Perhaps there should be a forum for anti-religion posts where vitiol and hatred can be kept in one place

Nobody is being horrible on this thread. There's some plain talking going on, that's all. People who don't like plain talking might be advised to avoid controversial subjects. Please note the word 'might'; its use there is significant; it is 'might', not 'should', spoken with kindness in mind with a view to avoiding real or imagined horribleness.

Obviously italics don't work inside inverted commas!

j08, it's probable that very few of us noticed that this thread was under the heading of 'site'stuff'. Our eyes probably went straight to the title of the thread:
'^Perhaps there should be a forum for anti-religion posts where vitriol and hatred can be kept in one place^'.
Did you seriously think that highly emotive words like 'vitriol' and 'hatred' would go unremarked? It's not surprising that they aroused a good deal of controversy. For the record, I haven't interpreted previous threads as either vitriolic or hate-filled. Most contributions from those of us who are non-religious have been mainly reasoned and thoughtful, and frequently based on the posters' experiences of organised religion in their youth.

j08 - as this is the Religion and Spirituality thread, perhaps you could tell us what your beliefs are, why you hold them and what religion means to you.

Others have clearly explained their concerns about organised religion and it would be helpful to understand the other side of the debate.

absent maybe a referendum on every thread before we start one to make sure everyone agrees we should have that thread..and then a referendum to see who would be allowed to post on that thread....would that be helpful??

It's just not worth it. This is bringing out the horrible side of Gransnet.

Like I have said, this was meant as a suggestion for HQ' s consideration. If they choose to ignore it then that's ok.

My post on the other thread had no nasty thoughts behind it at all. I read the tweet from Pope Benedict and liked it. And wanted to share it.

absent I agree with much of what you say but I also think that there are those who claim moral superiority because they happen to be atheist. Believer or non believer is fine by me, just don't be too evangelical about either we are all entitled to our own point of view. On such a fundamental issue we are never going to agree. I was brought up as a strict Catholic and I have a lot of issues with that religion but I know it gave my mother a lot of comfort in the final years of her life and her network at her church was very supportive to her.

vampirequeen It's very often plain laziness – just as all Catholics are described as devout and all atheists are described as militant.

Why are any comments that don't agree with any aspects of religious beliefs or teachings vitriolic or full of hatred? Comments I've seen/made have been part of considered and interesting debates and discussions.

Bags I wonder if repeating this demand for a censored thread is a devious plot to bore everyone to such an extent that it finally achieves its end.

absent, [whisper!], don't tell jings I said so, but I thought that remark about my anti-religion group so silly and ridiculous that I just dismissed it immediately I read it. I'd actually forgotten all about it until I read your comment just now. Hey ho. Funny moods, not, eh?

I think it should also be remembered that the thread topic is "Religion AND Spirituality"

I've known people with no adherence to any religion but who could definitely be considered to have a very spiritual outlook and philosophy.

j08 I don't know who you think belongs to "Bags' group" and I think Bags might be surprised to find she has got one. This seems to be another manifestation of the tired old accusation of cliques and bullying that you have raised on a number of previous occasions.

I don't hate religion or people who practice a religion, providing it is not the cause of harm to others. I feel no need to be vitriolic about it. I just think all religions are combinations of social control and myths that attempt to explain the human condition. I do hate hypocrisy and find it particularly abhorrent among those who claim moral superiority – implicitly or explicitly – because of their religion.

Thanknyounfor telling me you are not in any kind of mood. I now realise that it is only my own interpretation of your remarks that makes it seem so to me.

It's not a "simple suggestion", which you would realise if you thought about the implications that other posters have highlighted.

My own response to religion is not vitriolic, but often logical and flat. Sometimes I'm a bit indifferent, sometimes a bit cross when I read about someone using religion as an excuse to behave badly, such as verbal gay bashing.

I actually find debate and discussion on religion a lot of fun. It is a terrific subject for a forum.

I have to say jo that when you started your other thread yesterday afternoon I thought you were being deliberately controversial rather than religious or spiritual. Otherwise not much of a thread really.
If GN members want to follow religious leaders on Twitter they are free to do so. If a member decides to pass on their tweets for discussion here, then, well, why, if not to provoke debate?
There are presumably religious forums where you can go to agree with each other - or maybe not these days. I cannot see why any thread should have special status. Or why you should describe disagreement as hatred, vitriol or insensitive.

No, we don't express it in a vitriolic manner. At least, I don't. I express myself in a forthright manner that you, and perhaps some others, interpret as vitriolic. It is your perception that makes what I say vitriolic, not what I say, nor even how I say it.

It was just a simple suggestion.

Bags you and the others in your anti-religion group do hate religion, and you do express your views in a vitriolic manner.

I am not in any kind of a "mood". Why personalise this?

So is the subjecto of religion not to be open to debate? if that's the case why not have seperate areas for monarchists and republicans, different political groups, meat eaters and veggies, people who love purple....in fact anything that might cause discussion.

nanaej Do you think the Scottish grannies would like to declare an independent Scottish forum? Should they have a referendum?

I'm with Brian Cox on this :" I'm not anti religion, I'm anti maniac."

Is faith not strong enough to withstand challenge? Maybe the challengers are genuinely curious about how people have faith? Maybe the non-religious feel threatened too and need to defend their opinions.

Not sure why a a thread should be limited to posters of faith! We could have threads for Guardian readers /DM readers etc only or those who have blue eyes... where would it end???/

If you use inflammatory language "vitriol" and "hatred", jings, when there actually isn't any but only rational debate that you don't like the tone of, you can hardly expect anything else but to be shot down in flames. Your argument here is unreasonable and several of us have said so. You can expect the same thing to happen if you try the same sort of things again.

You know all this. I think you're just in a funny mood.

So who would prevent the so-called religion haters from posting a response to the "something with a religious aspect to it" that "shoots it down in flames" and how would that not be censorship?

This is an arrogant, nonsensical and unworkable suggestion.