What, rotting in a grave somewhere? I thought there were rules against wishing for that sort of thing.
Tell her to not stand so close to the fire. 
There is, without a doubt, a bias against hard atheists here at this board, and considering the purpose of the board, it is hypocritical. It is simultaneously frustrating and funny to watch people jam their fingers in their ears and try to handwave this.
The fact that there is less of a bias here than in most of the rest of the world does not mean that there is not a bias here.
You know, there is this thing out there called e-mail, and it lets you contact people through the internet-even other members of the Straight Dope! Imagine THAT!
:rolleyes:
There’s a bias against hard anythings here at this board. Dopers just don’t like people who are too sure of themselves.
The bias here, in my atheistic experience, is toward one of “live and let live.” So, if you run around attacking others, you will feel persecuted. The fundie whackjobs of all stripes get the same treatment. The moderates generally don’t feel it.
And since I don’t care what someone else believes, I just want the freedom to believe what I believe, I think a live and let live approach is perfect.
:rolleyes: And hippos hate water. Keep handwaving.
Let me get this straight-you have a problem with Christians believing in things they can’t prove, and yet you expect us to take YOUR word for something you’re completely unwilling to prove?
Sweet zombie Jesus, you’re a tool.
This is a pretty fair, very succinct summation of my position on this matter, expressed firmly and mildly.
As to Guin’s characterization of my toolishness: Yeah, pretty much. The only important distinction I would draw between my laziness and that of Xian posters is that it’s not really important that you take my word for anything. I’m simply stating how I feel, admitting that I’m too lazy (or too busy) to support my contention with hard evidence just now, and that it doesn’t really matter whether you believe me or not, I’m just expressing a very subjective perception that may or may not be true. I may very well have misjudged Tom’s motivations, biases, intellectual honesty, or any one of number of other qualities, for example. I don’t think I have, but it’s entirely possible and I apologize in advance if I should ever be proven to have spoken against him with inappropriate zeal or malice.
You will wait a long, long time before reading such a disclaimer from a Xian p.o.v. What they assure you of, based on their own subjective feelings, is totally TRUE and if you can’t agree with that, they have nothing but piteous contempt for you. Ask one of them sometime if Jesus could be a crock of shit, and LMK what kind of allowances you’ll get for that thesis, and what sort of evidence they offer to support their certainty that your thesis isn’t only offensive but demonstrably untrue.
To end my hijack, I found a well-cited article from 1976 that, while on an anti-Mormon site, does appear accurate in the citations, if not the conclusions drawn.
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no38.htm
Sorry about that, but I didn’t think the CIA’s recruitment policies were all that unknown.
Do you roll your eyes at me sir?
I roll my eyes, sir.
Run! If it happens again, he may roll them vigorously! :eek:
Part, fools! Put up your swords; you know not what you do.
Nonsense, just the opposite.
**badchad *has acted the troll. That doesn’t mean that his trollery has risen to the point where he must be banned for it. Many dudes here write an OP that borders on trolling. badchad just does it more often. badchads real “jerk” behavvior is his stalking of Polycarp. Now it seems that Tomndebb is the new target.
- Although I wouldn’t cry any at his leaving, either.
Nonsense? Just the opposite? Yeah, that settles that.
Thing is, belief in God is no different than any other superstitious beliefs but God and Angels get a way fairer shake than belief in Alien abductions or ghosts. It’s generally explained away here as “Well, so many Christians exist, so it deserves more respect”.
We disagree on the meaning of “troll,” then.
To you, as to Tom, it’s close to meaningless: it’s basically “someone who really pisses me off.”
But to me, and the rest of the board when they’ve got their heads screwed on just right, it’s very specific. It means “Someone whose purpose here is to provoke, with insincere but outrageous OPs or responses, who typically attempts only rarely to engage in genuine discussion, and to whom resolving issues is an undesirable end.” Or something to that effect. That’s what it means, pretty much, and that seems to be the definition that gets people banned for being trolls.
Trolls aren’t one-trick ponies, for example, though they can be. One-trick ponies, though disparaged, are sometimes well-liked posters. Trolls are not sock puppets, though an overlap is possible. Trolls aren’t even jerks, though they can be. “Jerkishness” is a description of one’s behavior, and behavior can always be amended. “Trollishness” describes one’s purpose: once one is IDed as a troll, there’s really no justification for NOT banning him or her.
The scale of possible trollishness goes like this:
possible troll but still a poster in good standing
moron and possible troll but still a poster in good standing
vile moron and possible troll but still a poster in good standing
despicable vile moron and possible troll but still a poster in good standing
very despicable vile moron and possible troll but still a poster in good standing
very, very despicable vile moron and possible troll but still a poster in good standing
etc. all the way up to
“troll”
Once you reach “troll,” there’s no justification for keeping you around. You’re simply a detriment to a decent, civil board, and who wants you?
This chart is of course IMO; if actual Board policy differs from it, I’d appreciate official clarification. But I think it’s a practical descriptor of the meaning of the term of art “Troll” in theory and in practice.
It’s kind of like the term “rapist.” You’re only a suspect, an accused rapist, a perpetrator, a person of interest, a defendant, etc. until the moment you get convicted of rape. Then, and only then, may the term be applied to you, and you are then unwelcome in many of the finer homes in society.
Actually, it’s more like, “I may not believe in that, but a lot of people I know and love do, and I don’t like you calling them morons.” I don’t know any Scientologists, so when someone calls Scientologists a pack of lunatics, I don’t have any direct evidence to the contrary. When someone calls all Catholics lunatics, they’re talking about my mom. I’m not likely to let that sort of comment pass unchallenged.
Well Miller, if it’s like that for you then fine (It is a little hypocritical though, like Cisco said) but I have seen it explained pretty much as I described. I’m not related to any Catholics so I guess that’s why I don’t distinguish much between them and Scientologists. Bunch of superstitious people in love with their religious hierarchy.
Thank you, Miller, for providing of your own free will an explanation of why Xians get cut more slack on the SD than holders of other belief systems. It’s because even atheists feel protective of this particular species of ignorant thought. Thank you very much.
Honest, folks, I didn’t put him up to it or pay him or nothing.