follow up to my question from yesterday....

[mike_c]

This refers to this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x288583

After my posts were deleted yesterday, the moderators deleted further responses that simply mentioned or otherwise discussed the previously deleted responses, without even repeating any of the content that the mods might have found objectionable in earlier responses. See the deleted sub thread near the end of the thread. In it I specifically said "I won't mention those ideas because they will result in instant deletion" or something to that effect. That alone was apparently sufficiently egregious to justify deletion of the entire sub-thread.

I simply don't understand how that response, or any of my prior responses in that exchange violated any DU rules. I have read the rule regarding respectful exchange in religion threads and I believe I understand it. I believe that my comments were EXCRUCIATINGLY polite and respectful, notwithstanding the central notion that religious beliefs are delusional (but see my sig line-- that is neither a new idea nor one that I originated-- it has been a part of the mainstream discussion about religion for most of human history). The IDEA I expressed is uncomfortable and unpopular with at least some religious DUers, but it is a valid hypothesis that fits the evidence at least as well as any other, and it was expressed respectfully.

It really seems to me that what's happening here is outright censorship of ideas, plain and simple. As someone asked another DUer who accused me of "bigotry" in one of my deleted sub-threads, "Since when is respectful disagreement 'bigotry?'" May I remind you of EarlG's comment in a recent response in this forum "...our rules are based around the idea that it's okay to attack ideas but not people." Nonetheless, the majority of my deleted posts question, discuss, and debate-- not attack-- the IDEAS religious folks post here in support of their ideology.

I believe that religious convictions are delusional, and I've gone on to describe them as a form of mental illness, as Robert Pirsig does in my sig line and as many other authors have also proposed, e.g. Dawkins, Hitchins, etc. That's an idea, a hypothesis. I've consistently tried to present it rationally and respectfully, as an observation of what I see as a factual circumstance, not as a personal attack against anyone. I don't mean that to be personally insulting any more than noting that alcoholics are ill is meant to insult people with drinking problems, or that paranoid delusions are likewise unhealthy. If we cannot talk about these issues, no matter how respectfully-- and note that while I was universally respectful several other DUers responded to my comments with clear rancor, contributing little but their anger to the discussion-- then that constitutes censorship of important ideas that are part of the liberal debate in this country.

I'm sorry for the editorial. If you've already explained why my responses violated the rules then no further response is necessary. But please consider that I have tried very hard to discuss these matters politely and respectfully, and that popularity has little bearing upon whether or not hypotheses are correct. We'll never know if we are not permitted to explore them.

[Skinner]

1. Thanks for the additional information.

For convenience, I think we should probably keep the discussion in the other thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x3399