Yeah, except that science isn’t the only thing knowable or worth knowing. (I know you didn’t mean to imply that, given the rest of your post, but I just wanted to emphasize the fact.)
Agnostic. No.
That is why we write fiction.
Raised/educated RC, currently off of active participation in organized religion. Parted in cordial terms, however 
As mentioned in other threads, I do not believe there is institutional oppression of the hard-atheist POV in the Dope. There is, as has been acknowledged by others and myself, a certain preponderant set of social-cultural mores and sensibilities – there being no such thing as tabula rasa – that tend to convey an expectation of respect and sentitivity towards moderates and mainstreamers on both the religious and atheist side. Far-fringe religions or spiritualities, including fundamentalist Christianity, receive fewer courtesies. But again, it’s not policy, it’s the culture of the population of the Board.
Oh, that I can agree with – badchad has his shit together and then some. And in one of this current festival o’ threads he said something either yesterday or earlier today that was very spot on and has got me to thinking quite a bit (I just gotta find the appropriate thread to follow up…). Which is why I wonder what opportunities for good thought-provocation are lost because people get sick of the style before the point finally gets through. Even if style/form is not substance, it DOES create impressions *about[/i[ the substance. I guess I just cannot understand the whole notion of having a good, strong point and a rock solid argument in my hand, and then presenting it in a manner that I should know is going to alienate people; I suppose it just does not fit my personality to do that even when I know I’m right.
It’s called a joke, son.
True, it is. It’s also why we write books about logic, world history, and important people. It’s why we write and listen to music. Why we create and enjoy art. Why we try to get along with others who share our world. I’ll reiterate that science isn’t the only thing knowable or worth knowing. And based on what you said, I’ll add that the notion that there is science and that everything else is fiction is a misconception.
Lapsed RC, former agnostic atheist, nonreligious (possibly irreligious) Christian. No and no.
Because my change in belief came during my participation on the Dope, and due to the fact that I used to be a frequent GDenizen, I’ve found myself on both sides of belief/antibelief discussions. I have not discerned any difference in moderation which involved me or those arguing along similar lines. Nor have I noticed any differences in the finer theological arguments or in the dissections of religious myth which sometimes masquerade as more “profound” examinations.
This is interesting. Can you find that “something” and link to it? It goes against my experience with badchad, and may help me discover why a few posters whose substance and style usually impress me are supportive of him. IME, his arguments consist of rude examination of others’ beliefs without followup discussion of the replies other than to characterize the replies as inadequate without demonstration that this is so. -And if bc’s questioning were purely Socratic in nature, it would be defensible, but it is not. There is no following a path of examination in pursuit of understanding; his entire body of work at the Straight Dope has been to oppose belief and mock faith (almost exclusively Christian belief and faith unless I’ve missed something). Worst of all, his opposition is little more developed than an internet list of biblical quotations presented to point out scriptural inconsistencies, as if that exercise reveals anything about the theology itself -or says anything about nondogmatic faith. It is exactly as damaging to Christianity as a religion as a critical dissection of the inconsistencies between Ulysses and Huckleberry Finn would be to English Literature as a study.
I’d agree with that; but I’d also say that “God” as most theists define it is also unknowable. And the “you can’t argue logically about matters of faith” argument can be (and is, in some cases) taken to ludicrous extremes - the fact that someone believes strongly in something in no way makes that belief valid in any objective sense. This has been done to death, and I’m sure nobody wants another debate on it here.
As to the OP:
Atheist; no across the board.
Atheist, and not really.
There does however, seem to me to be a sort of “enforced respect” toward the Big religions. I find them all to be bullshit, and I don’t see why Christianity should get any more respect than Scientology. More than a few Cafe Society threads have turned into Scientology-bashing threads, but I don’t recall seeing any mod action. A CS thread morphing into a Christian-bashing through certainly wouldn’t have stayed there, and I believe would likely have been closed.
I do, however, find it hilariously hypocritical how the various Mythologists out there are so accepting of the other Mythologists…as long as they fit into one of the First Tier Myths.
First Tier, of course, are based strictly on membership as near as I can tell. Certainly their myths are no more probable than those on the Last Tier - such as the Scientologists.
-Joe
What myth(s) are you talking about? The Great Flood might be a myth. Even changing water to wine might be a myth. But my experiences with God? I’m not a myth. And if you insist that I’m delusional, then maybe you’re a part of that delusion as well. How about just let’s both acknowledge this: you’ve experienced some things I never have, and I’ve experienced some things you never have. Yours aren’t myths just because they aren’t mine, and vice versa.
I came in here to say basically what catsix, uglybeech, and Merijeek said. In short, it’s not so much that atheists are biased against, than that the big three, and especially Christianity, is biased for. I think it’s that there are more Christians here than anything else, and most Christians are raised to not take kindly to questions or disagreements about their religion.
Is there less of a Christian bias here than just about anywhere else? Yes, absolutely. Are atheists welcome here? Yes, absolutely. Is there, in general, an unofficial Christian bias among the members here? Yes, absolutely.
It’s more complicated than 1 or 2 yes or no questions.
And FWIW, I’ve been to enough other boards to know that the mods here deserve my respect.
Both are definately myths, or in the case of the latter, possibly a fraud ( a magician’s trick ).
No, but your experiences are; you can’t have experiences with a fictional being; and again, there simply isn’t any evidence that God is anything more. Or you could just be lying; religious people seldom seem to have problems lying if it supports their favored myth.
Except that claiming something known to be possible, or is known to exist, or both is not the same as claiming something that is neither known to be existent or possible - like God.Without objective evidence, making a claim that you’ve “experienced God” deserves nothing more than a dismissal and a sneer.
Oh fuck off you little trolling drama queen. Opinions were asked for and given.
Seems that lately threadjacking is now a big offense. Why don’t you just give up your account to save the mods the trouble of banning you?
-Joe
I have a problem with this. Life experience, as you point out, can be a delusion. The best thing to do would be to take all the evidence we have - scientific tests, anecdotal data, and our life experiences - subject it all to logical analysis and see where we come out. So let’s just both acknowledge this; I base my nonbelief on many types of evidence, plus my own life experience. You base yours on your life experience, whatever other evidence you accept, and faith. Why faith? Because the evidence isn’t enough, otherwise. So please don’t try to draw equivalency, as you seem to be doing here.
And this is exactly what I was talking about. The existence of the Big Three’s god is taken for granted in such a way that no other god around here is.
Nobody here who came in and said that the existence of Xenu is not a myth, or the existence of Zeus is not a myth, would ever be taken seriously at all. They’d be told that these are myths and sent on their way. We’ve gotten past the point of even asking for proof, because we know there is none and that these things don’t exist.
But the Big Three god gets a total pass. It’s a myth more widely believed at this time than Xenu or Zeus, but a myth none the less.
Again, true and well said.
Over in Cafe, I only chime in about a few current shows normally. One is “My Name is Earl”. The stars happen to be Scientologists. They appear to be perfectly rational people who do not mention their religion or include it in the show or suggest others should join them. In over half the threads about “My Name is Earl”, someone brings up the point that they are Scientologists like it is an important fact. Usually questioning their intelligence or motives as everyone must know that “all Scientologist are either crazy or out to brainwash people into their cult”. If they keep their religion out of their acting and writing, who cares what faith they follow.
It seems no different if someone went into a thread about a show to complain that several of he lead actors were Jewish. If anyone did do that, they would be smacked down and pitted for being the fools they are.
So yes, some religions, especially Christian religions, appears to be more equal than others. I still think the board is extremely tolerant and the mods are exceptionally even handed. They might even bend over backwards the other way to give posters with hard-line views more leeway, than other offensive posters. I think this is for the good.
Jim
You’re misinterpreting what I said. I wasn’t complaining because it wasn’t okay to call people names, I was complaining because Christian-style lardbrained malarkey gets a pass that other varieties do not. Frex, this whole Holy Ghost thing is considered somehow less of an obvious crock than Xebu or the 72 virigins or the giant turtle that the universe rests on. It’s all obvious bullshit, the Christian stuff no less than any other, but the Christian bullshit doesn’t get the short shrift it deserves, although Muslim and Scientology and others do.
I don’t think the Mods have anything to do with this state of affairs, but it IS the state of affairs.
Well, you’ve already been questioned about the fuller quote but I have to focus in on this. Your experience with God is entirely in your head. God doesn’t interact with my brain nor perceivably with the physical world. Your experiences with God are akin to my experiences with floating across rooms and walking through walls - in other words, experiences from my dreaming/meditative state. I don’t deny your experiences, merely announce the fact that they are proof of nothing beyond the power of your imagination.
I just don’t see that. Lots of us poke fun at Christianity’s theological metaphysics here on the board. I admit I’ve slacked off over the years — just a feeling that it’s been said already, I guess — but I can recall penning a sendup or two of God the Almighty being required to sacrifice his Only Begotten Son (who is Himself, incidentally) before He will be allowed to forgive us for our sins… who writes this stuff?!@? 
I’ve never been made to feel that doing so was off-limits. The thoughtful Christians with minds of their own don’t get their hackles up about it (some of them even do their own sendups… not all Christians devour the babytalk pablum version of their faith’s theologies). I’ve never been subjected to a pile-on nor gotten a wrist-slap from a moderator for doing it.
In this environment I’m more likely to take on the atheists. It’s more fun.
Hmm, considering the seeming unanimity, I propose a concurrent and more open ended poll: How many of you feel that there is ANY undue bias on ANY issue in the moderation of the boards.
(any who have already answered, perhaps append)
To begin and to be obvious, the mods are ridiculous on intellectual property stuff sometimes.