The first note was on this post. It follows with others, discussing one reason some people believe in God, or whether that is real reason or not. How can we discuss this subject if the reasons provided for people believing in God cannot be dissected in the thread?
I know this general subject has come up before but these posts were on the topic. It’s a debate on the subject, not simply listing possible reasons people believe in God, those reasons must be open to examination also. I don’t see at all how these posts were a hijack or off topic at all, and I don’t understand what kind of standard is used to determine that. Nothing about these posts was deleterious to discussing the question in the debate.
It makes sense to me. It spawned a hijack that ultimately became about being snarky about Christians, rather than actually discussing why people believe in God. Your post, for example, had clearly moved toward humorous mockery, not debate.
I agree the first post isn’t too bad. It is justifying the idea that it’s possible a lot of people claim to believe God but don’t, by citing a possible way to tell. (One I, as a Christian, actually happen to agree with). But it was the post that spawned the hijack.