Calling All Atheists and Interested Parties

[Syntropy]

Tin pot?

[Valteron]

@Valteron

:smack: Ton-pot dictatorship.

:smack: Tin-pot dictatorship. I’m not dyslexic, I swear to Dog I’m not.

[the_PC_apeman]

@AHunter3

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.

FTR, I assume rationality to be the starting point only for rational debates. YMMV

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Maureen

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.

People seem to be confusing the two issues

1. if Xians are given a pass by the SD on their belief systems denied to other belief systems

and

2. whether that bias, if it exists, bothers them very much.

The consensus seems to be

1. Yeah, I suppose, slightly.

and

2. Not really.

The OP seemed to me to be just about item #1. If you want to minimize the importance of item #1, go right ahead. But don’t pretend item #1 isn’t true, please, when it’s agreed that it is true but just not very important to you.

As to your two cents, I agree with this as well. Badchad has an irritating and abrasive style of interacting with people. Style, however, is not substance, and his substance is considerable. When people find his impressive energy and intellect too much to deal with in debate, the discussion then turns to how big an asshole he is. This is not so interesting a subject to me, and might be considered to be a systematic hijack by a fair-minded Mod, which is in short supply on GD these days.

[Syntropy]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

People seem to be confusing the two issues

1. if Xians are given a pass by the SD on their belief systems denied to other belief systems

and

2. whether that bias, if it exists, bothers them very much.

The consensus seems to be

1. Yeah, I suppose, slightly.

and

2. Not really.

The OP seemed to me to be just about item #1. If you want to minimize the importance of item #1, go right ahead. But don’t pretend item #1 isn’t true, please, when it’s agreed that it is true but just not very important to you.

The part of my post that you edited out addresses just that very thing. Examples and everything. That there are specific posters who are Christian and yet have not been thrown to the lions of the Pit speaks more to their overall character than to any bias toward Christianity. IIRC, there have been a few posters who were pitted for their overzealous preaching in GD.

As to your two cents, I agree with this as well. Badchad has an irritating and abrasive style of interacting with people. Style, however, is not substance, and his substance is considerable. When people find his impressive energy and intellect too much to deal with in debate, the discussion then turns to how big an asshole he is. This is not so interesting a subject to me, and might be considered to be a systematic hijack by a fair-minded Mod, which is in short supply on GD these days.

Substance is wonderful, if it can be added with a certain tone in GD. Personally, I fnd the tone required restricting, especially when I can’t tell the person who refuses to directly answer a simple question to either put up or fuck off, so I argue here. It just fits my posting style better. Well. That and the dedication to the dissection of minutiae in GD borders on mind numbingly pedantic. Likewise, badchad might find his arguments are less restricted here and receive more support. It’s all a matter of appropriate actions for appropriate fora.

[Yookeroo]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

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.

If you post something that you think is over the top, yet no one reads it that way, that may say more about you than the “cretins” reading your posts.

Now I know how moderate/progressive Christians feel when someone like Pat Robertson opens his mouth.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Agnostic/weak atheist.

No and no.

I’ve been involved in a lot of EOG related debates and never felt constrained about expressing my opinions – certainly not by the mods.

Oddly enough, I think I’ve gotten more angry responses for dismissing the existence of ghosts and psychics than for God.

[wolf_in_second_hand_clothing]

Atheist. I do think that there have been more than a few times where statements about Christianity are given the privilege of not being held to the scrutiny that is the standard of this board.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Yookeroo

If you post something that you think is over the top, yet no one reads it that way, that may say more about you than the “cretins” reading your posts.

Now I know how moderate/progressive Christians feel when someone like Pat Robertson opens his mouth.

Just curious: is there any degree of repetitious iteration of “I agree with badchad here” that might have indicated to you that I was making fun of what you believe is my slavish devotion to him? If I’d posted, say, for three pages, just solid “Yup, he’s so smart, his post has hit the nail on the head, RIGHT-ON, BADCHAD” etc. would that have given you a hint I was joking? Six pages? A day and a half’s worth of typing?

Or would you have simply never gotten the point I was making, because you had your head so squarely up your humor-free ass? If your answer is “No, you pretty much could have gone on all day, and I would have assumed you were serious and sycophantic,” that may say something about you rather than me.

If you look at that post, and conclude my problem is that I was being too subtle, you need immediate work on your tonal skills.

[CarnalK]

Atheist here and I wouldn’t say there’s a moderation bias.

Like I said in the " So why was Ammonius Saccus banned?" thread, I do think that Christian or “real” religion gets more of a pass around here (from Dopers in general, not mods). If someone expressed “Faith” in the existence of ghosts they generally get a lot more pointed questions than someone expressing faith in some sort of “higher power”. If religionists DO happen to get the more pointed questions they are just as quick as the spirit world crowd to call persecution or stalking.

Diogenes, do you think you publicly dismiss God the same way you dismiss ghosts and psychics?

[Yookeroo]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

Just curious: is there any degree of repetitious iteration of “I agree with badchad here” that might have indicated to you that I was making fun of what you believe is my slavish devotion to him? If I’d posted, say, for three pages, just solid “Yup, he’s so smart, his post has hit the nail on the head, RIGHT-ON, BADCHAD” etc. would that have given you a hint I was joking? Six pages? A day and a half’s worth of typing?

Or would you have simply never gotten the point I was making, because you had your head so squarely up your humor-free ass? If your answer is “No, you pretty much could have gone on all day, and I would have assumed you were serious and sycophantic,” that may say something about you rather than me.

If you look at that post, and conclude my problem is that I was being too subtle, you need immediate work on your tonal skills.

You could write a Robert Jordan length series of books praising badchad, and I’d think you were dead serious. Shoot, you could fill a whole library with books of badchad worship, and I’d think you were completely on the level.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Contrapuntal

Atheists: Do you feel that your views are oppressed here on the Dope? Does it seem that policy is weighted against you, and that the moderators go out of their way to chastize you, especially with regard to your interactions with Christians?

Lukewarm independant Christian here.

Atheists are at the top of the social heirarchy on the SDMB. After all, by definition they are not obviously conflicted by irrational beliefs and are free to follow the direction of scientific inquiry without prejudice. This attitude most perfectly fits with the primary objective of this board in fighting ignorance.

But they are not alone here in their desire to seek and dispense (emphaisis on dispense) the truth through logic and science like most of the rest of us.

As long as atheists can show respect for others who share the goals of the SDMB, this will be a nice community.

But when a very few atheists get radical and assert that only they have the truth, they come off just like the political fundies, and that is an attitude that does not go over well around here.

So if you are an intolerant atheist you will be made to feel uncomfortable.

[What_Exit]

@saoirse

Get a room, you two.

But just to clarify, I am only defending **PRR ** from attacks that are dishonest or illogical. I think he is wrong about Tom. I think I made that clear with my first post.

@Maureen

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 really agree with this. badchad, **Der Trihs ** & PRR would do themselves and other atheists/agnostics a favor if they tone it down.

I think the difference is, I do not think they have to tone it down until a moderator steps in and tells them to, the noise ratio of people telling them to, is as bad as what they do.

BTW: The fact that the mods, not even Tom, have forced them to tone it down is a good indication of how fair this board is to the Anti-Religious.

Jim

[AHunter3]

Priceguy, upthread a page:

Originally Posted by AHunter3
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.

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.
[/quote]

Here you go

[Zeriel]

Zen Buddhist. No, No, No.

[Hogwash]

Agnostic; maybe, maybe, maybe.

[saoirse]

Plenty of atheists have showed up. When is this “Interesting party” going to start?

[yojimbo]

Atheist, no and no.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@CarnalK

Diogenes, do you think you publicly dismiss God the same way you dismiss ghosts and psychics?

Probably not directly as much, but I have been comparably unequivoval in dismissing specific claims of miracles and many of the historical assertions of the Bible. I also tend to refer to any and all beliefs in the supernatural – including religious beliefs – as belief in “magic.”

I’ve never been anywhere near as vociferously anti-religion as a couple of others around here, though.

[Roonwit]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

I agree with this 100%. The phrasing is perfect, the punctuation is flawless, the parallel structure is beyond reproach. What a fantastic post this was! Just gorgeous, pure genius. I dont know how he does it, time after time, post after post, getting it exactly right. I’m in utter awe.

Hey, at least you’ve got a good sense of humor.

That’ll come in handy when you’re BURNING IN HELL.