Why do you think anything exists;here, anywhere? (prophet, Lord, doctrine)

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by Shirina

The way things are set up now, the atheist position has been essentially hobbled and silenced.

.

The atheist position hasn’t been silenced - there are many of us. That said, it’s a public forum for all opinions - not a war between ‘sides’.

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

Folks, I'm reminding you of what the R&S "Sticky" says, including these words:

7. Bashing anyone's religion (or lack of same). This includes Universalists, Mormons, Muslims, Baptists, Lutherans, Amish (although I don't think we have any posting).

This doesn't mean we can't question or discuss facets of any religion that require suspension of disbelief.
If that were the case, we'd have no forum. However, we ask that you make such discussions as respectful as possible. People's faith, or absence of faith, is usually an integral part of their identity, so to outright call another's religion invalid is akin to a personal attack.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Shirina

<snipped>

Next thing I know, there's a big warning from one of the mods stating that "bashing religion" is against the rules. Wait, wha? Since when? I couldn't help but notice there was no warning about personally insulting posters - but insulting a religion, well, that's a big no-no. It used to be that one could attack ideas and concepts as long as we didn't insult posters. But, because believers can't separate themselves from their religion, any attack on religion is now a personal attack on the poster. Now the forum itself has officially endorsed that idea by protecting believers and their religons from any sort of open criticism.

After all, what, exactly, is the definition of "bashing" religion? Where are the boundaries? How much can I say about religion without having my post edited, deleted, or myself getting an infraction or banned? Will I try to log in one day and find myself banned for "personal attacks" because I made fun of a religion? I also love the stupid double-standard considering I was banned for days simply for calling someone dumb

<snipped>

~Shirina~

Every last poster here seems convinced that the mods are harsher on their particular point of view. We hear across the whole spectrum of posters from atheists to the most conservative of the religious who post on this forum how we are biased toward "the other". That's apparently part of being a mod on R&S, and it's usually just water off a duck's back.

But I won't have my words or meaning publicly misrepresented. What I posted above comes from mensaguy's Sticky thread post made on 8/14/2014, four years before I became a mod. This rule is not something new or unknown to long-time regular posters.

Unfortunately in Item No. 7, it says "Religion" when "Denomination" would have been a more accurate word choice. Still, the meaning is unmistakably clear from the context.

Discussing the particular features of a denomination can be done without calling the denomination a hoax, or invalid, or evil or whatever. As a mod, I've had to delete posts or parts of posts that were purely Catholic-bashing, and I can't in fairness allow it to stand when the same is directed at another denomination.

Re-read the rules in the Sticky if you are not sure of them, and if you are still not sure, ask one of us via DM.

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius

All that and I didn't get mentioned once, let's not forget that everything is about me.

[Hannibal Flavius]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

Every last poster here seems convinced that the mods are harsher on their particular point of view. We hear across the whole spectrum of posters from atheists to the most conservative of the religious who post on this forum how we are biased toward "the other". That's apparently part of being a mod on R&S, and it's usually just water off a duck's back.

But I won't have my words or meaning publicly misrepresented. What I posted above comes from mensaguy's Sticky thread post made on 8/14/2014, four years before I became a mod. This rule is not something new or unknown to long-time regular posters.

Unfortunately in Item No. 7, it says "Religion" when "Denomination" would have been a more accurate word choice. Still, the meaning is unmistakably clear from the context.

Discussing the particular features of a denomination can be done without calling the denomination a hoax, or invalid, or evil or whatever. As a mod, I've had to delete posts or parts of posts that were purely Catholic-bashing, and I can't in fairness allow it to stand when the same is directed at another denomination.

Re-read the rules in the Sticky if you are not sure of them, and if you are still not sure, ask one of us via DM.

There aren't any other forums with better mods and I have been on all the forums, been kicked off all of them because of bias mods, but not here.

No matter what any poster believes, they can say it here, and this just isn't the way of all the other forums, if you are an Atheist on another Christian forum, you gonna get the boot. If you are a Messianic Christian like myself, you gonna get the boot EVERY TIME. Aint no other place will let me speak, that is a fact.

[Katzpur]

I have waited several days for this incident to blow over. Apparently, that’s not going to happen. So, in light of the fact that Shirina has made a great number of attacks on my character, I feel compelled to present my side of the story.

Originally Posted by Shirina

If I had a nickel for every time someone used ad hominem attacks against *me* instead of refuting what I said, I could make Trump my window washer.

And even though I haven't read the rest of the post yet, I'm sure there will be even more ad hominem attacks forthcoming.

I made no ad hominem attacks against you, Shirina. I merely stated that you are uneducated about my religion's beginnings and its claims. I stand by that statement. You are entitled to your personal opinions about the legitimacy of Mormonism. If you think it's a hoax, that's your prerogative. Your other statements, however, were quite simply inaccurate, and so I called you out on that fact.

So while Katzpur attempts to sound "mature" and above it all, what she will *not* do is explain - politely - how I'm wrong and provide the right answer. Because I don't proclaim to know everything about every religion - though it is beyond doubt that I had to Google some of the names - and there they were. For instance, I couldn't remember the name of the planet that Jesus and Friends were supposed to go, and there it was - Kolob.

So - if what I say is so untrue, then why did it turn up in a Google search front and center? And no, it did not turn up in a website regarding misconceptions that people have about Mormonism. Nope. It was there to describe precisely what I said.

Well, if it turned up on a Google search, it must be accurate. You're not the type of person I'd have expected to just buy into anything you read on the internet, Shirina. Evidently, I was wrong about that.

There is one reason and one reason alone that I did not respond to each of your inaccurate statements. Several months ago, I did respond to a post in which several inaccurate statements (not just opinions, but false and misleading information) were made about Mormonism. I responded civilly, making specific corrections to each statement. Within a couple of hours, my entire post had been deleted with the reason stated as "Attempting to hijack a thread." Since I did not want to have that happen again, I decided to simply that that you were "uneducated" on the subject. Had you or anyone else wanted to discuss your claims about Mormonism on a thread devoted to that purpose, I would have accommodated you.

As such, when I attack a belief - and then a believer turns around and attacks *me* - personally - then I can't help but figure they're talking a mountain of steaming male cow excrement.

Right, Katzpur? Oh no, don't bother answering. Because you've already told the truth without even realizing it.

A mountain of steaming male cow excrement? Really? Nobody is "educated" on every conceivable topic of discussion that comes up on this forum. I pointed out that you are "uneducated" with respect to Mormonism, and this is what results from that one comment?

Fact Check: Religion's privileged place in society as being beyond reproach and criticism is over. Period.

Really? I'd have never guessed. Thanks for the heads up.

I also find it absolutely hilarious that I've been on this forum for years and never really said much about Mormonism. But boy, when I do - and it wasn't much at that - look out! Sure, I can attack fundevangelists all day, but if I say something about Mormon beliefs, it's no holds barred. Time to pummel Shirina with a post full of ad hominem attacks (and no refutations, I might add.)

And I find it equally hilarious that the first time you and I ever have a confrontation, it escalates to this point of absurdity! And speaking of exaggerating, Shirina, what I said hardly qualifies as "pummeling." I'd say it was more than a slap on the wrist.

Also, this line of posting is sophmoric and juvenile. It's a stupid and transparent attempt at shaming me or making me feel guilty by claiming what I said was "malicious" and "gee, how can anyone feel good about themselves being so mean!"

I was hurt by some of your remarks and said so. I suppose that's seen as a sign of weakness on this forum, but it was the truth. I think it's up for debate as to whether calling you out on it was "sophomoric and juvenile" on my part.

In other words, I'm supposed to somehow feel guilty for daring - DARING - to say something unflattering about Mormonism. Anybody else's religion, well - that's different. But not MY religion, you heathen baby-eating malicious atheist scumbag! You better treat MY religion with nothing but respect and reverence!

I have never in my life even vaguely implied that I see any atheist as a "heathen baby-eating malicious scumbag." That would probably be because that's not how I feel. To me, atheists are simply people who don't believe in God. That's all. Your lack of belief in God makes no more difference to me than the fact that you may like mustard on your hamburgers while I don't.

Are you serious? What, do you think you're dealing with an amateur here? Give it up now while you have the chance.

LOL. Well, now that you mention it, when it comes to Mormonism, yes, I think I'm dealing with an amateur.

What do you call the post I'm responding to? A ... non-response? "I'm not responding to her post, nope, I'm just writing my post to let everyone know that I'm not responding to her post. Plus, by not responding gives me an excuse to write an irrelevant post filled with personal attacks (note: my post that she's crying about had exactly ZERO personal attacks in it) while not having to make any refutations or actually show where she's wrong. Yay! Instead I get to just say that she's wrong and uneducated and then insult her some more. Whee!"

And that's how people like you respond to a post without - actually - responding - somehow.

Because, see, when I decide not to respond to a post? You just ... don't see ... a post. It just isn't there. Because it doesn't exist. Because, you know, I decided to ... well ... not respond. Ya know?

I already explained why I didn't address your specific comments. You can keep bringing it up, but I'm only going to explain myself once.

I don't care what you personally believe in. Okay, so Katzpur doesn't believe in magic underwear and Kolob. So what.

Among the LDS Church’s fifteen highest ranking leaders (the “First Presidency” and the “Quorum of the Twelve Apostles") are eight men with doctorate degrees from Harvard, Yale, Purdue, and Duke. Three are lawyers, one of them a former Supreme Court Justice and law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, Earl Warren, one a heart surgeon and the former president of the Society for Vascular Surgery and chairman of the Council on Cardiovascular Surgery for the American Heart Association, several who were professors at Stanford, Texas Tech and the University of Chicago, one of them being a university president. One was the former senior vice president and chief pilot of Lufthansa Airlines. One was on the staff of Adm. Hyman Rickover, developing military and private nuclear power reactors. One was the CEO of a California health care system, another the associate general counsel of what is now Bank of America in Charlotte, N.C. Several fought in World War II. If you think for one minute that any of these individuals believe their underwear to be magical, you're the one with a few screws loose.

Did I mention the name of "Katzpur" anywhere in my mean, thoughtless, malicious, horrible, atrocious, evil, bullying, attacking, relentlessly angry, rant-filled, loud, profanity-laced, horrific, terrorizing, and traumatic post? Um, no ... not unless someone hacked my account and added her name.

Actually, I used just one of those fifteen adjectives. Do you really think that by adding fourteen more, you are going to make your position any more clear.

But Katzpur here decided to not-respond by responding with a bunch of personal attacks because, for some bizarre and inexplicable (well, I can sort of explain it, actually) reason she decided to wait 5 years to make a feeble attempt at going for my jugular. I mean, where was Katzpur for the last 1,824 days and 3 hours? She knows who I am, what I believe in, what I stand for, and the kind of posts write. It's not like I was a big Mormon supporter until just now.

I see. Perhaps you think I should have picked up on your attitude a lot earlier. I actually don't read much of what you post, Shirina, but "going for [your] jugular"? Wow. That's actually pretty funny.

Oh, I've said this before, probably, for the most part, in various private chats, that this place has gone down hill. And when I say "down hill," I'm talking about the difference between the peak of Mount Everest and Death Valley - if not the Marianas Trench. Why, someone might ask? Because the believers have gone soft.

Even people - like Katspur - who used to have a backbone and didn't get all bent out of shape over the most minor and oftsaid criticism of their religion are now acting, well, like Katzpur. If you say anything bad about religion, this is the kind of response you get. Not a refutation. Not even a correction. Instead, you just get an eyeful of personal ad hominem attacks, emotional responses, and shaming. I know precisely WHY this is happening and why people are acting this way, but since no one is going to do anything about the problem, I'll be surprised if there's anyone but believers left on this forum within the year - back-patting themselves until they start tearing each others' throats out as Catholics, Fundevangelists, Mormons, JWs, Muslims, Pantheists, and general Theists start criticizing each others' beliefs - which is what always happens.

I kind of think you're wrong there. There will be just as many people here in a year as there are right now. Nothing will have changed. And if you hate it now, you'll hate it then. You see, you and I have probably never had a great deal to do with each other because we're here for two very different reasons. I have no desire to insult or belittle anyone. I'm here for stimulating but civil debate, and your "militant atheist" approach just isn't conducive to that kind of dialogue.

And naturally this just had to be said: For someone who claims not to believe in those things, you sure are getting upset over them. It sounds suspiciously like the lady who dost protest too much. Oh, not because I think you secretly believe in those things. But usually if I criticize a belief or two that you personally don't share, the usual response would be something like, "Well, not all Mormons believe in magic underwear or the planet Kolob - I don't, and it is ridiculous." And then go on to defend whatever part of their faith I criticized that they DO believe in. But instead Katzpur got upset because I criticized beliefs she doesn't even have. LOL! She may as well defend Muslims or Taoists for all it's worth. As such, it just sounds to be like she just *wanted* to be angry - and judging by the last couple of lines of her post - was hoping to gain a few allies in the process.

You have obviously misunderstood me. When someone criticizes something my religion actually does teach or something that the members of the church actually do believe, I'm fine with it. It's when they say we teach and believe things that we don't teach and believe that I get irritated. LDS doctrine teaches, for example, that God has a body which physically resembles that of a human. Attack that doctrine if you want; it's something we actually believe. But don't just make things up like this nonsense about "Jesus, Brigham, and John hanging out together on the planet Kolob."

But at least I wrote the post Katspur is bellyaching about. But ...

Then you have this.

Mystic didn't write a post about Mormonism. And how you're blaming *him* too? Really?

Mystic said the following:

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Your criticisms of the irrational in the organized religions are spot on, as usual. The LDS and Scientology origins are particularly mindboggling, as are the SDA. But this goes a bridge too far, Shirina. You do not know the assertion in bold, cannot know this, and should not pretend that you do just because of all the existing religious absurdities about God.

Remember what I said about knowing WHY things have gotten as bad as they have? Well, here's one of the reasons. It's not enough that she has to attack and (try) to shame me for what I wrote. She also has to (try) and shame Mystic for what he DIDN'T write.

Also, spare us all your hypocrisy. After all, as I've already said, you sat silently by while I attacked other people's religions - but when it's YOUR religion - everyone else, including Mystic, is supposed to rush to your defense.

Calm down, Shirina. I simply pointed out that Mystic was talking out of both sides of his mouth. He thought your comments about Mormonism were "spot on," but when you had the audacity to make a negative statement about his beliefs, he accused you of "[going] a bridge too far." I'm sure my sentiments don't require any additional clarifying.

Look at what is written below my name in the top left corner of this post. It says: "Militant atheist. Grrrrr."

I've had those words written after my name with each of the several thousand posts I've written here. It hasn't changed. Did you think that Mormonism was so exalted, so special, so true that even I wouldn't dare defile the sanctity of the second most obviously hoaxed religion in the Western world?

I've written less than a handful of posts against Mormonism because it just doesn't come up much here. And even when I did write something, you never really said anything about it before. But now ... woah! Not only am I not supposed to say anything bad about your beliefs, other people who aren't even Mormons are supposed to defend you?

And apparently you think that by describing yourself as a "Militant atheist Grrrrr," that is supposed to be an excuse for you to say anything and to say it any way you want to. It's like you're saying, "Alright! You've had fair warning. You have no right to object to anything I say because, well, it's just who I am." It doesn't work that way, Shirina.

Are you crazy?!

No, but I'm starting to wonder about you.

Even when I tone things down - a lot - it isn't good enough. Quite a few believers on this forum are doing precisely what I've been warning everyone about for the last 5 years. You don't want our opinions on religion to have a voice. You want we atheists to pretend as though we respect all belief systems and if we dare to step out of line, if we have the temerity, the audacity, the unmitigated GALL to say something negative about religion, well, every believer of every faith is now obligated to squash us with numbers, not logic or arguments, until we shut up and crawl back to our A&A forum - where, even THERE, believers still invade and criticize what we think and what we believe.

I dunno, though - maybe you'll get your wish and the only people left will be Rufais and Transponder - because frankly I'm tired of people who can't distinguish their beliefs from themselves. I hear crap about atheists almost every day - and each time they are misrepresenting what atheists believe. If I got my panties in a twist - like you did - over every little negative remark about atheists, I wouldn't even have time to eat, I'd be so busy huffing and throwing a tantrum.

And at the end of the day - heh - not that I'm at all surprised - you didn't even say how and why I was so wrong. These days, a lot of believers on this forum just want to cry like spoiled children who shout, "Make the evil atheists shut up, mommy! Make them go away!"

It's pathetic.

Once again, I have never had the attitude of a spoiled child who shouts, "Make the evil atheists shut up, mommy! Make them go away!" I have never said anything of the sort, and I challenge you to find a single post of mine anywhere on the forum where I have. I responded to your post the way I did because of what you said, not because you don't believe in God. I'd have responded in exactly the same way to any evangelical Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist poster who said what you did. You're reading motives into my posts that simply are not there.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Shirina

Greetings to my fans and supporters - at least those I have left.

Your fans? When was the last time I heard someone refer to their "fans"? Oh yeah, it was President Trump.

I quoted Katzpur's cowardice above just to illustrate an example of why I feel this place really isn't for me anymore. There are a number of reasons for that.

I'm glad you quoted that, Shirina. I'm sure it saved people a lot of time looking for any of my posts that might have come across as "cowardly."

Now, however, since the atheist position is no longer recognized as valid, merely opening up our mouths to raise an objection immediately gets us classified as some kind of zealot - no better than the worst fundies. Both atheist and religious fundies are identical and both of us live at the extreme end of the spectrum as "crazies." Katzpur was kind enough to use that descriptor.

Funny, isn't it -- "crazy" is the exact word you referred to me by earlier. At any rate, yes, "crazies" seems apropos. Extremists and fanatics (particularly those who describe themselves as "militant") scare me. They should scare every rational person.

Make no mistake that every word written to Arach Angle was aimed directly at me. Yet another post filled with personal attacks and, while she may not have mentioned me by name, she used several of my quotes.

Yes, I used several of the quotes that you had personally directed at me.

Which brings me to my next issue. Yeah, I've had a lot of people pay me compliments, I've received a lot of rep points, a lot of private messages, etc. Yet never in all the years I've been here did I build my posts on top of a post written by one of my supporters. I never wrote a "me too" post or used a compliment to springboard my own writing. Never .. EVER ... have I played the sycophant and tried to form alliances, curry favor with other posters, or encourage groups of atheists to dogpile onto anyone else. Yet just in this very thread, Katzpur did all of those things, literally scolding Mystic for not rushing to her defense and now, here she is, seeking out Arach Angle in the hopes of gaining an ally.

I called Mystic out for what I saw as a hypocritical statement, but I hardly "sought out" Arach Angel." All I did was respond to one of his posts. Are you "seeking out" allies every time you respond to something someone says? Good grief, woman!

I'm not here to play high school politics. I never was - which is why I never sought out cliques or buddied-up with other atheists to gang up on or bully my opponents.

Oh, don't fear too bad, honey. You've still got a sizable fan club.

A few of us were having a conversation about Mormonism and trying to locate the missing golden plates. Of course, the few of us non-believers left said we probably woudn't find anything anyway because Mormonism was all a myth anyway - a religion cooked up by a known con-man and scam artist.

The conversation wasn't at all flattering to Mormonism. At some point I wrote a post where I said that Mormonism was the second most obviously hoaxed religion in the Western world, second only to Scientology. Then I made a couple of half-joking comments we've all heard a thousand times regarding magic underwear and the planet Kolob. Then all the sudden Katzpur comes out swinging, writing a post filled with personal attacks and acting all butthurt because I said something bad about her religion. Note, I never said a single word about her personally, but she decided to turn it into a person vandetta. Which is just another thing of which I am sick and tired - and have no patience for.

All of this makes me wonder what your response would have been if I'd really "[come] out swinging, writing a post filled with personal attacks and acting all butthurt." You see everything in black and white, don't you. You are a master at exaggerating, and in the end, I don't think it's a ploy that's going to serve you well.

Katzpur was pretty much the proverbial straw that broke the equally proverbial camel's back. Not her first insult-laden post. It was more due to the second post - the one I quoted. I take issue with people who do not have the honesty to say their piece to my face - and instead tells it to Arach Angle while trying to be clever and sneaky about it by not actually mentioning my name. It's the same old refrain - talk up a good storm about "love and compassion" while showing NONE of those things to anyone who disagrees with her religious views. Those characteristics are only used to make it look as if she has the high ground while simultaneously trying to shame me into silence.

If I was that straw, the camel was on pretty wobbly legs. If I upset you to the extent that I apparently did, you seriously need to take a break.

Well - enough's enough. If they want the R&S forum all to themselves so badly, then here you go. It's all yours. I'll find a place that is more dynamic - and far more tolerant. Maybe I can even have an occasional meltdown there - right Katzpur? It never ceases to amaze me how everything we say is either a 1) rant, 2) meltdown, 3) some kind of fit ... except I wasn't the one who responded to a rather casual post about my religion with two posts loaded with personal insults while simulaenously trying to get other people to fight your battles for you.

I'm done 1) ranting, 2) having a meldown or 3) throwing a fit - and I officially give over the R&S forum to the believers - now you can throw Bible verses at each other and talk about how great god is to your heart's content.

Actually, I never used any of those words or phrases, but then sticking to the facts of what I actually did say has never really been your forte, has it, Shiria?

This will be my last really long post - if not forever, at least for a long while. I might poke my head in here every few months to see if anything has gotten any better, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'm sure your fan club will be eagerly awaiting your return.

Nor am I angry at the mods - they're just doing their jobs.

That's a funny way to end your last (ha) post, particularly since they were your second most important target in this post (with me being your first).

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Shirina

More importantly, these prohibitions have hobbled the atheist position. A believer could write a huge novel about creationism and we atheists would be powerless to form a rebuttal because we would need to address science to do that - but science is now prohibited.

Then that indicates a weakness and lack of knowledge on your part, in addition to a limited mind-set.

I don't need science to attack creationism. I can destroy creationism without using any science whatsoever.

In fact, science played no role whatsoever in my decision to abandon religion and flush deities down the toilet.

Science certainly is a useful tool to dig the graves for creationists, but it's not the only tool and it's not the most powerful tool. I'm lazy and given the choice between a shovel (science) or a back-hoe to dig their graves, I'll take the back-hoe any day.

[Pleroo]

Originally Posted by Shirina

...
As some people know, I can only type 2 or 3 major posts and a handful of small posts per day because the pain I endure typing these things is - not pleasant. The LAST thing I want to do is give up a part of my day and endure a lot of pain...

I’m sorry about your pain.

I came across this soothing mantra/meditation and thought of you...



https://youtu.be/wIZqghmN24U

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

Every last poster here seems convinced that the mods are harsher on their particular point of view. We hear across the whole spectrum of posters from atheists to the most conservative of the religious who post on this forum how we are biased toward "the other". That's apparently part of being a mod on R&S, and it's usually just water off a duck's back.

Just to clarify - I don't think *you* are harsh. I never had any problems with the way you moderate the forum.

I just assume you're doing your job.

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

But I won't have my words or meaning publicly misrepresented. What I posted above comes from mensaguy's Sticky thread post made on 8/14/2014, four years before I became a mod. This rule is not something new or unknown to long-time regular posters.

Whether or not the rule existed four years or four thousand years ago, no one ever got into trouble if they criticized, made fun of, mocked, or had some fun at religion's expense.

Unfortunately, what I think happened is that Christians these days would rather run to the mods and act offended and persecuted rather than actually engage in debate. They just want to proselytize and talk about how great god is and whatever - and really don't want anyone challenging them. And now they've succeeded, most likely with a lot of complaining. I've warned everyone on this forum about the fascistic nature of religion and, well, here you have it. Live and in the flesh. The atheist position has essentially been weakened to the point of a joke, and after almost 6 years of posting here, I've only ran afoul of the rules 4 times. That's after 5800 posts. Now I can't so much as sneeze without someone bashing the report button to shut up the atheist viewpoint. It's not as if I'm some sort of habitual troublemaker - but I did have a certain ... way ... that I posted. That way was very successful, I might add, if you'll pardon the conceit.

With things becoming as strict as they are now, it's like telling a cat that has gone outdoors all of its life that he now has to stay indoors. It just isn't going to work. If I can post here for 6 years and write 5800 posts with only 4 infractions - and now I can't even call a religion a "hoax" - well, I would've been banned years ago if it had always been that strict.

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

Discussing the particular features of a denomination can be done without calling the denomination a hoax, or invalid, or evil or whatever. As a mod, I've had to delete posts or parts of posts that were purely Catholic-bashing, and I can't in fairness allow it to stand when the same is directed at another denomination.

No ... a hoax is a hoax. I can't call it anything else - and no thesaurus is big enough to come up with a different word. And see, that's the point I was making. If even calling a religion a "hoax" runs afoul of the rules, what won't?

Not only that, but as I said, the ambiance has changed. With such a rules crack-down, the atheist position has been literally gutted. We can neither use politics or science to defend against creationism, young earth nonsense, etc. Nor can we say anything negative about religion at all - which is the only conclusion I can come up with if even calling a religion a "hoax" is now off limits. Would I get an infraction if I called Christianity a "cult"? At what point will simply calling it "untrue" be seen as "bashing"?

Point is - I don't know. And since Christians these days would rather lean on the report button than to engage in a debate - what's left?

Between the fact that no other topic BUT religion can be discussed - even if the other topic pertains to religion ... and the fact that we can no longer say anything overtly negative about religion or any denomination, it's impossible not to run afoul of the rules.

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

Re-read the rules in the Sticky if you are not sure of them, and if you are still not sure, ask one of us via DM.

It's really not a question of not knowing the rules. It's a question of just how rigorously they're going to be enforced and how posts are going to be interpreted. If calling Mormonism a "hoax" or even "invalid" goes too far, then, as I've said, the atheist position has effectively been silenced. They can proclaim their religions absolutely 100% true and attack atheism all they wish - like Jeffbase trying to link atheism with Stalin and Mao. But if we even say a religion is "invalid" - boom. We get an infraction or even a ban. Fact is, we atheists think that all religion is "invalid" but now we're not allowed to say so - and that forces us to literally agree with the believers. We can't say that we believe their religions are bunk - so all we can do is sit there in silence. About the only thing that can safely be debated is topics like - the meaning of this or that verse, or, what was Paul saying here, or, do you think this should be a sin, etc. etc.

It's exceedingly unfair, weighted heavily toward religion, and it leaves we atheists with virtually nothing in our toolbox. We'd have to work around the rules to a point where we spend half our time trying to circumvent the rules. And how long will that last, anyway? Because I'm reasonably certain that a lot of this is coming from complaints - and if they win this round, they'll win the next one, too. They'll just complain again about any other words we come up with. It's like when Baptist Fundie tried to offer me an olive branch - it was the first time in my life I had to refuse the gesture because it was conditional on me never saying anything negative about Christianity. Well ... how on earth could I do that?

I don't have any ill feelings toward the mods or hold any grudges, but I can only assume that the type of forum the "higher powers" want doesn't have room for me.

And if that's the way it has to be, then so be it.

It just won't include me.

I enjoyed posting here because most other forums are all one side or the other. I find echo chambers to be worthless. Who wants to be in a place where all the Christians are banned straight away - or all the atheists are banned straight away? So we can sit around talking smack about the other side? Nah ... However, I've been here too long for anyone to say that things haven't changed, and it has only changed in favor of the believers. They're still free to attack atheism as vigorously as they wish, but we're not even allowed to call a religion or a denomination a "hoax" or "invalid." Which is pretty mild compared to what we *could* say. I'm still the same person posting in the same way. So if the things I say are now against the rules, it's not I who has changed.

Be that as it may ... nothing lasts forever. Just keep in mind I'm not pointing fingers at the mods of this particular board. I'm reasonably certain why things have changed and I don't blame the mods. I genuinely hope everything is as smooth as silk now that the firebrands like myself won't be around.

Take care.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Pleroo

I’m sorry about your pain.

I came across this soothing mantra/meditation and thought of you...



https://youtu.be/wIZqghmN24U

Thanks, Pleroo ... and thanks for the video.

I've been creating a collection of music to which I can try to meditate - hoping maybe I can lower my own levels of pain. Sometimes I've noticed that if I can distract myself from it, the pain actually does calm down. Unfortunately, there are times when it's too painful and I can't stay still or stop thinking about how much it hurts. But sometimes the meditation does work.

Plus, the music in your video kinda reminds me a lot of my mother and home back in India.