Omigod, would you cretins realize when you’re being made fun of? I can’t agree with badchad without someone reiterating the whole “get a room” meme anymore, so since I did agree completely with that modest post of his, I went way over the top in an attempt to amuse you. Instead I seem to have filled you with self-righteous gloating at last confirming your pointless point about how he and I agree on a lot of stuff.
But if they think badchad is Evil and you always agree with him then that proves that you are Evil too. It all makes perfect logical sense. He does not need to add anything else. He wins the internets.
Jim
Theist (roll yer own variety, not christian). No, and No.
I don’t see it that way. There’s a lot of leeway to say “The following assertions are unmitigated bullshit”; there is less leeway to say “If you believe that, you’re a fucking moron”. Christians have no more license than anyone else to make ad hominem attacks on people whose beliefs don’t jibe with their own, and folks who are in vehement disagreement with Christians have no less license to take the intellectual scalpel to Christian beliefs than SDMB members have in general for taking on any set of assertions or beliefs.
Moderator action (as opposed to people inputting their takes on things, some of which people may be moderators) seldom pertains to the content of what is being asserted. I do see exceptions, some of which is well-explained and some less so, but I really don’t see moderators shutting down intellectual deconstructions & dismemberments of Christian belief systems, nor a granting of license to Christian posters to be vituperative in a way that the rest of us are not allowed to be.
Get a room, you two.
I was responding to the post directly above mine. The hijack was his not mine. What can I tell you, it happens.
Atheist son of atheist parents and only nominally religious grandparents. Nope, no directed bias against atheism.
But I will agree with RJKUgly on this…
- Tamerlane
No one should make any demand for a falsifiable claim about faith. To do so, a person would have to be either ignorant about both science and faith, or else just a troll. It’s no different from a person demanding that science be tested by prayer.
Aye, but there’s the proverbial rub. It seems to me that there are people on this board who are radical empiricists who believe that everything that exists (or for which to speak of existence has any meaning) does by definition exhibit qualities that lend themselves to falsifiable claims that demonstrate their existence. Furthermore, they do not regard that as being subject to debate. Rather, like rationality, it is simply assumed to be a starting point.
What’s a “falsifiable claim”? Is that like a “claim”? If not, what’s different?
To be perfectly fair, Christianity’s been around longer. And one were to compile lists of negatives…
I would’ve bought it as a joke if it didn’t seem that you’d had your lips attached to his ass by a plastic surgeon months ago.
Falsifiable claim: All horses have hooves. How: Find me one horse with no hooves.
Claim difficult to falsify: No horses have antlers. How: Investigate every single horse in existence and verify lack of antlers.
Claim difficult to falsify: The Allosaurus had red skin. How: develop whatever technologies are necessary to allow you to determine skin pigment from fossil specimen records and/or other conceivable artifacts of the period;
Claim not subject to falsification: Honest people are more dignified than deceitful people.
Claim not subject to falsification: The sight of the midwinter sky from a remote mountaintop is more beautiful than the 2nd movement of Beethoven’s 7th symphony.
Claim not subject to verification: The course of evolution is a manifestation of the will of God.
Does that clarify the distinction?
I am one of those people. Not to be a narrowminded asshole (really), but I truly don’t understand the opposing view. This isn’t exactly the thread to discuss it, but I would appreciate it if you would start a Great Debates thread outlining your view.
Get better material because the only one you amused is yourself.
I think that would be a good idea, and would well serve both the atheists and those who have squared off with them in those acrimonious debates to do this meta-debate first 
Apparently, I’m one of those comedians with a small cult following.
Agnostic, no, no, and no.
I think it would take some very selective reading to believe that Anglican/Catholic/Protestant Christians are given a pass any more than any other group. What I do notice is a willingness to jump an argument from anyone of any faith when that argument is not presented in a reasonable, well thought out manner. The vast majority of the Christians here are well educated and intelligent. They present their arguments in such a way that encourages open and frank discussion, and they’re respectful of other posters’ arguments (for the most part.) They are responded to in kind, even when other posters disagree with them strongly. That isn’t bias. To my knowledge, that’s the way it’s supposed to work in Great Debates. (I don’t hang out there often, please feel free to correct me.)
Frothing fundie doofuses who show up posting end times bullshit are routinely pointed and laughed at after the thread is inevitably moved here. As are Chick Tracts, the Westboro Baptists, the Pope (at least three pit threads in the past few months that I can recall), Christians who believe that Jesus showed up in pizza/toast/shower grout etc., Christians who are heads of PAC churches that try to get gay marriage outlawed and get found out to be having gay sex with a coke spoon up their nose…the list goes on and on.
If Christians can be perceived to get more of a pass on this board than Scientology, perhaps it’s because there are so many fun and enjoyable examples in the media of Scientologists exhibiting bizarre behaviour. If they just shut up and practiced their religion and didn’t flip out and sue every time someone made fun of them, it’d probably be fine.
I would also suggest that perhaps it isn’t the views expressed by badchad that is causing the perceived bias, but the fact that he feels it necessary to be such a dick while doing so. Just my two cents.
I am an agnatheist, or agnostic/ soft atheist if you will.
I actually like and greatly admire all of the moderators, INCLUDING TOMNDEB (I will give him a second to pick himself up off the floor after reading those words). I think they are all doing a good job.
My suspicion is that Tomndeb is a liberal Roman Catholic. I stand to be corrected, but as a former Catholic, I can smell them at a hundred paces.
I think he sees the RC Church as more liberal and less reactionary than it is through wishful thinking. For example, many of his posts seem to imply that it is possible for a practising homosexual (practising be damned, I’ve had it down pat for decades 
) to belong to that church without any contradiction. To justify his view, he clings to the Catholic doctrine about supremacy of the conscience. Of course, he completely ignores the corollary fact that the Catholic Church tells its faithful to be guided by its teaching. And its teaching on gays is very non-equivocal.
As a liberal, Tom wishes the Church were more accepting and so he sees it a so.
Similarly, I think he subscribes to the “benefit of clergy” tradition. If you post irrational beliefs that fly in the face of scince and reason, people in the SD boad will quite rightly jump on you. After all, if we are fighting ignorance, surey there is no greater ignorance than believing things on faith in direct contradiction of facts.
But label that ignorance as “my faith” in the religious sense and presto, you get some form of modern “benefit of clergy”.
And why does anyone need protection by moderators anyhow?
When you get right down to it, the postings on this board are nothing but words on a screen. Go ahead and call me a butt-fucking, shit-covered, pansy-ass faggot who is afraid to have normal sex with a woman and wants to make decent people bow down to his mental illness and perversion in the name of phoney civil rights, and ho is going to burn in hell. I will just laugh and go to another board or another site.
Moderating is often nothing more than just censorship and tin-out dictatorship.
:smack: Ton-pot dictatorship.
Agnostic / Soft Atheist.
Help, help, I’m being oppressed!
Come and see the violence inherent to the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
[ahem]
I mean “No, and no.”
Also count me in the group of non-believers who gets annoyed at the non-believers who take the offensive over every tiny little niggling display of faith. I find these folks every bit as obnoxious as the occasional “you’re all going to hell for believing in evolution” trolls that wander through.