Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
Um, yeah, they have, if they said something like, "The Catholic Church is just one big evil organization". Or at least the post got deleted. In one case I recall, the person then came right back and reposted the thread that they had started on that premise, and THEN they got an infraction.
Look, if you had said something to the effect of, "I just can't believe that there are people who fell for that story about Joseph Smith and the golden plates and followed him", nothing would have been deleted from your post.
But you said, "There's an entire religion formed around this hoax. And Mormonism is the second most obvious fake religion in the Western world (with Scientology being the first)."
Are you really not seeing the difference here? I find that hard to believe. Those of us who have occasionally pecked out words that made it into print acknowledge your writing skills. You are perfectly capable of presenting your thoughts in such a way that they stay within the lines.
Quote:
Would I get an infraction if I called Christianity a "cult"?
If your posts saying so had been deleted for it and you kept on doing it, yeah. Again that long predates my being a mod. C'mon, you KNOW that it's against the rules here to call any one religion a cult. I can't count how many times I've seen mensaguy delete posts or words within posts for that exact reason.
There's also a grey area here not covered by the rules. You are well aware that there is exactly one regular Mormon poster on this forum who has posted thread after thread explaining the doctrines and beliefs of her church and then faced down the expected detractors. Does that mean you must refrain from criticizing her particular brand of Christianity? Hell, no. But when you single out that poster's religion as fake, it sure looks as if you're lobbing a grenade in her direction, and so there should have been no big surprise when there was a strong reaction to it. This is just common sense.
Again, there's no rule for that. We don't refrain from discussion over one person's feelings, but this is a community of sorts here, and you know most of the people who live on the block.
Not making this red. There's enough color in this thread already.
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.
Your fans? When was the last time I heard someone refer to their "fans"? Oh yeah, it was President Trump.
Oh don't be an ass. What, did Trump copyright the word "fans" so that anyone who uses it is a Trump supporter? Anyway, I'm sure you said that just because you know I'm NOT a fan of Trump - a weak attempt at trying to rile me right off the bat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
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."
I don't care if that was the first cowardly post you've ever written in your life - THAT one, at least, was cowardly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Funny, isn't it -- "crazy" is the exact word you referred to me by earlier. At any rate, yes, "crazies" seems apropos.
Where, exactly, did I call you crazy, Katzpur? Please quote it. Where did I ever say, "Oh yeah, that Katzpur, she's just flaming crazy!" Or anything similar to that?
Because if you can't produce the quote, then you're lying. Pure and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Extremists and fanatics (particularly those who describe themselves as "militant") scare me. They should scare every rational person.
Uh uh ... and does the word "sarcasm" have any meaning to you? I wrote that a looong time ago because some of the Christians were rambling on about "militant atheists" - which essentially meant any atheist who said anything negative about religion no matter how mild. It was meant as a sarcastic joke that lost its meaning with time.
Now, maybe you never read any of my posts. I don't know. Am I outspoken? Sure. Do I mince words? No. But if you actually think I'm some kind of fanatic or extremist, then maybe you better go back and read some of my posts.
Otherwise, you shouldn't speak of that which you know nothing about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Yes, I used several of the quotes that you had personally directed at me.
They weren't directed at you, per se. They were only used in a post I wrote where you were quoted. They were directed at all the people here who suddenly grew a thin skin. Every time I logged on, there was someone writing a post whining about atheists posting here at all, regardless of what they said. Slowly but surely they'll get their wish, I'm sure.
In any event, talking about me to someone else - that's the forum equivalent of backstabbing - whether you use my name or not. It wasn't like it was all that sneaky, ya know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
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 found it rather suspicious that you reprimanded Mystic for not defending you - I don't think I've ever seen anyone do that in all the years I've been here. Then you use my quotes and talk about me in this strange oblique way to Arach Angle - who knows?
As for me "seeking out allies" - heh, that's a laugh. 99% of the posts I responded to were opponents, not allies. I went out of my way NOT to respond to compliments so as to not give anyone the impression that I was either dogpiling, grandstanding, or doing just that - seeking out allies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Oh, don't fear too bad, honey. You've still got a sizable fan club.
Nope, my fan club is long gone. Just a person here and there. Haven't you noticed? Even Mircea decided to take a whack at me - and I don't think I've ever said a bad word about her in the 6 years I've been here. And apparently she's an atheist. So yeah ... it happens. You can be popular one day and then have everyone turn against you the next. I don't put much stock in forum popularity because that's just the way people are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
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.
My response wouldn't have been anything - because your post would've been deleted.
Heh, "master of exaggeration." No, I didn't exaggerate. I only used more colorful language. After all, your post DID say that you were both hurt and angry. My apologies if my post didn't sound like a doctoral thesis. I'll remember to sound more clinical next time. Oh wait, there won't be one. My bad.
Fact is, no matter what I said about Mormonism, I never said a single WORD about you. And I highly doubt that was the very first time I ever said anything negative about Mormonism, either. And yet you DID attack me personally - something I never did to you.
It's not my fault that you can't separate yourself from your religion. I think what makes this all the more ridiculous is - you responded to someone else and actually said that you "get it" and acknowledged that some Mormon beliefs were "hard to swallow." As if what I said was that radically different than what you admitted to.
You could've written a similar response to me - saying that you didn't necessarily believe in all of that, either, etc. etc. and we could've been on friendly terms. But instead you decided to write a nasty post saying how uneducated I was - and you're right, I don't know the ins and outs of Mormonism. Yet, how do I know what I DO know, then, hmm? No doubt you've heard jokes about magic underwear and Kolob a thousand times - i.e. there was simply no real need to lash out at me on a personal level as you did.
Not that it matters since you think I'm some kind of uneducated fanatical militant extremist crazy exaggerator that scares you Wow, all of those personal attacks and all I did was say your religion was obviously hoaxed. I wonder who is doing the exaggerating? Anyhow, I'm still looking forward to you showing me where, exactly, I personally called you out as "crazy," though. Should be interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
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.
You're right about one thing - the camel did, actually, have wobbly legs. That happens when I come back after a few months' hiatus and immediately find someone throwing yet another fit because atheists are allowed to post on the R&S forum - which is like, the third person to do that since I came back.
I get rather irritated at people whose only goal is to silence any challenge to their belief systems on a forum like this one. You don't see me invading the Christianity forum - or the Mormon forum (Is there a Mormon forum?) to push my opinions. Unlike Christians and other believers who invade the A&A forum all the time. But here? I would like to think we're all entitled to our opinions.
Apparently, however, that is no longer the case - so ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
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?
I can only assume understanding the nuances of writing isn't exactly your forte, eh, Katzpur? Or spelling my name, for that matter. Once again, I never once attributed my quotes to you. Where did I ever say that you said them? You can put that quote right next to the one where I called you crazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
I'm sure your fan club will be eagerly awaiting your return.
Well - that'll be a big "no" on the first count. On the second - as I said, I might poke my head in once in a great while and see if the dynamic, meaty debates we used to have have returned - but if you think I'm just going to say I'm quitting just to come back a week later. Heh. No. I've been gone for months at a time before so it really won't be that hard just to not come back. Though ... I may see if you ever posted those quotes. Out of curiosity, that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
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).
It really doesn't make a difference to me whether you think it was funny ... or any other adjective you want to throw in there.
Um, yeah, they have, if they said something like, "The Catholic Church is just one big evil organization". Or at least the post got deleted. In one case I recall, the person then came right back and reposted the thread that they had started on that premise, and THEN they got an infraction.
Look, if you had said something to the effect of, "I just can't believe that there are people who fell for that story about Joseph Smith and the golden plates and followed him", nothing would have been deleted from your post.
But you said, "There's an entire religion formed around this hoax. And Mormonism is the second most obvious fake religion in the Western world (with Scientology being the first)."
Are you really not seeing the difference here? I find that hard to believe. Those of us who have occasionally pecked out words that made it into print acknowledge your writing skills. You are perfectly capable of presenting your thoughts in such a way that they stay within the lines.
If your posts saying so had been deleted for it and you kept on doing it, yeah. Again that long predates my being a mod. C'mon, you KNOW that it's against the rules here to call any one religion a cult. I can't count how many times I've seen mensaguy delete posts or words within posts for that exact reason.
There's also a grey area here not covered by the rules. You are well aware that there is exactly one regular Mormon poster on this forum who has posted thread after thread explaining the doctrines and beliefs of her church and then faced down the expected detractors. Does that mean you must refrain from criticizing her particular brand of Christianity? Hell, no. But when you single out that poster's religion as fake, it sure looks as if you're lobbing a grenade in her direction, and so there should have been no big surprise when there was a strong reaction to it. This is just common sense.
Again, there's no rule for that. We don't refrain from discussion over one person's feelings, but this is a community of sorts here, and you know most of the people who live on the block.
Not making this red. There's enough color in this thread already.
Just to play devils advocate here for a second....
How is calling a religion a hoax, or calling a religion untrue/fake/evil any worse than the religious folks constantly bashing atheists the way they do? Is it just because they don't use buzz words to do so? How is it any worse than the religious folks that keep comparing gay people to pedophiles, rapists, and people who have sex with family members or animals? How is it any worse than Mystic constantly calling people "too stupid to understand"?
I think that is the problem. The moderation, at times, is one sided against one side of an argument (and I am not saying it is only against atheists). I have never had an issue with you or mensa, to be fair, but I have with a few other moderators. I once received a week long ban for saying a certain position "sounded" racist, while the poster I directed it at made over 50 posts in the same thread that were blatantly racist (which I reported, every time) that never got deleted, and he never stopped posting.
In other words, I don't necessarily think it is the rules that are the problem, and Shirina can certainly correct me if this is not her position, but how strictly they are enforced on one side of a debate or argument. For instance, if I were to say I thought a certain religion was a hoax, my post could be deleted or I could be infracted. The poster my post was directed at could then come back and reply to me, call me all sorts of names, lie about my position on things, and say I have no morals because I am an atheist, and never get a thing done to them. I see it regularly on here, and it is a problem, even if it isn't you doing it.
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.
Uh ... did I wrong you in another life, Mircea? The last thing I needed to see right now is someone being arrogantly smug at my expense. So thanks for that.
Was it really necessary to begin a post accusing me of being weak or having a lack of knowledge or a limited mind-set - or any other unflattering, borderline insulting words?
It's not as though arguments don't get repeated often enough, then you limit the arguments. We might as well fling the same copy/pasted posts at one another.
Anyway, you can now dazzle everyone with your non-science way of destroying creationists. I'll be taking my weak, unknowlgeable, and limited mindset elsewhere.
I'm not even going to wait until the end of the week.
In other words, I don't necessarily think it is the rules that are the problem, and Shirina can certainly correct me if this is not her position, but how strictly they are enforced on one side of a debate or argument. For instance, if I were to say I thought a certain religion was a hoax, my post could be deleted or I could be infracted. The poster my post was directed at could then come back and reply to me, call me all sorts of names, lie about my position on things, and say I have no morals because I am an atheist, and never get a thing done to them. I see it regularly on here, and it is a problem, even if it isn't you doing it.
Yeah - you managed to say my position pretty accurately.
However, there's a little more to it.
As I've said in my earlier post, I've been here for almost 6 years and only received 4 ... maybe 5 infractions. With the exception of one, where I just lashed out at someone because they were being insulting, I received those infractions trying to figure out just where, exactly, the line was.
Once I figured it out, however, I never had any problems. Those who've read my posts know that I don't mince words. Euphemisms annoy me - I've always been a very direct and, yes, honest person. I don't say what I don't mean. I use a lot of sarcasm, wit, humor as well as logic to show how irrational a lot of beliefs are - and while people no doubt didn't like it, there were never any real hostilities
Now, however, all the lines have moved again. Worse still, the lines have "tightened," meaning that we can say less ... and less ... and less without getting into some kind of trouble or running afoul of this or that rule. As you said, if merely calling a religion a "hoax" or "invalid" is now against the rules, we athiests are literally prohibited from contradicting a religious paradigm. No longer can we say that's "untrue" or "that's totally wrong" or "you've got it all backward" or "that isn't what science says" or "that's not at all in concordance with reality" ... because every single one of those words and phrases are simply loose synonyms for "hoax" or "invalid."
It's not that the mods are going to fly down and squash everything we atheists say. I honestly don't think they are the problem. No, the real problem is that people aren't engaging in debate anymore, instead running to the mods or banging on the "report post" button - and that *forces* the mods to take action.
People were literally reporting my posts for using a *single* word that they construed as "off topic," if you can believe that. Never mind the context of the word - the word *itself* wasn't religious enough, I guess. Or, for example - I sorta reprimanded CorporateCowboy because he asked another poster "what does this post have to do with ..." the original topic. In other words, it's the old "off topic" dismissal.
The point is that people are using the rules to silence any opinion they either don't like or cannot refute - and quite often both. Either they're complaining that a post is "off topic" or that it was somehow a "personal attack" of some kind or another. It used to be that as long as we attacked ideas and not posters, you were more or less safe - but now, even saying something negative about religion can be construed as bashing. So what happens? If I make an argument or comment that my opponent doesn't like, they just have to report my post or tell a mod - and either I'm in trouble or my post is edited to hell and back.
If nothing else, any argument or comment can simply be dismissed as "off topic" or something else. The more strict the rules get, the easier it is for people to do that. And the more complaints, the stricter the rules get - and it becomes akin to a snake eating its own tail.
If simply saying a religion is a hoax or invalid - because that IS my opinion - is now a violation, I cannot express myself no matter how mildly I do so. I no longer know where the lines are because they are constantly moving. Where once calling a religion a "hoax" wouldn't have caused even the slightest stir, now it has caused a lot of bad feelings, insulting posts, and well ... me to leave. Because not only can I not express myself, I don't even know HOW to express myself without another complaint. And the more complaints, the fewer options I have until I have none at all.
I have no idea what the mods take action on and why - and like I said, I don't think it's their fault. But they do have to do their jobs. Unfortunately being unable to call a religion even something as mild as "invalid" essentially means we have to stay silent - which is what I think some people want - or we have to admit that their religion *isn't* invalid - which is tantamount to saying we're not even atheists anymore.
To MQ, Shirina and Katz, I apologize for opening this can of worms (I believe I was the one who brought Joseph Smith and the Golden Plates on board at post #164), and would like to express some thoughts that may ease the situation (hopefully).
As far as Joseph Smith's experience, it could easily be questioned regarding credibility for the following:
A. Joseph Smith's background leading up to this experience could lead one to be suspect of his credibility.
B. The experience is something straight out of an Indiana Jones/Harry Potter/ Lord Of The Rings Movie script.
C. Has anyone searched for the Golden Plates/Urim and Thuminn Stones?
D. Has anyone searched for artifacts of the Nephites/Lamanites in the same area (pots/structures/metal tools/weapons/etc.) Supposedly they were both good sized populations and waged quite a few battles among each other.
E. Soap Box Evangelicals where traipsing the countryside at the time, touting this belief or that. If a Deity sent his Prophet forth at this time, he/she may be perceived more as just another charlatan and not genuine. Why would a Deity do this?
Now... Katz is arguably correct in that LDS is a convenient target due to it happening in recent history and in the U.S. and that earlier religions outside the U.S. might wither the same given the same scrutiny. Unforunately, IMO, this does not add credibility to the tale, but would only serve to possibly prove all religions may have questionable tales.
Katz, you are one of my favorite C-D posters and I have said so multiple times. You can, however, IMO, ride into town with both guns drawn and smoking at even the slightest hint of LDS challenge or perceived disrespect, everyone involved seems to get blasted. I often have to wedge the slugs out of my bullet proof vest, tend my bruises and attempt to diplomatically "redirect" my argument/thoughts from another angle. This usually serves to have you see I am not the "bad guy" and am merely debating Theism (LDS in particular).
Shirina may have the same commitment and fervor regarding the (real or perceived) ills of organized religion, and when the two of you go head to head...
Credible or not, the LDS Religion has survived and thrived. Is mankind the better or worse for it? That's a separate debate I suppose, and only time will tell...
Last edited by ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...?; 03-28-2019 at 08:07 AM..
Reason: Forgot a word
...
I have no idea what the mods take action on and why - and like I said, I don't think it's their fault. But they do have to do their jobs. Unfortunately being unable to call a religion even something as mild as "invalid" essentially means we have to stay silent - which is what I think some people want - or we have to admit that their religion *isn't* invalid - which is tantamount to saying we're not even atheists anymore.''
I may be oversimplifying things, but isn't the point that we can say something within a world view or religion is invalid, but not that the view/religion itself is invalid?
I may be oversimplifying things, but isn't the point that we can say something within a world view or religion is invalid, but not that the view/religion itself is invalid?
Maybe so, but that is really just splitting hairs. For instance, if I say, "These 20 things within Christianity are obviously false"... That would be saying something "within" the religion is false, but is that really any better than saying, "Christianity is false because of these 20 things"? It's merely wordplay, and if infractions and getting posts deleted comes down to merely moving a word or restructuring a sentence, but saying the same thing, then it is an issue.
In general, if you think a bunch of views within a certain religion are false/invalid, then you are going to believe the religion is as well. I think the problem is simply people being too sensitive. If I come on here and say your religion is false, and your first reaction is to go to the mods and get my posts deleted or get me infracted, then you must not be very content in your beliefs and knowledge therein. It would be one thing if I was a huge B**** about it, and called you stupid or something, but that isn't what most of it comes down to.
Edit: Obviously the use of the word "you" is in the general sense, not directed at anyone specifically.
Maybe so, but that is really just splitting hairs. For instance, if I say, "These 20 things within Christianity are obviously false"... That would be saying something "within" the religion is false, but is that really any better than saying, "Christianity is false because of these 20 things"? It's merely wordplay, and if infractions and getting posts deleted comes down to merely moving a word or restructuring a sentence, but saying the same thing, then it is an issue.
In general, if you think a bunch of views within a certain religion are false/invalid, then you are going to believe the religion is as well. I think the problem is simply people being too sensitive. If I come on here and say your religion is false, and your first reaction is to go to the mods and get my posts deleted or get me infracted, then you must not be very content in your beliefs and knowledge therein. It would be one thing if I was a huge B**** about it, and called you stupid or something, but that isn't what most of it comes down to.
Edit: Obviously the use of the word "you" is in the general sense, not directed at anyone specifically.
Still, I think those are the guidelines set up for this forum. So, split the hairs and a post should be able to stand without moderation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When was the last time I heard someone refer to their "fans"? Oh yeah, it was President Trump. 
