MetaTalk posts tagged with religion

Would this be a new FPP?

jefficator — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 06:59:04 -0800

I don't understand how to make a good FPP. This is a specific example of a general question. I ran across this article today, and I think it would make a good FPP. But my recent endeavors have all been shot down. I don't trust myself. I can imagine it would fit under this previous post. But that post garnered a lot of attention. The businessman in me believes that indicates latent demand for new posts. Frankly I think this could stand alone. But the kid in me doesn't want his feelings hurt by another archived topic. Thoughts?

"There is no afterlife." Cite, please...

hermitosis — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:54:17 -0800

"There is no afterlife." Cite, please... A thread in which a mefite asks for help in coping with grief and belief turns (unsurprisingly) into an opportunity for others to present their own personal beliefs as inarguable fact. I find this to be a) completely insensitive, but especially b) a really unfortunate misinterpretation of the original question that pretty much derails the thread. "Of course there's no afterlife..." "Your father has ceased existing..." "There is no afterlife or other side..." It's fine to share your beliefs as part of your advice, and especially in cases like this where it's somewhat topical, but stating them unsupported as fact is not helpful. If comments appeared saying "Don't worry, your loved one is with King Jesus now, sharing in Jehovah's eternal glory, and you'll be better off if you can accept that," it would be just as bad a use of AskMe. I don't expect any comments in that thread to be deleted, but the extreme atheism on this site creeps into the dogmatic range pretty often, and I think everyone could benefit from a reminder that no one party has a monopoly on The Truth (tm), and if you can't reach out to help someone without telling them what to believe, then you should maybe think twice about your offer.

Jesus Christ, this is stupid.

Electrius — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:47:06 -0800

For God's sake, can we delete this moron post using two poorly written old articles to set up a point-counterpoint that is as trite as it is pointlessly inflammatory? I thought posting things just to forward one's own opinions and to stir up meaningless, hot-air controversy was against the guidelines.

Apocalypse WOW!

TomMelee — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:36:58 -0800

Interested in how to respond to a comment like this one. It's well formed, it's a legitimate response to the question, kind of. This isn't about hating on God in a science question, but I don't really know if it's an appropriate answer. Will the LHC end the earth? No, because God isn't ready for Apocalypse yet? Is that valid? The answer intrigues me, it doesn't piss me off or anything. Just wondering. Thoughts?

Make that in triplicate!

tkolar — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:44:19 -0800

Religious issues aside, do we really need three separate posts covering slight variations of the same thing? This is becoming the Mouse Balls of Metafilter.

pathetic insensitive

survivorman — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:45:58 -0800

This project is offensive beyond the pale for those who worship the Son of God, and who are grateful He gave His life and defeated death. While people are evidently allowed to broadcast their insensitive and tasteless hate and "humour" like this regarding someone elses faith, I should be allowed to express my view also. And I am. And you've heard it.

Towards civil discourse: are moral judgements verboten?

RikiTikiTavi — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:11:20 -0800

How do we talk about religion and morals while respecting all beliefs? I've just been reading this long thread about--peripherally--religious tolerance and discussion. I am confused as to what is acceptable, here, in expressing one's beliefs. Religious beliefs consist largely of a bag of morals: what's right and what's wrong. Some of these, perhaps, can be backed by "logical" arguments, but the judging morality based solely on amoral characteristics seems rather limited and pointless. Sure, you can argue that "X is wrong..." or "You should do Y..." because of some quantitative aspect of society is improved for the action, but it seems that many beliefs held as morals can't be justified as such--it's either wrong or right because it's wrong or right. Perhaps I'm wrong? Person X: "I believe Q is wrong because of my religion" Person Y: "I believe Q is just fine!" For a non-verifiable Q and R, what makes one statement tolerated and one not? Is it just that we can't ever say, "You're wrong?" What about the reverse? Person X: "I believe R because of my religion" Person Y: "R? R is obviously wrong!" There are various possibilities here, most of which could be said to fit but none are ideal, and undoubtedly none of these are what's being aimed for, here:

Personal religious statements are not allowed/preferred
Statements of belief outside of the majority are not allowed/preferred
Beliefs are OK, as long as you don't say anyone's wrong.

See, there's a lot of religions out there, and many who prefer not to identify with a religion. These various groups disagree on lots of things. Thing is they can't all be right. I have beliefs that naturally are at odds with various groups. I also have a belief that my beliefs could, in fact, be wrong. But even the belief that I could be wrong itself could be wrong; perhaps it's my way or the highway as many religious seem to espouse. Certainly there are morals that 99.99% of us would agree with. The point I'm (awkwardly) trying to make here is that I can't see the point in favoring the beliefs of one group over another if you're striving for a fair exchange of ideas. Is there a threshold, then, that you have to meet? A minimum number of people that agree with your views before you're willing to accept them? Or is it just that we have to "be nice", and never denounce any activity? There seems to be no easy answers; perhaps there's a reason why MeTa is grey. I do not envy the moderators.

Are some more worthy of respect than others?

konolia — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:30:02 -0800

Well, I have been onsite five or ten minutes and already flagged two posts...can I say I am sick and tired of seeing gratuitous and profane rants against God and Christianity in general-especially since I know for a fact that kind of speech is not tolerated for other groups here? I'm sorry. I try to be tolerant. I try to look the other way. I understand many of you have issues with either God or Christianity in some form or fashion. But I have had quite enough. I hold some unpopular beliefs-beliefs that are part of my Christian belief system-and I have been prohibited-let me say that again, PROHIBITED-from even commenting on those subjects at metafilter on pain of being permabanned. This even though to the best of my knowledge I was never rude or hateful when discussing same. Okay, not my site, whatever. But apparently it is just fine and wonderful to trash my God, trash my brothers and sisters, and say whatever comes into one's head about MY subculture but if I dare to try to discuss or explain or point out where someone is misunderstanding or whatever...well, we all know where that goes. I am under no illusion that this is going to change in the foreseeable future but I simply wanted to make it public record that I object. I did finally start flagging posts and will continue to do so. I ask any fairminded people out there to do the same. Mind you I do not object if people make negative comments as long as they meet the same standards of respect for others as all other comments on Metafilter are supposed to meet. Freedom of speech, freedom of ideas, etc-I am all for that. That is why I am here. I think it is good to see other's points of view. Okay, I have said my piece. Thank you for your consideration.

LOLMORMONS

empath — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:26:05 -0800

Come on y'all this is embarassing. I don't think anyone would appreciate getting their religion bashed this way and Mormon's LOVE that man. Believe me, I know some. Totally uncalled for.

Fundamentalist Metafilterism

WCityMike — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:27:10 -0800

Fundamentalist Metafilterism? A few days ago, I had a post deleted. I'm actually not complaining about that (hey! don't jump on me! I'm not! read this before yelling at me!), but that, combined with the belovedness of this post, made a question form in my head. The crack about "fundamentalist Metafilterism" is not meant seriously, but it's shorthand for a longer concept. If you say the words "chatfilter", "LOLXians", "LOLBush", etc. — or something mentioned in the guidelines or in the "bad post" page of the wiki — they instantly bring "what a crap post" associations with the subject, sometimes even faster than it would take to actually check out the link. A more recent example: although some thought this question to be on the fence, there were quite a few comments in the MeTa thread that felt that some pretty amazing stories were told there. I'm advancing a theory that perhaps Mefi users aren't willing to consider the possibility that we could have a "best of the Web" post that is a bit chatty (on Ask.Mefi) or addresses humorously the topic of Christians or Bush, or in some other way deals with a verboten subject. In and of that, I think that's a bit fundamentalist — in the sense of "strong adherence to and unwilling to re-examine a set of beliefs." Please, I'm firmly NOT saying my deleted post was "best of the Web." I'm curious about the process-mindset-reaction, not defending my actual post. This isn't a "my post was a shining beacon of goodness and the ol' nasty people beat me up" thing, and I'm very much not here saying it shouldn't be deleted. (I once did that on MeTa a while ago and in retrospect still wince at what a horribly bad move it was.) But what I'm wondering is if stuff that falls in the category of chatfilter, LOLXians, LOLBush, or another "unpopular subject" listed in the pages referenced above even has a chance to be considered as a "good post" by the community, or if these guidelines are entirely and completely absolutely maintained in the community's eyes with rigorous, inflexible borders — in which case it really would be Mefilterian fundamentalism, wouldn't it? To clarify: admin enforcement is of course another clear matter, but I'm talking about approval of the majority of the Mefi community. How people react to a post, and not necessarily whether that post falls outside the guidelines that it'll be zapped. Short version of my blabbing: would this even have a chance of going as far as it did nowadays? Or would we have seen "chatfilter" and "Metafilter: life-exchanging experiences for your son"-style comments that would've torpedoed it even before it was put to sleep?

LOLXtians! No - LOLScientologists!

dash_slot- — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:46:17 -0800

We don't think religious satire goes down well on Mefi. Well, 'cept for the 'Tologists, that is. Personally, I say they're all risible. Why allow the one, not the other?

LOLZ RELIGION!!1!1

proj — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:48:12 -0800

Do we really need two LOLZ RELIGION!!1! posts in one day?

This is where you can talk about "Are Catholics Christian?"

ThePinkSuperhero — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:59:36 -0800

Let's move the "Are Catholics Christian?" derail/debate in this AskMeta thread to a more appropriate place: this Metatalk thread. The discussion is not really appropriate for the AskMeta thread, since the OP clearly already has an opinion on the subject, and I doubt any of us will change his mind.

Is this normal, sanctioned behaviour?

JaySunSee — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:20:08 -0800

MetaFilter seems rife with religious intolerance and disinformation under the guise of intelligent conversation. Is this a flaw or a feature of Metafilter?

I love sweet baby jesus (sexy teenage Jesus, not so much)

Joseph Gurl — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:39:16 -0800

Uh-oh (Jesus in the desert part deux)

Moderation needed

humblepigeon — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 04:43:52 -0800

Can admins take a look at this AskMeFi question? It's a genuine question about a biblical story but it's being hijacked by the atheist brigade.

Religious / Political Threads Largely Repetitive

Bugbread — Mon, 07 May 2007 15:21:00 -0800

MetaFilter discussions about religion and politics tend to have comments which are basically the same as other MetaFilter discussions about religion and politics.

LOL XTIANS #45,982,761,305...

Methylviolet — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:21:06 -0800

I don't understand why this was posted. Most LOL XTIANS get deleted; why is this one still here?

Sidebar Nomination OTD

scrump — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:56:04 -0800

I'd like to nominate this fantastic, almost entirely civil thread about Mormonism for the sidebar. It's really been an exceptional example of how informative AskMe can be when discussion and knowledge-sharing are maximized with minimal interpersonal snark.

MEFI disucsses fundamentalists civilly!

adamgreenfield — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 05:19:03 -0800

Kudos where richly due. I'm delighted to see a thread I had actually feared would be deleted, about the sensitive nexus of fundamentalist Christianity and earthly power, close in on 100 comments and never once descend into vituperation. Nuanced disagreement, even principled difference of opinion, but no name-calling and no shit-flinging. It's a wonderful thing. Can we do this more often?

working together for the common good

The Deej — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 09:12:31 -0800

Ironically, for the off-topic stuff from this post on people from different beliefs working together for common good.

Murderous Confession

incessant — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:45:13 -0800

Well, askme got served with a doozy tonight and I think it's safe to say it didn't go well. It's not just the completely awful legal advice being dispensed, or the attempt to frame this question as a solely moral one that disturbed me, but the seeming justification of murder (and referencing religion to reason away that murder) that made me shudder.

Answer the question without preaching

bigmusic — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:20:07 -0800

I'm going to totally ignore your question, but I am going to pimp my religion.

Thread on religious oppression may bring out hatemongering

rinkjustice — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 06:45:22 -0800

Regarding the question on ask.metafilter: Religious oppression, any question that would ask for perceived incidents of "personal oppression" from a segment of the population is subtle hatemongering with the intention of inciting contention and propagating slander, libel and misinformation. This thread is dangerous and should be removed immediately.
posted by rinkjustice at 6:41 AM PST on July 22 [+fave] [!]

Comment deletion in the religion thread.

Saucy Intruder — Mon, 15 May 2006 13:26:55 -0800

Why can't you love your fellow man and be selfless, without needing to believe in a giant invisible wizard in the sky? This statement was attacked, defended, reconnected with the topic at hand, and was further clarified and apologized for by its author. But as of a few minutes ago, it no longer exists. This, my friends, is Chewbacca, and Chewbacca does not make sense.