Shooting Fish in Barrels

[cnorman18]

For some years now, I have observed a very great many threads that attempt to debate, or disprove, cast doubt upon, or otherwise dispute the beliefs or claims or value or morality or truth of religion. They have been popping up thick and fast of late, in several subforums, taking various tacks that all seem to center around the same assumptions. That is, virtually all of those threads appear to address fundamentalist Christianity of the Biblical-literalist variety, and for the most part seem cognizant of no other religious traditions at all.

When this is pointed out, the members who post these threads seem to me, after some ten years of posting on this forum and others, to fall into two groups:

Those in the first group say that they are quite consciously addressing ONLY fundamentalist Christianity of the most dogmatic and repressive kind, and that disputing that variety of religion is where their interest lies, and that they do not intend to consider or debate other approaches. This is said to be for various reasons; to wit, that that variety of religion is (a) the most pervasive, (b) the most influential, (c) the most pernicious, et cetera, and no other faiths are worthy of attention for those reasons; sometimes it is admitted that there are other iterations of religious belief or practice that are not so toxic and objectionable.

I think that's a reasonable approach; but in that case, I would think it would be a matter of clarity, if not simple intellectual honesty, to specify that one is only addressing dogmatic, fundamentalist Biblical literalism, and not religion without qualification.

I have also rather frequently dealt with members of the second group, on this forum and others; those who insist (ironically against both objective fact and logic) that any and all varieties of religious belief ARE equivalent to fundamentalist Christianity, and that there is no essential difference between any of them. Strangely, I have also seen the complete inverse of that claim, to wit, that any variety of religious expression that is NOT dogmatic, literalist, repressive, anti-science, etc., is not really religion at all, and that those of us who do not believe in those ways are either lying, closet atheists, or are on our way to becoming atheists.

Both of those claims are objectively and verifiably false, and in my experience those who insist on maintaining either (or, not infrequently, both) are just as dogmatic and doctrinaire in their own way as any Bible-thumping fundamentalist. There is only one correct way to think, and that is MY way -- even when one is thinking about religion. Even though I do not believe in it, I will make pronouncements which may not be questioned about how and what religionists must think and believe.

I have found it about as futile to attempt to debate the matter with them as it is to debate Young Earth Creationism with a Young Earth Creationist. The dogmatic mind is a closed mind, and theres little point in attempting to debate a person who assumes a priori that he knows the Truth, and ignores or dismisses everything you say in the firm and certain knowledge that you are either an obstinate sinner who clings to his sin, or an irrational fool who clings to his superstitious foolishness and is either lying about it or attempting to confuse the issue. Peace to both kinds of dogmatists; I have better things to do. Dogmatists, religious or antireligious, are not really interested in debate, only preaching, and I am not addressing them here.

But; For the first group, I propose that there is very frequently -- though not always -- another reason for concerning oneself exclusively with repressive, literalist fundamentalism in debate: It is the easiest kind of religion to argue against. The arguments in favor of it are easy to counter, and the arguments against it are easy to mount. Besides, its safe and fun -- the intellectual equivalent of beating up ten-year-olds.

Okay. But the way I learned it, shooting fish in barrels does not make you a master fisherman.

There are a number of enlightened liberal religious traditions and approaches, including some Christian ones, which teach and practice virtually none of the problematic dogmas and behaviors which one associates with literalist, fundamentalist Christianity; virtually none of those practices or teachings are found in modern Judaism, either. And yet, few are willing to extend their disputes with religion to these liberal and nonrepressive iterations of religious faith, without applying the transparently fallacious arguments outlined above -- and yet continue to insist that their argument is with RELIGION ITSELF and not only with the toxic varieties of it which they address and refer to in every post.

I have said here, many times, that there is no such thing as "religion." There are only religions, and there is not a single belief, practice or attitude that is common to them all. That FACT ought to have some bearing on this matter, in my opinion.

Question for debate:

Is it intellectually honest to claim to argue against "religion" when one is only arguing against certain varieties of religion -- and simultaneously refusing to engage with, or perhaps even admit the existence of, other varieties of religion which are not subject to one's complaints?

Is this tendency caused, at least in part, by the fact that repressive fundamentalist Biblical literalism is the easiest variety of religion to argue against?

[kayky]

Scourge:

Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc, are often the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.

I actually gasped aloud when I read this. Whether it is what you meant to say or not, the statement being made here is that what happened to the Jews they brought upon themselves. Why not simply admit you misspoke (hopefully) and express your regrets so this thread can get back on topic?

[scourge99]

Scourge:

Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc, are often the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.

I actually gasped aloud when I read this. Whether it is what you meant to say or not, the statement being made here is that what happened to the Jews they brought upon themselves. Why not simply admit you misspoke (hopefully) and express your regrets so this thread can get back on topic?

Or i could clarify like i have several times if you read the thread:

1) What i also wasn't doing was making some moral judgement blaming jews or picking on jews.

2) My post did not make any judgment on who is or isn't to blame, let alone whether there even is someone to blame.

3) Likewise an overzealous feminist might read into my statement and claim that I'm blaming women for being raped [if i were to state that women are more likely than men to be raped by going to a park].

Do these statements not make it clear enough?

[cnorman18]

There is only one thing in this post to which I'd care to post a response:

There is nothing wrong with pointing out antisemitism. What's wrong is there is a person who is so paranoid about antisemitism that he sees it lurking everywhere.

Back up your claim, if you can. Post examples of all the times I have declared something antisemitic when it was not.

This wasn't one of them. I have never said that you were antisemitic, nor that anything you have ever posted was intended to be antisemitic, including on this thread. Not once.

Now, here are two questions from my last which you deleted and refused to answer:

"Do you think that there is no such thing as antisemitism? Are you claiming that antisemitic propaganda has never appeared on this forum?"

One might suppose that your personal accusations of "paranoia" and "obsession" and "desperate delusion" on my part, not to mention the rest of your insults, would not have worked well alongside honest and factual answers to those questions.

There was never any need to escalate your posts to this level of personal insult and attack. You could have avoided this whole debacle by posting just this in the first place:

I admit i could have phrased it better and by accounting for both situations.

Why you did not, and why you chose to go on such ferocious attack in response to a perfectly reasonable observation that was also made by others, I cannot guess.

I would also point out that I have never, not once, posted any such personal attacks directed against YOU. I have spoken of the content of your posts, and nothing more.

And with that, I stand by everything I have said.

[scourge99]

There is only one thing in this post to which I'd care to post a response:

There is nothing wrong with pointing out antisemitism. What's wrong is there is a person who is so paranoid about antisemitism that he sees it lurking everywhere.

Back up your claim, if you can. Post examples of all the times I have declared something antisemitic when it was not.

I'm not going to spend time parsing every thread where you mention, imply, or insinuate antisemitism. Suffice it to say that Google provides pages of results of your posts with it:

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... tisemitism

This obsession with seeking out antisemitism in every shadow is quite different from a simple "concern", as you claim.

This wasn't one of them. I have never said that you were antisemitic, nor that anything you have ever posted was intended to be antisemitic, including on this thread. Not once.

And I'm not calling you an idiot, I just think people who make the arguments that you do COULD be an idiot. I also just want you to know that idiots make variations of the arguments you make. Just saying. I have never said you were an idiot, nor that anything you have ever posted was intended to be idiotic, including on this thread. Not once.

Now, here are two questions from my last which you deleted and refused to answer:

"Do you think that there is no such thing as antisemitism? Are you claiming that antisemitic propaganda has never appeared on this forum?"

I don't respond to rhetorical questions.

There was never any need to escalate your posts to this level of personal insult and attack. You could have avoided this whole debacle by posting just this in the first place:

The moment you insinuated that I was antisemitic or what I said was antisemitic YOU elevated it and made it personal.

If it had come from someone else I respect I wouldn't have made a big deal of it and would have taken it as honest criticism. But I didn't take it as a reasonable response from you because of our previous encounters where you have also insinuated antisemitism. For example: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... p?p=439338

I admit i could have phrased it better and by accounting for both situations.

Why you did not, and why you chose to go on such ferocious attack in response to a perfectly reasonable observation that was also made by others, I cannot guess.

To the questions and arguments that don't involve insinuations of antisemitism you will notice my responses are almost always civil and direct, even in the preceding post. Take a look.

[cnorman18]

There is only one thing in this post to which I'd care to post a response:

There is nothing wrong with pointing out antisemitism. What's wrong is there is a person who is so paranoid about antisemitism that he sees it lurking everywhere.

Back up your claim, if you can. Post examples of all the times I have declared something antisemitic when it was not.

I'm not going to spend time parsing every thread where you mention, imply, or insinuate antisemitism. Suffice it to say that Google provides pages of results of your posts with it:

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... tisemitism

This obsession with seeking out antisemitism in every shadow is quite different from a simple "concern", as you claim.

It took me about five minutes to scan every entry on the first few pages at that link. I would GUESS that you did the same, couldnt find anything to support your insult, and just posted the search in hope that the number of posts there would prove your point. That is only a guess -- but it's hard to believe that you went to the trouble to make that search and went no farther than that.

I invite not just you, but anyone, to go to that search page and those that follow. Go ahead, look at all 3,940 results. Try to find an instance where I mentioned antisemitism when it was not either a legitimate topic for discussion, as in the actual subject of the OP (which were not always posted by me) or when it was not actually and palpably present. I can confidently say: There are none. If There is nothing wrong with pointing out antisemitism, as YOU said, then there was nothing wrong with ANY of those posts.

As for the sheer number of them -- why would that surprise anyone? I have more than 7,000 posts here, and exposing and fighting antisemitism is one of my major interests. Want to see the list of blatant antisemites who have been exposed, and have subsequently been banned or simply fled the forum in disgrace, because of the concern and efforts of myself and others? Again, I won't apologize for that interest, and I have no intention of turning a blind eye to antisemitism when it appears here -- as it inarguably has, as you tacitly agree below.

To clarify, again; I do not regard you as antisemitic, and I never have. I was trying to show you, and others, that attributing the "discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation" directed against Jews to their supposed "otheriz[ing] themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc" is not a legitimate claim. It still isn't, as you have essentially admitted several times now, even though you have danced around actually posting a retraction.

This wasn't one of them. I have never said that you were antisemitic, nor that anything you have ever posted was intended to be antisemitic, including on this thread. Not once.

And I'm not calling you an idiot, I just think people who make the arguments that you do COULD be an idiot. I also just want you to know that idiots make variations of the arguments you make. Just saying. I have never said you were an idiot, nor that anything you have ever posted was intended to be idiotic, including on this thread. Not once.

Another blatantly obvious personal attack, and another blatantly obvious attempt to insinuate that my legitimate and reality-based concern with antisemitism is idiotic, just as you have stated outright that it is paranoid, a desperate delusion, and obsessive.

Now, here are two questions from my last which you deleted and refused to answer:

"Do you think that there is no such thing as antisemitism? Are you claiming that antisemitic propaganda has never appeared on this forum?"

I don't respond to rhetorical questions.

They were not rhetorical. If you think that concern with antisemitism is paranoid, a desperate delusion, and an obsession with seeking out antisemitism in every shadow, they go right to that point. If the answer to either or both of those questions is yes, then those descriptions, factually, logically, objectively, verifiably and inarguably do not apply.

On the other hand, if you consider them rhetorical, then you must consider the answers to them obvious; and if you are admitting that the answer to both is OBVIOUSLY yes, then you are likewise admitting that the above descriptions of my mental state and character (which were OBVIOUSLY personal attacks and insults) were unjustified.

There was never any need to escalate your posts to this level of personal insult and attack. You could have avoided this whole debacle by posting just this in the first place:

The moment you insinuated that I was antisemitic or what I said was antisemitic YOU elevated it and made it personal.

Excuse me, but I was discussing the IDEAS in your post; one idea specifically. I was NOT discussing your mental state, your character, or anything else. My meaning was made very clear indeed in the my first post following your response, in which I said: ...your statement was inarguably a variation on a very old antisemitic trope. If that was not your intention, I apologize...

If it had come from someone else I respect I wouldn't have made a big deal of it and would have taken it as honest criticism. But I didn't take it as a reasonable response from you because of our previous encounters where you have also insinuated antisemitism. For example: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... p?p=439338

A poor example. Again, I invite everyone to examine that post for themselves and decide if the reference to antisemitism was either obsessive or otherwise unwarranted in the context where it appeared. I certainly never insinuated nor implied nor stated that antisemitism had any part in your post.

If thats the best you can do...

I admit i could have phrased it better and by accounting for both situations.

Why you did not, and why you chose to go on such ferocious attack in response to a perfectly reasonable observation that was also made by others, I cannot guess.

To the questions and arguments that don't involve insinuations of antisemitism you will notice my responses are almost always civil and direct, even in the preceding post. Take a look.

So you ADMIT that your responses here were uncivil and veiled, even after I made it clear that I was NOT attributing antisemitism to you, but only pointing out that the ideas in your post could be read in that way?

Thanks for clarifying. Just for the record, I dont think youre antisemitic in the slightest degree; I think (as I also indicated on this thread) that you are entirely unconcerned with that issue, do not take it seriously, and are all but unaware of some of the ideas that are associated with it. That is, of course, why I commented on your remark in the first place.

By the way -- doing a search using "scourge99" and "religion" yields over 27,000 results. If the sheer number of results has significance, as you seem to claim, then perhaps you have a bit of an "obsession" yourself...

[kayky]

Or i could clarify like i have several times if you read the thread:

1) What i also wasn't doing was making some moral judgement blaming jews or picking on jews.

2) My post did not make any judgment on who is or isn't to blame, let alone whether there even is someone to blame.

3) Likewise an overzealous feminist might read into my statement and claim that I'm blaming women for being raped [if i were to state that women are more likely than men to be raped by going to a park].

Do these statements not make it clear enough?

They make it clear that you are backpedaling and do nothing to clarify this:



Scourge:

Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc, are often the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.

[otseng]

And I'm not calling you an idiot, I just think people who make the arguments that you do COULD be an idiot. I also just want you to know that idiots make variations of the arguments you make. Just saying. I have never said you were an idiot, nor that anything you have ever posted was intended to be idiotic, including on this thread. Not once.

Moderator Warning


Entirely inappropriate sarcasm here. Please avoid making personal references of any sort.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[99percentatheism]

Or i could clarify like i have several times if you read the thread:

1) What i also wasn't doing was making some moral judgement blaming jews or picking on jews.

2) My post did not make any judgment on who is or isn't to blame, let alone whether there even is someone to blame.

3) Likewise an overzealous feminist might read into my statement and claim that I'm blaming women for being raped [if i were to state that women are more likely than men to be raped by going to a park].

Do these statements not make it clear enough?

They make it clear that you are backpedaling and do nothing to clarify this:



Scourge:

Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc, are often the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.[/b]

How is what scourge wrote inaccurate? Recorded history seems to bear out that statement as based in reality. And, of course, "anti-bullying laws" would seem to show it as quite active still. Not to mention of course all the protected classes in discrimination laws.

Tibetan Buddhism and Hasidism spring quickly to mind as otherized groups.

But then again, a large group of "others" can get hammered as well.

Such as the group identified in the OP as "low hanging fruit." The fish in the barrel. How is the OP not designed to be basically an academia-styled thinly-veiled insult?

The "Progressive Christian" Think Tank "Cross Left" has faded from url, for obvious reasons (the charge against "liberal religion"), but I do like to check in with its remnant body from time to time in the "blogspot" it has now become:

"The contradictory nature of the progressive view only becomes evident when the progressive declares one of their views does justify force. They feel perfectly justified in forcing their views upon others by law for exactly the same reasons they abhor the right wing for using, claiming their beliefs are self-evident and obvious to anyone who is aware of the truth.

They attempt to claim moral high ground in precisely the same fashion that the religious right does, but completely miss the irony of their identical claim to justified force,

When confronted with this obvious hypocrisy, the progressive generally resorts to the primal, warlike stance that well just get everyone to vote and crush the enemy by pure numbers devolving political discourse to a vicious war of blue vs. red."

- the progressive conundrum

http://jmellicker.wordpress.com/2012/08 ... conundrum/

My point being: so what if you get picked on, OR are the picker-oner? That's just evolution and the detailed history of man.

Maybe I'm wrong.

But it does appear that seeing attack from everywhere at everything we hold dear, and the resulting lashing out towards those perceived attackers is also common in so many of us as well.

Oh well. I always thought this thread was designed to lure in targets.

But . . . I could be wrong in this post about this thread.

[cnorman18]

Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc, are often the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.

How is what scourge wrote inaccurate?

It is inaccurate in that the blame is quite clearly being placed on the minorities -- those who otherize themselves," in his words -- and not on those who discriminate against them; and though that remark may be accurate to some extent regarding other groups, it was inaccurate in this instance because, in context, it was clearly intended to be descriptive of Jews, who have historically been otherized by the greater society and not by themselves. That, and that alone, was the basis of my objection to it, as was clear to anyone who reads the thread.

I will decline to comment on the rest of this post, since it seems intended to derail the thread into yet another discussion of gay marriage. I note the statement in the blog that immediately precedes the portion that you quoted.

....
My point being: so what if you get picked on, OR are the picker-oner? That's just evolution and the detailed history of man.

Is there another way to read that other than Discrimination and bigotry is part of life, not a problem, get over it?

....
Oh well. I always thought this thread was designed to lure in targets.

But . . . I could be wrong in this post about this thread.

You are. If this thread were designed to lure in targets among the low-hanging fruit, I would not have declined to debate when both you and Wootah rang in more than once.

The thread was designed to lure in atheists and nontheists who are only willing to debate the literalists and fundamentalists here. Like it or not, those positions ARE easier to debate than those with more nuanced or less well-defined views; but note that I never said that they were necessarily wrong for that reason. My point was rather that debates on those issues rarely go anywhere, and they leave OTHER theists, such as myself, out of the conversation.

I dont even object to those debates in themselves; my problem is that there are relative few OTHER debates here, and my problem is with those, on BOTH sides, who insist that (1) one must read the Bible literally and dogmatically or not at all, and (2) if one does NOT so read it, one is not truly religious. Either way, we nondogmatic and nonliteralist theists are written off as essentially nonexistent and of no account.

I made all that perfectly clear in the OP.

As I said to Wootah,

I have no intention of being drawn into a debate about the merits of fundamentalist Christianity on this thread.

Once again; feel free to start a thread of your own. You can watch me not participate in it there, and perhaps engage others.

And I say once again that if I had wanted to debate the merits of fundamentalist Christianity, Id have said so straight out. That debate does not interest me.

[connermt]

Question for debate:

Is it intellectually honest to claim to argue against "religion" when one is only arguing against certain varieties of religion -- and simultaneously refusing to engage with, or perhaps even admit the existence of, other varieties of religion which are not subject to one's complaints?

Only if the people in the discussion have analyzed all[b/] religions that exist; from the largest christian/jewish groups to the smallest tribes in the Amazon. I don't know of anyone who has done this.
As is my belief based on experience, no one knows everything about every religion; no one knows everything about one religion.
Logic would then indicate that one would likely "run up against" someone who knows more or less about said religion than the other. When that happens, saying "we can't discuss it because you know more than I (or vice versa)" isn't appropiate. I would go as far as saying it's arrogant.

People need to grow and learn. This means discussing (debating if you like) religions (in this case) with people of various levels of knowledge of said subject.