Religion makes you meaner

[cassity]

Yeah, it shouldn't be against the rules. There are good and bad ways to be critical though.

 

'Good and bad' is pretty subjective, so pleasing one while displeasing the other is pretty much a crap shoot. The only safe place is to grow a skin or avoid all debate.

 

Asking to point out mean post/s while at the same time get a refusal with "read the thread" is in itself mean. These so called posts are already in existence..apparently. So what's the issue?

 

Religion: Belief. Can a belief make you meaner?

 

Atheism: Lack of belief. Can a 'Lack of belief' make you meaner?

 

Atheists and Theists can be mean..as can anyone for all sorts of unrelated reasons. Can Atheists or an atheist be meaner simply because of a lack of belief?

[RootsBooster]

OK. Here's the first draft- read through it and, if there's bits you want modified, say what they are, but, if you think it's good to go, I'll pm it to the mods/helpdesk

 

"concerning this thread-

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11217391

 

a number of the posters wish to say on this thread that, in their opinion, it would be good to name specific boardusers and say that they were ""as mean spirited as the faithful they are accusing here"", whilst also presenting evidence that this was the case.

 

I felt that this may be in violation of board rules, but they felt there shouldn't be any problem. I still felt there may be a problem and so we decided to compose a message to you, the moderator/s, asking if you felt it would be a problem. Is it? Let me know in a reply, or, even better, post on the thread yourselves."

 

Shall i send it as it is, or do you want to do some alterations on bits of it?

 

I would advise a more neutral sounding version, if we are truly leaving up to the mods. Yours sounds more like a veiled complaint or protest against it.

 

How about something like "Dear mods, how are you? I hope everything's fine, I hope Paul Weller's doing well.

Myself and a couple of others have claimed that there are some mean spirited atheists on the Sheffield Forum and we have been asked to provide examples of this. Would this action be okay or would it be against forum rules?"

[onewheeldave]

I would advise a more neutral sounding version, if we are truly leaving up to the mods. Yours sounds more like a veiled complaint or protest against it.

 

How about something like "Dear mods, how are you? I hope everything's fine, I hope Paul Weller's doing well.

Myself and a couple of others have claimed that there are some mean spirited atheists on the Sheffield Forum and we have been asked to provide examples of this. Would this action be okay or would it be against forum rules?"

 

I think there's some winding up going on here it's all a bit subtle for me, so I'll bow to your superior wit and not trouble the mods with the issue.

 

---------- Post added 21-11-2015 at 10:56 ----------

 

 

Religion: Belief. Can a belief make you meaner?

 

Atheism: Lack of belief. Can a 'Lack of belief' make you meaner?

 

Atheists and Theists can be mean..as can anyone for all sorts of unrelated reasons. Can Atheists or an atheist be meaner simply because of a lack of belief?

 

Suppose a religious person devoted a %-age of their annual income to helping the poor, as they believed in God, and, also believed that God wished believers to do this charitable act.

 

If they then chose not to do the charity, is it fair to say they are meaner than before (on the grounds that previously they were more 'giving' than they now are?

 

If their choice that lead to me being 'less giving' was made due to their belief in God ceasing, then could it be said that the absence of said belief has left them less giving than they were when they did have the belief (in god)?

Edited November 21, 2015 by onewheeldave

[RootsBooster]

I think there's some winding up going on here it's all a bit subtle for me, so I'll bow to your superior wit and not trouble the mods with the issue.

Apart from the crack about Paul Weller (King of the mods) I was being serious, if this is what it takes to get to the bottom of the (rather simple) mess.

[Waldo]

Apart from the crack about Paul Weller (King of the mods) I was being serious, if this is what it takes to get to the bottom of the (rather simple) mess.

 

Your Paul Weller reference threw me! (makes sense now)

 

Thing is, how are you going to quantify if a post points to a person being mean-spirited or not? It's totally subjective, and a lot of reading between the lines and understanding context etc.

 

The very act of starting this thread and claiming religious people are mean-spirited; comes across (to me) as someone being just ****** at religion and wanting to discredit it. A lot of posters on here, seem that way to me. It's really not a big deal though, firstly, it's just my perception of other people (who I really don't know), and secondly, so what if they are? Most people are ****** at something, at one time or another, and we're all in a process of change.

[Obelix]

Why don't you just read some of the posts on this thread instead of some useless comment.

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2015 at 13:52 ----------

 

The point is they're not being attacked, except in some Southern states, in much the same way as you are attacking ordinary people who just want to go to church, and who are free to do so if they want without name calling. Take care of your own house and leave others be.

 

Where have I attacked churchgoers?

[onewheeldave]

Apart from the crack about Paul Weller (King of the mods)

I didn't get that at all. Knew who Paul weller was, know what a mod is, just didn't realise he was the king of them.

 

I was being serious, if this is what it takes to get to the bottom of the (rather simple) mess.

 

Yeah. I'm thinking maybe leave it? Having thought on it, the problem is I'm not comfortable naming posters then having a go at them- cos, it will IMO inevitably be seen as having a go. Even if the mods gave full go-ahead, i'd be inclined to not get involved, as I can only see it going bad.

[cassity]

 

Suppose a religious person devoted a %-age of their annual income to helping the poor, as they believed in God, and, also believed that God wished believers to do this charitable act.

 

If they then chose not to do the charity, is it fair to say they are meaner than before (on the grounds that previously they were more 'giving' than they now are?

 

If their choice that lead to me being 'less giving' was made due to their belief in God ceasing, then could it be said that the absence of said belief has left them less giving than they were when they did have the belief (in god)?

 

Those with lack of belief donate for all sorts of reasons which have nothing to do with theism..I would think. Stopping a donation based on a 'conversion' to atheism would have something to do with the personal reason rather than the action. If you initially donate simply because your God says so or you feel pressured into it because of religious peer pressure then the altruism is self applauding...charity as a word is then just the result. The question could be asked, is it mean to donate with the sole purpose of glorification in the eyes of others and or Gods rather than the simple alieving of someones misfortune as a secondary? (I only give in order to profit 'spiritually')

 

---------- Post added 21-11-2015 at 15:18 ----------

 

Yeah. I'm thinking maybe leave it? Having thought on it, the problem is I'm not comfortable naming posters then having a go at them- cos, it will IMO inevitably be seen as having a go. Even if the mods gave full go-ahead, i'd be inclined to not get involved, as I can only see it going bad.

 

Then in that case it would probably be best for those making claims not to make claims that cant be substantiated...or won't.

[onewheeldave]

Those with lack of belief donate for all sorts of reasons which have nothing to do with theism..I would think. Stopping a donation based on a 'conversion' to atheism would have something to do with the personal reason rather than the action. If you initially donate simply because your God says so or you feel pressured into it because of religious peer pressure then the altruism is self applauding...charity as a word is then just the result. The question could be asked, is it mean to donate with the sole purpose of glorification in the eyes of others and or Gods rather than the simple alieving of someones misfortune as a secondary? (I only give in order to profit 'spiritually')

 

Sorry- it's difficult to work out what you're actually saying here. What point are you making?

[Waldo]

Those with lack of belief donate for all sorts of reasons which have nothing to do with theism..I would think. Stopping a donation based on a 'conversion' to atheism would have something to do with the personal reason rather than the action. If you initially donate simply because your God says so or you feel pressured into it because of religious peer pressure then the altruism is self applauding...charity as a word is then just the result. The question could be asked, is it mean to donate with the sole purpose of glorification in the eyes of others and or Gods rather than the simple alieving of someones misfortune as a secondary? (I only give in order to profit 'spiritually')

 

Yep, that's just giving to get. It's not really giving at all, it's just the outward appearance of giving. I think proper giving is when you feel a genuine abundance and desire to give and make a positive impact on the world around you.

 

One thing that puzzles me; is, why do we need a competition between theists and atheists, on who is least mean-spirited? Is it that the 'winner' gets to somewhat cement the credibility of their own position? Surely, if you're not mean spirited, you'd want the best for all people?