And for the third time, you are wrong. You have no fucking idea why I started the thread. Call Randi. Win the million. I have told you twice that I will go where the results lead me.
You ae being insulted because you insulted me, and continue to do so. How about you provide some actual evidence to support your assertion, or, again, shut the fuck up?
Deist Unitarian, recovering Catholic, married to an atheist.
No. I’ve found this place supportive of all questions I have or opinions I hold, and the resident Christians respectful of my choice to no longer be Christian. Particularly our “active Catholics” tomndebb and Bricker.
Atheist. Not oppressed, and certainly not by moderators.
You admitted why you started the thread above. That was a pretty fair description of dedicated. Maybe I should call the good James Randi. While I was not attempting mind reading, I believe you find my statements eerily close.
You knew I could read minds across the Internet via posted messages. Nope, I would chalk this one up to a decent cold reading with plenty of information.
So I will not shut up to appease you. Again, if you did not want any grief, you should have just admitted what inspired you up front and/or start it in IMHO.
Are you now claiming you did not post?
Jim
Wow, it is like seeing the birth of the old Trinity tripe. Just by the input of virtually all atheists so far, I can say your “this site bias” is not true.
That is because after they lost “burning at the stake” as their best argument, they are like de-fanged tigers. As I came from them, I can tell you there are better but specific reasons when we should bring the rack and Iron maiden to them: like when they attempt to impose their faith on us.
Complaining about transubstantiation and Santa Claus is at the level of “this thread is too stupid to live”
No one is perfect, but I defer to others in saying your personal experience is not evidence enough. (you know, the old and accepted in this circle of ignorant fighters saying that the plural of anecdote is not data)
Tap dancing usually is a solo activity you numbnuts. (and even in a group, usually no touching)
Strong atheist when it comes to human made cults/religions. Don’t really have a clue about Genesis. Guess anything is possible.
Hassled on the SDMB? Only by the very people that oppose my views. Hardly surprising. Other than that —and a couple of “cool it” suggestions by mods – no problem at all.
Must say though, as any other particularly knowledgeable poster on any number of topics, I like Tom. Would he’d get his shit (or considerable brain-power) together and come to the only logical, fact-based conclusion. Funny though, I’ve had a few posters praying for my “salvation.” Shit, they manage to do that, and I’ll fuckin’ guarantee there’s no hell. Regardless of the fact that I can say the same thing right now. Yet another absurd religious concept out the window.
But hey, I’m not in the indoctrinating business. Figure it only makes makes me angrier and firmer in my beliefs. Works both ways I guess, any time anyone tries witnessing to me they get a lump of coal. And then some. Ironically I’ve recruited some atheist/agnostics that way.
OTOH, whne I get witness on, I mostly keep my trap shut – mostly 'cause it’s members of my family that try. I am of a mind that a tight family relation is far more valuable than religious differences – much like politics, BTW
.
Ya know, I have could have saved some time and trouble, if you;d only asked me what I thought this poll would show. I understand that many people think Tom is a fine fellow. Hell, I used to think so myself.
Maybe now that I’ve pointed out how I feel Tom moderated immoderately a couple of my posts, and a couple of other selected hard-atheists’ posts, he’ll start behaving better and you’ll never have cause to come into my camp. That’s just fine with me.
LDS here:
Do I feel that the moderators oppress those with religious beliefs? No.
Do I feel that the moderators oppress those without religious beliefs? No.
Do I feel that the board policy is weighted towards one or the other of the above groups? No.
Atheist who thinks all forms of belief about the non-physical are fundamentally delusional. No.
You cannot be this stupid. You really cannot be this stupid. Tell me you are not this stupid. It is not dedicated to him. It is not dedicated at all. It is an attempt to elicit opinion. While it is indeed
*key phrase “designed for a particular use or function”, it is not dedicated to prr. **prr **is not the function. The function is gathering information. Christ, do I have to spell it out for you? **prr **is a poster on the Dope. Gathering information is a process. The two are not the same. The two are not similar. The two are not remotely related.
Was this thread *inspired *by the posts of prr.? Yes. Do I suspect that the results will provide a *counter *to his assertions? Yes again. Is this in any way remotely like dedicating a thread to him? Apparently, in your mind, it is. I urge you to disabuse yourself of this train of thought. It is without merit.
However the poll goes, so goes the poll. I seek information. Thanks awfully for your input.
Congrats, you win, I will back out. Bites When Provoked, you were correct.
Jim
Oh please. This poll is not about whether **Tom **is a fine fellow. Frankly, I think he has yanked me around a couple of times, and wrongly. This poll is about whether as a matter of policy, the SDMB, and its moderators, are strongly biased against atheists in favor of Christians, a claim you have made on numerous occasions.
Now your complaint is that he has been *immoderate *with you and a couple of other posters? On a *couple *of posts? How fast will that bike go in reverse, anyway?
Care to expound on that, o ye of the ironic username? 
You really can’t read, can you? it’s okay. Tell us, and we’ll find you some help.
Or is it that you think that “a couple of posts” means the same thing as “a couple of posters”? The words look similar, but examine the endings. They’re different, aren’t they? That might mean that the words “posts” and “posters” mean different things.
Now “immoderate” is harder. It might denote a mild form of “non-neutral behavior” but (and here’s the difficult part) it might also mean an understated
form of extreme non-neutrality, as in “Pol Pot behaved immoderately towards Cambodian intellectuals” to mean that he slaughtered millions of them.
English is funny that way, but I promise you if you study hard, it will pay off, and you will be able to understand people much better.
Indeed, now check the meaning of the plural of anecdote is not data.
Not sure if I want to.
OK, so he was immoderate with you a couple of time, and with a couple of other posters an unspecified number of times? Did I get it?
And this relates to a systematic policy of abuse against atheists, and in favor of Christians, exactly how?
Does the fact that no so far no one, including badchad, believes this to be true suggest anything to you?
Your Pol Pot example is a joke, right? Do you use language that way? When you want to be understand? Genocide = immoderacy? Your audience is supposed to understand that?
I’m an atheist, and while I don’t think that atheism is treated poorly here, I do think that it’s a bit of a double-standard that christianity is treated any differently than scientology here.
Debates about scientology usually involve a large measure of calling beliefs of scientologists stupid and delusional, and that’s considered to be pretty much all that’s necessary. Debates against christians here are not accepted if the main component of the argument is that it’s delusional and/or stupid to believe in what’s in the bible.
Why the difference? I think that in huge portions of the US and some other parts of the world, the christian monotheistic god is taken as a fact, and that has leaked over here, when really there’s no more reason to take christianity or judiasm or islam any more seriously than scientology.
Amen
I think it’s mostly because there’s so many different versions and varieties and denominations of Christianity-it’s a pretty broad umbrella. Whereas Scientology is one very specific little group.
I see a reason to take them more seriously, just as you’d take a threat from someone in your home more seriously than a threat from someone on the internet.