But not Zoroastrianism! :mad:
My old car got totaled by a Mazda…
Does that answer the question?
*provided that they are continuously fed with large quantities of their favourite foods, such as bratwurst, anchovies, and live kittens. *
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Unicorn
So see, that would be thread shitting when an answer is readily available. Posting that answer doesn’t mean you believe in unicorns. Maybe the OP does. Why shit on his parade?
I don’t think we should put anyone in that sort of a conversational Strait.
In fairness, he has stayed out of the Divinity: Original Sin thread in the Game Room.
The Great Debate thread discussed here, the one started by an atheist that invited atheists to chime in, just got this mod note:
Seems clear enough-don’t question the premise, even though this is Great Debates.
Back when Der was around, I perceived that he would hijack Christian threads all the time. But in the pit he pointed out that I was thinking of another guy. Using the search facility, I looked at a sample of threads with the word “Christian” in the title. Or something like that.
To my surprise, I found that inappropriate atheist hijacking of threads was fairly rare and focused on a poster that was banned at the time. Not Der. I posted my study. Now I’ve tried twice to locate that old pit thread, without success. But with respect you have claimed that the problem is a general one. If you want to make a new rule, ISTM that you need to substantiate that claim. Because I’m guessing that your perceptions are as faulty as mine were. (No harm, no foul: my misconceptions were entirely sincere.[sup]1[/sup] )
I agree that the rise of the New Atheism has led to a greater number of brickbats cast at Christians, a development I don’t especially like. But that’s a separate matter, and frankly a societal one.
If anyone (eg Czarcasm) can provide hints on finding that old pit thread, post them here.
[sup]1[/sup]Or so I claim. BWHAHAHA
Der Trihs said a lot of shit that might have hijacked Christian threads except that most folks ignored him because it was so par for his course. This was in fact cited by a mod, at one point, as a reason why he hadn’t been banned yet.
You also may want to try searching elsewhere than the pit - he never (rarely?) engaged in Pit threads that I recall.
What is your answer to this Peter because it does sound like you are trying to create special classes of untouchable subjects.
A lot of 9/11 conspiracy theories - while monstrously implausible - are at least broadly within the realm of the possible. The supernatural elements of Christianity are by way of contrast obviously complete nonsense.
What is your point?
A poster challenged one (or more) of your posts with
I responded to that post.
There have been several occasions when posters have attempted to derail threads with the cry that the premise was “not true.” Depending on their approach, they have been Mod noted (or even Warned) for threadshitting or they have been gently re-directed to understand that the discussion depends on an acceptance of the OP. A thread discussing beliefs regarding heaven gains nothing by a cry “There is no heaven.” The OP opened with
Pointing to a group of believers who believe there is no heaven contributes to the list of beliefs regarding heaven. Challenging a poster to “prove” that heaven is real, (which I am not accusing you of doing), does not contribute to the discussion.
The situation probably wouldn’t occur. Any scientologists on the Dope would probably get themselves banned quickly. There wouldn’t ever be a bnunch of them at once to debate anything.
But if it did, if there ever was a debate on a fine point of interpretation of dianetics, then I say leave them to it. Coming into the thread to attack L. Ron woul;d be threadshitting, and should be moderated.
What a ridiculous statement.
Oh, yes. Obviously. No doubt about it.
What a shame that Boyle, Copernicus,Darwin, Faraday, Galileo, Kelvin, Kepler, Mendel and Newton couldn’t see the obvious. But then none of them were as smart as Princhester, right?
Darwin started out a Christian fundamentalist, and he actually set out looking forward to proving Genesis and gathering evidence for it, but became an agnostic through his studies, so why is he among the other men on that list? Also, what religious beliefs do you think these great men of science would hold today if they had been born in our day? Judging from what other leading scientist believe today, the odds would be dramatically against them being religious.
They were (a) brainwashed in supernatural dreck from birth (b) likely to be completely disavowed by society if they expressed non-religious views.
I’m not smarter but I’ve been raised in a more intellectually free environment.
In any event, the key point is that we at least have evidence that terrorists and explosives and so on exist. All powerful sky pixies that care deeply if I masturbate? Not so much.
So the fact that dianetics is shit made up by a known fraud and barefaced liar would be an impermissible point to bring up in that discussion?
That is not an SDMB I want anything to do with.
It depends on the direction of the OP. A thread discussing Scientology might well include discussions of Hubbard and fraud. If the discussion was in regard to the “finer points” of Scientology’s “theology,” then the fraud angle would probably be off limits. (I doubt that you have much to worry about; since most of it is supposed to be secret, anyway, it is unlikely that there will be any discussions of it on the SDMB.) The analogous discussion would be in regard to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. A few years back, we had a Mormon offer to answer questions about her beliefs and practices. I did, indeed, order attacks on the OP and Joseph Smith to stop. We had a simultaneous thread where all the Smith bashing that one could hope for was going on. In a thread devoted to understanding what they actually believed and preached, attacks on Smith had no place. One cannot learn of another’s beliefs if one simply shouts the person down.
Depends on the finer points but the fact that a particular piece of theology was arguably designed by a religious fraud to ensure his followers stayed loyal and kept giving him money would potentially be relevant to how one interprets what he said.
-
Der actually did post the occasional joke in the pit. What he never did was respond to personal attacks in the pit. What he once did was to respond to a thread expressing concern in the pit: he judged that was different.
-
I don’t think you can find an example of Der hijacking a Christian theology thread. What annoyed people was his lack of civility even though Der typically attacked posts and not posters and would obey within thread moderator instructions. Most problem posters can’t do that, which is why special rules had to be implemented in order to give him sufficient warnings for a de facto ban.
-
It is true that Der’s inanity was ignorable and was so referenced by one mod. After a few years it got more than a little old though.
I repeat my hypothesis: generally speaking** there is no general problem** here with atheists posting non-topical stuff in threads devoted to Christian theology. So there is no need for an adjustment to rules as mods are very aware of the issues with hijacks and threaddissing. Counterexamples are welcome: the thread in the OP does not qualify as it contained a specific invitation for atheist commentary. Mod notes of course might occur.
Full disclosure: I have not studied the thread referenced in the OP and am relying on the undisputed claims made on the previous page.
Finally: I’m not even clear on what best practices are with respect to atheist commentary on the thread in question, other than to obey moderator instructions. “Tell me what heaven is; atheists are welcome”, seems pretty broad to me.
If you were able to sanction atheists from participating in threads about religion, you’d cut down on threadshitting, yes. But you’d also lose some intelligent commentary and perspective. Many nonbelievers have looked and thought deeply about their religions, in the course of losing their faiths. Or are interested in the phenomenon, or the history, of a faith. Not all of them are hostile, either - look at the thread you cited as inspiring your OP, where Trinopus, who’s an atheist, posted several intelligent comments about Thomas Aquinas. Can you honestly say he didn’t add to the conversation?
Or, perhaps, if people want a discussion that is not going to disagree with the christian narrative, they could post the thread in some other section besides great debate.