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.
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.
Anyways, I won't go off topic again... sorry MQ!
I think the answer to your question is in the fourth paragraph of mensaguy's 8.15.2014 Sticky post:
It's also because modding isn't an exact science and can be situational. I got so many infractions for skirting the bad-word filter on R&S a few years ago that I got a 30-day timeout, yet I see people doing far worse "skirting" on other CD forums than I ever did.
Sometimes we don't see things, because neither mensa or I read every post. Sometimes it's only when something is brought to our attention via a report or DM that we see a violation--or a perceived violation.
It's because people are people and vary so much themselves. There are posters on this forum at whom are hurled insults all the time, and they NEVER report them as personal attacks, while there are others who report insignificant things so frequently that they are warned not to abuse the report system and given infractions when they don't comply.
And you often don't see what we've deleted because we've deleted it, and you don't see the crazier stuff that we have to deal with that takes priority.
In the end, what we're trying to do here is not look for people to slap, but to keep discussions going in as sane a manner as possible. I can't speak for mensa, but I personally think that there are a lot of different points of view that need to be aired and a lot of voices that need to be heard. The fact is, the subject of the R&S forum is such it generates high emotions because people's views on this subject can be very personal and very strong.
And I'll say it again because it can't be said enough: We mods constantly hear whining from every side that another side is being allowed to get away with everything and their side is being picked on, and we've actually received long ranting complaints via DM about this from both atheists and theists accusing us of bias ON THE SAME DAMN DAY. As mensa says, that's a sign that we must be doing something right.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
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.
I love you, Pleroo. Thanks for once again boiling something down so succinctly. Again, I think it is well-explained in mensaguy's post in the Sticky.
(Not saying I don't love you, too "ImissThe90's"...)
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.
I try to, to the best of my abilities. My point was more that two sentence that say the exact same thing, with simply a word or two moved, should be treated the same way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
I think the answer to your question is in the fourth paragraph of mensaguy's 8.15.2014 Sticky post:
It's also because modding isn't an exact science and can be situational. I got so many infractions for skirting the bad-word filter on R&S a few years ago that I got a 30-day timeout, yet I see people doing far worse "skirting" on other CD forums than I ever did.
Sometimes we don't see things, because neither mensa or I read every post. Sometimes it's only when something is brought to our attention via a report or DM that we see a violation--or a perceived violation.
I understand that completely, and I am not saying you guys aren't doing a good job or anything like that, so please, don't take it that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
It's because people are people and vary so much themselves. There are posters on this forum at whom are hurled insults all the time, and they NEVER report them as personal attacks, while there are others who report insignificant things so frequently that they are warned not to abuse the report system and given infractions when they don't comply.
I get that. Personally, I don't report much of anything, unless I think it crosses a line, and admittedly, my line is probably a lot further along than a lot of peoples. I do get a little report happy if I get slapped for something ridiculous though... (more on this below)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
And you often don't see what we've deleted because we've deleted it, and you don't see the crazier stuff that we have to deal with that takes priority.
But see, sometimes I do notice. In the example I gave in the first post to you, I kept up with that thread for a week or so afterwards, and all of the posts that I had reported (that were MUCH worse than anything I had said). Nothing of that posters was deleted, and the poster was posting every 30 minutes or so, so obviously wasn't banned either. Yet I was, for something far less egregious. I admit that I obviously don't see all of it, or even a fraction of it, but I do notice it in threads I participate in, or if I am infracted for something silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
In the end, what we're trying to do here is not look for people to slap, but to keep discussions going in as sane a manner as possible. I can't speak for mensa, but I personally think that there are a lot of different points of view that need to be aired and a lot of voices that need to be heard. The fact is, the subject of the R&S forum is such it generates high emotions because people's views on this subject can be very personal and very strong.
And I'll say it again because it can't be said enough: We mods constantly hear whining from every side that another side is being allowed to get away with everything and their side is being picked on, and we've actually received long ranting complaints via DM about this from both atheists and theists accusing us of bias ON THE SAME DAMN DAY. As mensa says, that's a sign that we must be doing something right.
I can only imagine what you guys see on a daily basis, and like I said, I have not had any issues with you or mensa in particular, and haven't thought either of you were biased in any way. I have had issues with others who clearly are though, and love splitting hairs to infract certain people, while allowing others to post freely with seemingly no restrictions.
So we're still going at it, huh? Jeesh, okay, if that's what you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
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.
So now I'm an "ass." And I guess I should just overlook that because, after all, you're just a "militant atheist" and name-calling is something militant atheists do. I just found your use of the word "fans" to be so narcissistic that Trump was the first thing that came to my mind. But since I can't stand Trump either, that means you and I have something in common, doesn't it? I bet it scares the crap out of you to know that you actually have something in common with a theist.
Quote:
I don't care if that was the first cowardly post you've ever written in your life - THAT one, at least, was cowardly.
You're entitled to your opinion, even though I suspect you're the only one who saw it that way.
Quote:
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.
Permit me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Are you crazy?!
Technically, you didn't call me crazy. You just asked me if I was. And technically, I didn't call you crazy either, since nowhere in the post where I described extremists and fanatics as "crazies" did I mention your name. So, why don't we call that one a net-zero.
Quote:
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.
Look, I don't read all of your posts, not even close. And I don't care what circumstances led up to your describing yourself as a "militant atheist." All I know is what I've seen in your posts to me on this thread, and you seriously do appear to be pretty out-of-control, to put it mildly.
Quote:
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?
If you quote me, and then proceed to use the language, the words and phrases you did, you can't expect me to not think they were directed at me. Your post was directed at me because you were quoting me. Let's use some common sense here. I you want to rail about the way you believe atheists are treated on this forum, then find an appropriate place to do so. I have never said anything negative about atheists and I don't feel negatively towards atheists.
Quote:
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?
I've already addressed this particular gripe, twice already.
Quote:
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.
Well aren't you the noble one?
Quote:
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.
Yes, it is. I'm glad you finally figured that out.
Quote:
My response wouldn't have been anything - because your post would've been deleted.
And I'm sure that would have made your day. Thing is, I don't like it when my posts are deleted, and so I try to avoid writing things that would bring about that result.
Quote:
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.
Promise?
Quote:
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.
May I remind you of rule #7:
7. Bashing anyone's religion... 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.
Quote:
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.
You know, Shirina, last night as I was getting into bed, the thought crossed my mind -- Maybe I should just extend Shirina an olive branch and ask her if she would like to just start over, particularly since the two of us don't exactly have a long, ugly history. At this point, I'm still even inclined to do that, simply because I still see this whole incident as an unfortunate blip on our otherwise pretty stable radar. I just don't know what to think at this point.
Quote:
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?
Well, something tells me that we're never going to agree on that. But just to clarify, I specifically said you were uneducated on Mormonism. Nowhere have I ever implied that you are uneducated generally speaking.
Quote:
I can only assume understanding the nuances of writing isn't exactly your forte, eh, Katzpur? Or spelling my name, for that matter.
Spelling your name incorrectly was a typo, Shirina. Would you like me to point out the number of times you misspelled "Katzpur" as "Katspur"?
Shirina, I'm sorry that my comment saying that you were uneducated on Mormonism offended you to the point it did. We're all educated on some things and uneducated on others. I'm not sorry I told you that I found your sarcasm to be mean. There is, by the way, a rule pertaining to that, too. It says, "Sarcasm will be tolerated so long as it does not cross the line into overt rudeness. The moderators appreciate a sense of humor, and for more subtle sarcastic posts, or for sarcasm in general, perhaps the insertion of the emoticon would prove helpful and alert those reading the post of it's intent." If you didn't mean to offend, perhaps you could have toned down the sarcasm. Regardless of how many times people make the same insensitive jokes about my beliefs, it still hurts. If I knew that I'd hurt someone by an inadvertent comment that was actually intended to be funny (not just funny to me, but funny to them, too), I'd apologize. I wouldn't make matters worse by declaring war against them.
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...
Don't worry about it, seriously. I have a pretty good sense for when a person is trying to be malicious, and I seldom get that vibe from you. I suppose I am guilty of doing what I underlined in your quoted post. I'm genuinely working on that and, as hard as it may be for people to believe, I have actually improved over the years. And again (for the gazillionth time), I do not find it upsetting when people question my religion's beginnings or its history. I don't object to their asking questions like the ones you asked in this post. Honestly, if people want to think it's a hoax, that's really not something that bothers me a great deal. I do genuinely appreciate civility and even though sarcasm is a much easier approach, no one likes to be ridiculed. Anybody who says that doesn't bother them isn't being honest. The only thing that really sets me off is when people make statements about our history, beliefs, or culture that are categorically false, and not just a matter of opinion. When I correct these statements time and time again, and it never seems to do any good, I guess I've just gotten into the habit of keeping the guns drawn.
Just to be clear, my statement was general, and wasn't directed at you.
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.
But just to clarify, I specifically said you were uneducated on Mormonism. Nowhere have I ever implied that you are uneducated generally speaking.
