First I’ll say that I wouldn’t post again in the topic even if the topic ban were recended because the OP has made it clear that I am not welcome. But I dispute that what I said rises to the level of a threadshit.
The thread title is “The Atheist 10 Commandments” and the op asks “What would be your atheist 10 commandments that would give a framework for morality that could apply universally?”, which, to me, is asking about a set of commandments that could be universal for atheists. My reply was simply questioning the premise: that “atheists” represent a group. But atheists do not: you have far left-wing atheists, far right-wing atheists, and everything in between. An atheist from a predominantly Islamic region is going to think differently than an atheist from a predominantly Christian region, or Hindu, or Buddhist. Atheism is not an organization and is not a movement.
Since when does a simple questioning of the validity of a premise rise to “threadshitting”? Threadshitting is saying “TV sucks” in a thread asking your favorite TV shows, it isn’t pointing out that oranges are round in a thread asking why all oranges are perfect cubes.
(And a rude note added while I was composing this very post? Yes, ecg, I’ve been here long enough to know not to dispute moderation in the thread, thank-you-very-much.)
Less a complaint than a request for clarification. I can honestly say that it never occurred to me that the questioning of the premise would be considered “threadshitting” and was any different than the type of discussion points that go on in threads here every day.
If that was a threadshit, I would think the second post in the thread is also a threadshit:
FWIW I don’t think either was really a threadshit. From my perspective the OP topic needs elaboration. What’s an atheist bible? An atheist communion? Atheist crucifix? I wouldn’t criticize someone for asking that, but it seems fair game to ask how someone’s supposed to answer something that doesn’t logically scan.
I think it was borderline, based on the Title of the OP I would agree with you, but based on the content of the OP, your post served no real purpose in that thread and was a minor thread shit. I do think it would often not draw a flag.
In fact calling out your post as a threadshit got the OP a minor modnote also. I think I did that yesterday.
I’m glad I didn’t post in that thread. Had I, it would have been to point out that atheists have nothing in common other than lacking a belief in god(s). I don’t collect stamps, nor do the majority of people. We nonstampcollectors have zero things in common other than our lack of stamp collecting.
I agree that the op shouldn’t have questioned moderation, but the initial charge of threadshitting was wrong IMO.
I’m a theist, but I have no difficulty in understanding the premise of the thread. The Ten Commandments are a standard for moral behavior, that’s based on religious belief. What would be a good standard for moral behavior that’s not based on religious belief? The question seems straightforward, to me.
Based on just the thread title, yeah, the post was reasonable. But based on the full OP, the question was “if you don’t have a religion to impose morality, what morals do you think everyone should aspire to?” And that’s a reasonable question, like, “if you never buy stamps, how do you send out holiday greetings?” The lack of belief in God and the question about moral guidance are directly related. And I say this as an atheist who gets pissy when people treat atheism as if it were just another religion, and not a random collection of people who don’t believe in God.
I never said you are not welcome, only that your particular post was dismissive of the spirit of the thread, rather than contributing to it. The point was to ask people to posit moral standards that do not derive from a deity, which you feel would benefit humanity if everyone followed them. It is asking for individual opinions of this. It is asking for “your atheist 10 commandments,” not asking, “What moral code would all atheists agree on?”
Your post, OTOH, says that it doesn’t even make sense to ask the question. As evidenced by the many thoughtful answers posted in the thread, apparently some people do think this question makes sense.
I would readily accept someone who wanted to discuss the premise, but the post is summarily dismissive of the premise.