have essentially outsourced their morality."

- "They realise how difficult it is to make moral judgments because life is never black and white but always grey."

- "They're essentially letting someone else make those moral judgments for them instead"

- "Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, instead of suffering the doubt that is necessary to navigate a noisy and uncertain world, they're preferring to feel good about their own lives regardless of what it costs everyone else."

- "They are being self-centered. Their own sense of self-ease has a greater priority to them than the effect that they have on the world around them."

- They "would happily allow their government to sign away their freedom to dispel any kind of evil that they have been warned about."

- They "happily become more child-like as they accept the conditioning of their church to not question but to just have faith that it will all turn out well in the end."


Below are claims being made about all theist people: 


- "They fantasise about all kinds of imaginative scenarios because they are not weighed down by plausibility, The hall mark of a child is when they don't think through how heir fantasies would work in practice. Yet this is what the religiously indoctrinated do all the time."

- "They literally want to continue holding onto a child-like innocence where everyone else makes the decisions for them"


.....So if I'm addressing each of the 3 points to the rule up top, this is how I personally see each of them: 

"1. Avoid false equivocation. Making generalized statements about a person or groups of people almost never goes well. Rather than making blanket statements like "all X are Y", make an argument for why "X has some attributes of Y" and present it for discussion."

As you can see, the thread OP in question makes a lot of generalized statements about entire groups of people. Nowhere does it say "some" or even "most". These are all just unflattering blanket statements made about entire groups of people, which includes literally billions of people world wide. And I can tell you right now, as one of the people being spoken about, a lot of the claims made about what I was taught and what I think are not true at all.

"2. Be accurate. Check your sources before posting, ensure that you have the facts. If you are presenting someone else's opinion, use quotes and don't editorialize what they are saying unless you make it clear that this is your interpretation rather than what they have said specifically."

There is no source for all the blanket claims made in the OP. There is nothing to back up all that was said about us as being fact. The OP is presenting what we supposedly think/believe/do as fact without any sort of quote or proof or example, and doesn't specify that this is merely a personal interpretation of all of us rather than how we all really are. 

"3. Add some discussion to your post. Rather than just posting a link and your opinion, try to encourage discussion. Ask whether people agree or disagree, pose questions, ask for clarification from people rather than assuming something. In short, be open about discussing a subject rather than being provocative from the get go."

The OP itself doesn't invite any sort of discussion. It is provocative from the get go. The entire OP is just a rambling about all theist people and what all of us are like, our motivations, etc. It doesn't say "this is what it comes off as to me" or "can a theist please explain this to me" or "what do you guys all think of this". 


.... I guess I fail to see what I'm missing here, because it seems to me, as I have demonstrated above, that the thread in question fits all the criteria for violating the new rule. But yet it doesn't. Can someone please explain what I'm getting wrong?

[mod hat off]

you can start a thread as to why theism isn't childish, or if it is, it's a good thing, or that the characterization is incomplete because . . ., or the rest of us are a bunch of poopy heads just because we didn't notice your concern till you brought it up or . . . .



[might leave mod hat off for a bit and raise a ruckus !!!]

We haven't discussed it because nobody has reported it.

Personally, as I haven't read the thread in question, I couldn't say one way or the other I think it breaks the rules.

I didn't report it but I assumed it had been seen since it's been up for a while and kudosed by some staff members. But I'll go ahead and report it then.

When read in context I am specifically and explicitly talking about the character of religious indoctrination and its intended effect. It is one influence among many in a person's life.

I never said that it was a feature of all theists.

Your quotes are also not all quotes. For example where did anyone say "They were not properly raised to begin with" ?

(November 14, 2017 at 12:41 pm)Mathilda Wrote: When read in context I am specifically and explicitly talking about the character of religious indoctrination and its intended effect. It is one influence among many in a person's life.

I never said that it was a feature of all theists.

Your quotes are also not all quotes. For example where did anyone say "They were not properly raised to begin with" ?

In the English language, when you're referring to a group of people and you don't specify with "some" or "few" or "most", the correct assumption is that you are talking about all of them.

Example, in reference to atheists:

1. "They make wild generalizations about people of faith"

2. "Some of them make wild generalizations about people of faith."

---

So, if when you're referring to us as "they" and you don't specify with "some of them", the take away is that you're referring to ALL of us when you say "they are taught that the consequences of their actions are irrelevant" and "they are not properly raised to begin with."

---

.
Also, something just crossed my mind and that is that i may be breaking the calling out rule in this thread. I don't know if I am or not, bc the point of this thread was to ask a question about another thread, not to shame someone, but I don't know if that counts as "calling out" the author. If so, y'all have my apologies.

(November 14, 2017 at 12:49 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Also, something just crossed my mind and that is that i may be breaking the calling out rule in this thread. I don't know if I am or not, bc the point of this thread was to ask a question about another thread, not to shame someone, but I don't know if that counts as "calling out" the author. If so, y'all have my apologies.

I won't complain if so.

As I understand it, Atheist Forums is meant to be a forum about atheism and not just a forum for atheists. And unless I am mistaken, theists are every bit as much full members of AF as atheists, agnostics, and anti-theists, etc. Theists are not party-crashing second-class members that are tolerated at best or here for the sport of atheist members. The OP of "Theism is childish" is a good example of the blanket insults and false characterizations theists endure as contributors.

Not that I care all that much. I'm a big boy. I participate by choice. I enjoy sportsmanlike trading of barbs every bit as much as a nuance philosophical discussion. Creative vulgarities and clever insults make me laugh even when they are directed my way. At the same time, many of us long time theists are growing very tired of the anti-religious bigotry that is so very common.

Many of atheist members object to characterizations of atheism/atheists saying “Atheism is simply the lack of belief is God(s).” I find that position questionable but am willing to go along with it most of the time. And in deference to that sentiment (sensitivity?) I am usually, though not always, careful to distinguish between atheism as an intellectual stance and atheism as a state of mind. I also try to focus on the intellectual position that I want to discuss, etc.

In return, I would appreciate if atheistic members return the favor by recognizing theism as “Simply holding the belief in God(s)”. If you are going to ask theists to mind the distinctions between gnostic and agnostic atheism, anti-theism and deism, then it is only fair for atheists (of whatever stripe) to at least acknowledge that lumping all kinds of theism, from Scientology to Hinduism to Roman Catholicism to Sufi, together is inaccurate. And to do so with mockery is just rude.

Even within the Christian tradition there are important distinctions. Not all Christians are Evangelicals. Very few Christians believe in biblical infallibility. More, though still a minority, think Scripture is literally true throughout. Not all are creationists. Not every Christian denomination believes in free will, eternal conscious torment, or infant baptism. While I believe that the main doctrines are generally accepted throughout the church universal, these doctrinal differences matter.

Nor is it right or proper to describe all believers as irrational, delusional, or ignorant. That’s just bigotry plain and simple. It should not be tolerated. For every idiot like Ken Ham, there are ten or more serious thinkers like David Bentley Hart. Likewise, for every theological moron like Richard Dawkins, there is slightly more thoughtful Pinker.

Now some will say that it is unreasonable to qualify which type of Christians (or Muslims, etc.) are being discussed when there are so many sects. Perhaps. But I would point out that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Within atheistic philosophies there are nearly as many combinations of ideas from Hume’s radical skepticism, Sartre’s existentialism, Schopenhauer’s idealism, Derrida’s post-modernism, etc. etc.

So I say, if the tone of this forum is to improve it is not up to the 5 or 6 active theists to “call-out” the bigotry or correct the hostile mischaracterizations directed our way. Our respected atheistic members, that are legion, need to step up to the plate and do a little more self-enforcement rather than making apologies for such...bullshit...or giving it a pass just because the offending party is a fellow atheist.

The Thread in question does not fall within the Prime directive IMO. We have recently acted on one that did. Why?

The thread adresses theism per se and the OP has posited a thorough case, that albeit offensive to some theists, has the merit of being a discussion starter. If it offends one, one should retort. Its the thing of this forum.

I don't think we should do anything when Mathilda presented her case, open for discussion, to reply back to the points raised by others. It is what a forum should be.

As far as I can, I will not shut down someone from speaking their mind in an open reasoned way.

(November 14, 2017 at 12:41 pm)Mathilda Wrote: Your quotes are also not all quotes. For example where did anyone say "They were not properly raised to begin with" ?

You did in the OP!

And I think that the fact that you take it upon yourself to question the parenting of those who became Christian's later in life, show's really what type of person you are.

None of this rationally follows any of your arguments,  just another angry atheist spouting bad logic, about what they don't understand, in order to put others down.  I wouldn't speculate on others parents and how they where raised.