Posts by Steven Clark2

Gregory Turner71 said:It really all depends on the context.

But who actually decides what the context is? Who gets to dictate which perspectives are acceptable and which ones aren't?

Gregory Turner71 said:Religion on this forum isn't some sacred cow, and honestly, we shouldn't treat it like one either. They aren't exactly enjoying any special protections.However, we really need to ensure this discussion stays at an argumentative level; let's not allow it to devolve into nothing more than a series of mindless slogans.

Let me be very clear on this point. My friend, I am certainly not suggesting that religions should be treated as sacred cows here, nor do I believe they deserve any special protection from scrutiny. I honestly don't know how many times I need to reiterate that. However, I must ask: does labeling a faith or a religion as "The God Delusion" actually constitute an "argued debate," or is it simply throwing around empty catchphrases?

Furthermore, I have to ask: does the worldview you defend enjoy some sort of "special protection"? If it doesn't, then why on earth did Arthur Flores2 have to wait two and a half months just to get a response to his request to return to the Religion PDF? The man is openly and publicly criticizing the very ideology you represent. Perhaps he is "throwing around phrases," but I fail to see how using certain rhetoric against religion or faith is a punishable offense—unless, of course, that same behavior is permitted when directed at any other worldview. We are talking about sacred cows here, but apparently, everything is perfectly fine right up until someone dares to touch the icons, the messiahs, or the holy cows of atheism. 😁 Why was Parsifal issued a permanent ban on this Religion platform, only to have it later downgraded to a partial one? Furthermore, why was Tony given a partial ban on that very same site? It feels fundamentally unjust. You simply cannot drive people away from the forum just because their writings challenge your specific worldview; you don't have the right to do that.

rustydrifter10 said:One doesn't necessarily have to be religious to edit a PDF about religion, after all. Furthermore, whatever anyone chooses to do in their private lives outside of this forum is entirely none of our business and certainly shouldn't be a topic of debate here.

Just because someone isn't an expert in tennis doesn't mean they aren't capable of editing a PDF about tennis, right? 🙂

It isn't actually about the content itself; it’s about the methodology behind how this entire PDF is being constructed. Honestly, please explain to me how someone ends up with a partial ban just because their posts "get under the skin" of the moderators, yet when someone posts something that aligns perfectly with the moderators' own worldview, suddenly everything is fine? It seems like "context" only matters when it’s inconvenient for them.

I would like to offer my perspective on this matter. I truly believe it is time for some sweeping, radical changes within the Religion sub. We need something substantial. One such change, for instance, would be to close the Religion section entirely. It seems to me that the "religious crowd" should simply migrate over to Alternative; after all, they are constantly being mocked there anyway, with their beliefs frequently compared to old wives' tales, Santa Claus, or pink unicorns. The Alternative community would be an ideal home for them. Alternatively, they could move over to Psychology, given that faith and religion are essentially just a grand delusion.

If this strikes you as something massive or overly radical, let me just add one thing—everything else regarding religion is far more radical than this. In my view, that PDF wouldn't even survive any serious scrutiny, not necessarily from the average users who rarely ask anything anyway, but from the system itself, which tends to stifle progress. I have written on dozens of forums, moderated several, and even built some of them myself; I have quite a bit of experience under my belt. Consequently, I truly believe that simply closing that PDF would be the most painless solution for everyone involved. 🙂

Just a quick question—are the entries (in that PDF on religion) claiming that faith and religious belief are merely God delusions (and things along those lines) actually acceptable or not?

If they are, then I have one piece of sincere advice: just close that PDF immediately.

Arthur Flores2 said:Ego, this feels a bit too syrupy...

I am not entirely sure if it is overly syrupy, but I do know that Ego tends to dislike posts like these—or any posts that carry a scent of hatred, hellfire, or similar themes—especially when such rhetoric originates from believers. 🤷

Arthur Flores2 said:I was merely making a sarcastic reference to Escobar's post,

And why the need for justification? 🤷 It isn't as though you received a partial ban because of that specific controversial post; rather, from my perspective, it was due to your style of contributing to the Religion subforum. As I have observed, lately, most of your comments have been confined to just one single thread. Quite simply, your writing style does not align with the current ethos of the Religion subforum, and that is all there is to it. 🤷 As you are aware, that section is diligently moderated by atheists (not counting Striker). When I use the word "diligently," I am being entirely sincere and not at all ironic or sarcastic (do remember that you were penalized for such things yourself). From their viewpoint, your contributions are problematic; meanwhile, remarks like "God-deluded" or "fanatics of God" are permitted on a subforum where it is perfectly natural for believers who believe in God to exist. It is, as one user put it, entirely a matter of perception. To them, those comments are acceptable, whereas your way of writing is not. 🤷

If you ask me, you have my full support in returning to the Religion subforum. I truly believe you did nothing to deserve a partial ban. There are many other users there who ought to have received permanent bans long ago for constant provocation, yet their posts are excused as mere "criticism of religion," which allows them continued access. 🤷 As long as believers are labeled as "God-deluded" , that subforum will remain a void. With all due respect to the moderators, they aren't doing much to improve the atmosphere in that section. They likely contribute unintentionally to the perception that "religious people" are "God-deluded fanatics," allowing such language to pass while believing they are performing their duties well. In any case, I would not wish to be in their shoes, but I would very much like to see you return to the Religion subforum. 🙂

Brenda Cook4 said:“The part where you said 'me too' referred to the facepalm because you're disgusted by the stupidity” — that is precisely why you received a red card. See, the post you agreed with was flagged specifically because of the line “I’ve never met anyone stupider than you”, which is why driftingfalcon3 was justified in lashing out and asking for you to get a red card as well.

Regarding the swearing: unless we are talking about swearing at forum members, their families, or using extremely crude, gutter language—or excessive use of those "Texan" profanities—we don't sanction it. As it states in the rule of Religion:

Being crude isn't acceptable. We aren't demanding the level of decorum you'd see on an evening news broadcast, but let's not overdo it.

[/I]

What, in your opinion, would constitute being vulgar?

Isn't it true that the term "rabbit" is actually feminine—shouldn't it be "doe"?🙂

Sam Green73 said:Personally, I prefer this title because it doesn't appeal as much to those nostalgic for the old regime—those who can't stop reminiscing about Yugoslavia—and instead attracts people genuinely interested in the history of intelligence agencies.

To be honest, I couldn't care less about the old regime; in my view, its existence was perhaps the greatest catastrophe to strike the nations of the North America. We will likely be dealing with the fallout of that era for at least another fifty years—to varying degrees, of course—but regardless, I believe the topic title is excellent. I noticed you decided to change it from your initial suggestion, and I truly applaud that decision. There is certainly plenty to discuss regarding the former intelligence apparatus. A former FBI agent, or perhaps someone from the KLA, once mentioned to me that the old administration maintained an incredibly formidable intelligence service back then—one that commanded respect even from Western agencies.

Steven Reed said:The axe has finally fallen. You can find all the details over at and

For those who prefer a very brief summary:

🙂

melloworca6 said:It is important to recognize that not all PDFs are created equal, and applying a universal standard to every single one of them is fundamentally flawed. If we were to attempt to implement what is being suggested here, it simply wouldn't work when applied to healthcare.

It doesn't necessarily have to work for every single PDF file, for instance. Nor is there a strict requirement for a user to have exactly 100 posts; fifty might suffice, or perhaps even more, depending entirely on the specific document being handled. In any case, if we were to establish such a standard as a formal rule, it would be perfectly reasonable for everyone to adapt to it—especially our newer members. It is much like how most users on an American forum grow accustomed to established guidelines that are consistently enforced, and that is simply how things ought to be.

Furthermore, I believe there is no need to initiate a brand-new thread for every specific inquiry; instead, we should utilize existing Q&A threads. My primary concern lies with users who start an entirely new discussion only to vanish immediately afterward—or at least stop logging in altogether. This issue could be easily mitigated by maintaining a single, dedicated topic for questions and answers. For instance, on the PGA Tour forums, we have a centralized thread specifically for penalty appeals. Imagine if every single person who wanted to contest a penalty opened their own individual thread! It would be chaos. It is far more efficient to maintain one comprehensive thread for general matters, reserving new topics only for truly unique or specialized questions.

Susan Price30 said:To be perfectly honest, I find that idea quite misguided. It seems unnecessary to implement such heavy-handed or even undemocratic measures when we already have the tools at our disposal. If someone is sending unsolicited private messages or spamming an inbox, there is already a clear mechanism to report them. We can resolve these issues through existing channels without resorting to anything resembling a dictatorship.

How many different forums have you actually posted on? We aren't talking about some kind of dictatorship or "undemocratic" crackdown here. This is simply about protecting the community and its members from clones, spammers, and other nuisances. This wouldn't be the first—nor would it be the last—online community in the world to implement a rule like this. And even if it were, so what? It’s actually quite refreshing that a major platform like Reddit would take the initiative to introduce some modern updates to keep things running smoothly.

Of course, I am not suggesting that this rule must be implemented immediately; rather, it was merely a proposal intended for further refinement. It certainly does not have to be a rigid requirement of 100 posts—a number that any spammer could easily manipulate in a chat room. Ultimately, one could argue that chat messages shouldn't even be factored into the official post count for serious contributors.

James Chavez91 said:I don't want to speak out of turn here since I'm certainly no expert on the technical side of things; I'm just weighing in with a quick thought.

However, these are quite compelling questions, and I truly hope we see some actual answers soon.

👍

The only way this would be impossible is if the forum software itself doesn't support such a feature, but I am sure someone more knowledgeable will chime in on that.

Chris Peterson53 said:You hit the nail right on the head, Mike!
You're absolutely spot on...😉

The moment someone with zero posts—or maybe just a handful—starts a thread:

"What do you all think about this?" followed by a link to some news article...
To be perfectly honest, I am quite weary of seeing these blunt, poorly constructed "topics" pop up, most of which don't even have a remote connection to the actual subject matter of the PDF!☕

Chris Peterson53, these kinds of threads are actually started by long-time forum members too. If we look at the specific PDF where you serve as a moderator, it's clear that this has become a standard "method" for starting discussions there. However, it isn't just about people posting daily political news; it’s also about users who might lack experience in how to properly initiate a discussion. This applies whether they are commenting on current events or simply asking for advice on what kind of term paper to write (which varies depending on the PDF, as nearly every one has those types of newcomers drifting in).

Personally, I believe that implementing those 100 points would actually provide much-needed guidance for users, which would ultimately make things much easier for all of you as well.

James Chavez91 said:I believe your suggestion would be far more effective if applied to the process of initiating new discussion threads.

It is truly disheartening to see how this can happen—where an individual is harassed through private messages, while the entire community is simultaneously tormented by the constant influx of spam and utterly mindless threads. It really disrupts the spirit of the whole forum.

Listen, my friend, you know exactly what I mean. ☕

To be perfectly honest, what you’re saying is essentially covered by the rule regarding posting privileges; we have those restrictions where users with fewer than 100 posts—give or take eighty or a hundred and fifty—can't open new threads just yet. I simply wanted to avoid cluttering the board by starting three separate discussions. I suspect we could probably consolidate them into a single thread, much like how one might organize things under a single Nestlé brand umbrella.

I am struggling to come up with a more fitting title. 🤦

I have received a few rather ridiculous private messages lately, and unfortunately, this isn't an isolated incident. I have dealt with what I assume are clone accounts before, which reminded me of a specific rule I once encountered on an overseas forum.

Essentially, the rule was that members with fewer than 100 posts are restricted from sending direct messages. I am not entirely certain if our forum offers such a setting, but if it does, I truly believe it would be a wise feature to implement.

I simply see no purpose in allowing someone to impersonate Agent Smith indefinitely just to spam us with messages.

There are several other requirements that some users fail to meet—for instance, many seem incapable of reaching even the 100-post threshold here. Initially, I thought such thresholds were somewhat arbitrary, but I have since realized that these rules aren't necessarily designed for "normal" users; they don't seem to bother the bad actors at all.

So, does this forum have these kinds of moderation tools available, or should we simply expect to deal with strange private messages from time to time?

Matthew Grant9 said:Well... I feel like the timing just isn't quite right from an administrative standpoint! I mean, honestly, trying to use a single ten-page post as my main argument for closing this down feels a little bit silly, especially since the topic itself hasn't actually been deleted yet.
You could look at it as a real force of nature, but I also see it as a tiny crack in the door being left open, since things were allowed to progress to some extent. But hey, you know me—I’m a total optimist!

It would honestly be such a huge help if we could take a closer look at the specific topics everyone is actually debating, just to see if any real patterns or trends are starting to emerge! I just can't help but smile whenever I see those little "likes" popping up on my screen! It’s such a tiny thing, really, but honestly, seeing that little burst of digital affection truly makes my day and gives me such a wonderful little boost of energy! I guess it really comes down to whether we should dive into those specific questions right away or if it’s better to wait until things have officially kicked off! Maybe we shouldn't jump to conclusions about bot farms or click farms just yet! Honestly, it might just be that there’s actually a decent number of us out here who genuinely care about this topic and want to chime in. It’s not even necessary to argue whether this was an attempt to hijack the topic, because honestly, I would have been strongly against that from the get-go! I actually found myself pushing back against certain previous examples—even some of the moderator posts—that I felt definitely crossed the line into that territory. Is it actually possible for something to fly completely under the radar at first—maybe just because things were so routine or because we were all caught up in some sudden chaos—only to suddenly make perfect sense once it’s finally spelled out in a formal complaint? I can't help but wonder if the whole situation would have played out differently if someone else had been the one to spot the issue, like maybe an insider instead of me!

The mods were officially asked to weigh in on the registration situation, but they’ve stayed completely silent! So, I guess we're all just left sitting here playing a guessing game. Honestly, I’m still holding onto this little shred of hope that the whole thing just somehow slipped under their radar—because the longer this silence drags on, the harder it gets to make any sense of it at all. It’s not like they aren't around, but maybe they're just terrified of being the first ones to speak up? It feels like that classic case of groupthink where everyone ends up paralyzed by a sort of collective hesitation, passing the buck and practicing self-censorship until nobody wants to take the heat. Just total radio silence!

Honestly, that’s a huge part of why I’m sticking with the writing—even if all that recent nonsense really rubbed me the wrong way—because I just feel like it might make things a little easier for them to finally open up and find their voice!

Oh my goodness, can you believe how incredibly hard—and, I might add, how wonderfully benevolent—I am trying to actually grasp the point you’re making here!
I honestly can’t help but laugh at myself sometimes, but I just had to share this little observation about how things can go completely unnoticed! It’s like that one tiny, invisible flaw that you swear everyone else can see, yet somehow stays totally hidden from view. It really makes you wonder about all the little things we miss in our daily lives, doesn't it?
I’m starting to get a little worked up about this too, almost as much as Lisa Hernandez3!
Even though this hits home for me on a personal level, she’s been incredibly articulate, well-reasoned, and straight to the point in all her posts over the last month. Honestly, I’m just over here popping like popcorn with pure joy because I can't believe you guys actually want to talk to us!

Honestly, this whole whining session isn't anything new, nor is it particularly special, and I really don't feel like spending too much energy on it; it's just one of those daily little gripes that we've seen a million times before and will likely see plenty more of in the future.

But hey, let's be fair—my point wasn't actually about the complaining itself, but rather about trying to stay polite and back things up with actual logic despite all the nagging.

If I could just have one sentence—what exactly is everyone getting upset about here?

[Speaking strictly for myself] I feel like this particular post falls under hate speech, but the real issue is the way the mod team is acting like a bunch of overbearing busybodies (similar to how they deleted that thread over on the General Discussion board), and the fact that the rest of the mods are staying silent even after multiple requests for clarification, which is what's truly controversial and should at least be open for debate in our main discussion area.

There are probably a thousand other issues, most of which I've already pointed out in previous threads, but if I have to boil it down to just one sentence... well, whatever it is, I won't ramble on forever, so thanks for coming to ask me! And I mean that sincerely, no irony intended, thanks for checking in.

Just one humble observation. I am truly sorry if this disappoints you, but I firmly believe that moderators—and even administrators—are under no obligation to provide explanations for every single inquiry directed at them. Aside from instances where they are directly accountable to a superior (for example, a moderator typically answers to an admin, and admins answer to the owner or whoever sits at the top of the hierarchy), they shouldn't have to justify every move. The reason is quite simple: there is currently no mechanism in place to protect them from users who might exploit such a right for their own ends. I serve as both an administrator and a moderator for two different online forums, and I found myself deeply invested in this particular discussion (I read through the entire thread started by Silaj) purely because it helps me improve my own approach to the job. I have some experience under my belt, so I understand the weight of what it means to delete someone's post. It is a shame that not everyone can empathize with that feeling. 🙂 Whenever I’ve made a decision like that, I’ve honestly never felt it was my duty to provide an explanation. To be perfectly candid, the posts I deleted were nothing more than unpleasant noise—they weren't exactly pleasant to read—so I didn't give the matter much thought. My primary concern has always been maintaining my own integrity; I need to be certain of my own motives when deciding whether to keep or remove a particular comment. As for how others might interpret those actions? Well, you simply cannot please everyone. Some will offer praise, while others will inevitably criticize, and that is just the nature of things.

In my estimation, the controversial post being labeled as hate speech is somewhat overstated. I have revisited the content several times now; initially, I was inclined to agree that it crossed the line, but upon more careful and deliberate reading, I find myself unable to reach that same conclusion. Personally, I am unconvinced that a permanent ban is warranted, primarily because the intent behind the words remains ambiguous to me. I would prefer to let the situation mature a bit. Time will eventually reveal whether this was merely an ill-advised remark—a singular lapse in judgment—or if we are actually dealing with someone who consistently uses their platform to spread intolerance and animosity.

In my view, this entire tug-of-war is nothing short of pointless—for everyone involved. There isn’t really a compelling reason for the administration to feel the need to defend themselves here; we aren't talking about hundreds of rule-breaking posts, but rather a single instance (at least from what I witnessed) that some see as problematic while others clearly do not. Of course, I understand why some users might be looking for a more substantial response from management, but just because they haven't provided one doesn't mean we should demonize the moderators and admins simply because they didn't meet our specific demands. I truly empathize with the community members, as I am one of them, but I also have a great deal of empathy for the admin team and the mods, as I can certainly relate to their position as well.

On the other hand, I feel that being overly pedantic and nitpicking within our community is truly excessive. It is undeniably true that we all make mistakes—none of us are perfect—but I believe a person's overall attitude is far more significant than the occasional slip-up. Personally, my primary concern is that the moderators and admins aren't malicious individuals who are just itching to hand out bans, delete posts, or act completely indifferent to the community. Generally speaking, most mods will respond to a private message if they choose to, but the most vital thing is that they maintain a mature, fair-minded approach toward the members and the discussions themselves. If they happen to make an error—which, let’s be honest, is inevitable—we shouldn't go overboard in judging them (provided these errors don't become a habitual pattern, though that is a much broader conversation).

Unless there are some underlying motives being masked by the label "that post is hate speech"—meaning, unless the actual goal isn't about the content itself, which supposedly offends minority groups or underprivileged communities here in the States, but rather an attempt to attack the moderators at CNN—then I believe we are wasting far too much precious time on this single controversial post. (In all honesty, that is likely the only point I truly needed to make regarding everything that has been said.)

driftingeagle27 said:The sheer fact that you felt the need to remind me I'm on an American forum just proves you're nothing but a chauvinist.

And if I recall correctly, the rules here on Reddit prohibit that kind of stuff, so it honestly makes more sense that there's no room for you on Reddit, rather than for me, since I'm actually a decent person.

Man, Christian Taylor3, do you see the kind of people I have to deal with on here... 🤷 And then people have the nerve to judge me. 😢 😛

It isn't chauvinism to state that one is participating in an American forum. For the sake of basic etiquette, I could just as easily tell you how you are participating in an American forum.

Grace Jones86 said:As for these mods... they might actually be okay.
There are tons of subreddits that are seriously over-moderated... like psychology, career advice, some IT PDF sections, stuff like that... ☕
Btw... I don't even visit the music sub anymore because there's always been this heavy, infantile chaos there, and I honestly outgrew that style a long time ago.

I'm also thinking about quitting this Reddit... the same thing happened again that's happened several times before. A good thread starts, I'm typing like a maniac, putting in the effort, then some heavy flammer or troll flies in who has absolutely nothing to say, and after that, the topic just vanishes...... 😕😕👎
That's just one example of their bizarre behavior.

The idea that these people get paid, and then after all that, there's mostly no explanation for the bizarre actions they repeatedly take, is a bit much.
Not to mention the cliché moderation where you wait two days for a reaction, which—to put it mildly—is usually not particularly smart.

I just hope someone relevant actually shows up to this thread and explains things. 🙄
Though I know the chances are slim, and it'll probably take at least a week if we're lucky. And that's assuming some newly registered flammer or troll doesn't come in and screw us all over, causing me to get banned in the process.🙄👎
Etc....

You know, I have experienced this countless times myself. Eventually, I realized I had options: I can ignore the sudden intrusions from random trolls, I can occasionally respond just so I don't look foolish in their stead, I can fire back in kind because they deserve it (though I usually end up getting banned because I'm breaking the rules, which is fair, despite everything), or I can simply walk away. I have tried all of those approaches. Each method has its merits, but honestly, the best course of action is to simply ignore the trolls. Most reasonable users on any forum tend to ignore them while reading anyway, so there really is no need to let every little comment get under your skin.

Fair enough, you make a valid point. But what about the PDF on Christianity? 🙂 On the Religion board, there are plenty of active discussions that touch upon Christianity, whether directly or indirectly, if that's how we want to look at it. 🙂

Well, I suggested that they give it a shot—it won't cost them anything. Let's say we try it for about six months; if it makes sense, great, and if not, then we move on. Honestly, I am quite indifferent to the outcome. However, just as you (or any other member of the administration) want to see constructive arguments for why we should or shouldn't open that specific sub-forum, I feel the same way. 🙂

And let me reiterate—why do you perceive this as separating atheists from theists, vice versa?? There is absolutely no intention of segregation here, boss. Who is stopping atheists from participating in the main sub-forum? Or preventing any theist from joining a specific sub-forum within the Religion section? Perhaps I view this through a slightly different lens because I have experience managing forums myself, but to me, having distinct sub-forums is perfectly logical; when there is such a large volume of people circulating, it is simply more organized to know where everyone belongs. I am willing to consider whether this might not be the ideal approach, but despite my best efforts to see it otherwise, I haven't been convinced yet. I certainly don't expect people to flock to new sub-forums to flood them with endless posts and new threads. Take the Spirituality sub-forum, for example. When I first joined this forum—and if you check my registration date, you'll see I've been writing here for nearly four years now—Spirituality was actually part of the Religion section. Later, Philosophy was spun off, eventually becoming its own thing, even though the connection seems tenuous. It likely happened because many users requested it, perhaps wanting to distance themselves from the chaos of the Religion section. As for how much sense the Spirituality sub-forum makes to me personally, I'll refrain from commenting. My point is this: if Spirituality can exist as a standalone section, then a sub-forum for Atheism/Islam/Christianity is a completely normal and legitimate way to categorize the Religion section. You have roughly 40% Christians, 30% atheists, and 10% Muslims. The main sub-forum would handle general topics, which naturally include discussions touching on atheism, Christianity, or Islam (with other faiths implied), but if someone wants to dive into a more nuanced debate, it is only logical that they head over to the Christianity sub-forum to start a thread regarding Jesus's pre-existence. Within that specific space, I don't see a need to argue about whether Jesus actually existed or if the Bible is the Word of God, not because those things are forbidden, but because everyone knows exactly where those debates belong. With better moderation—specifically, higher quality moderation where the mods actually understand the nuances of what they are overseeing, rather than just being "parachuted" in—do you really think this couldn't work in practice? Of course, there will always be some friction, petty jabs, and other trivial nonsense, but I believe it could be kept to a minimum. If this doesn't work out, you always have the option to merge all the sub-forums back into one main section.

In the end, although I wouldn't personally cast a vote since I rarely participate in polls—what if you simply posted a poll to see if there is any actual consensus? It feels somewhat futile to debate this if it truly is the best solution but the vast majority of users don't want it. Even if the majority isn't always the perfect metric, it isn't worth pushing the issue without knowing where the bulk of the community stands. According to this poll, most people voted "yes" to opening the Christianity sub-forum, but interestingly, they didn't read the introductory question carefully. That question specifically asked for the opinion or demand of Christians; looking at who voted "against" the sub-forum, it is clear that the opposition came mostly from atheists, agnostics, or others, rather than Christians themselves. Poll results may shift by today, but you won't know the true sentiment until you actually conduct the vote.

Look, boss, I’m really trying to drive home the point regarding the purpose of this PDF. 🙂 I felt compelled to provide an example to illustrate my perspective.

Here is how I see it. I certainly understand the anxiety and the underlying prejudices people have when opening a document like this, but those issues can be mitigated through much more effective moderation. Moderation isn't just about handing out warnings or deleting posts that don't fit the rules, is it? If you are planning to implement changes within the scope of Religion, then we are looking at the necessity of radical measures. To be blunt, any meaningful reform requires bold, decisive action. Some people will embrace it, while others will inevitably push back, but I believe it is an absolute necessity. Every individual eventually learns this through their own experience—society is in a constant state of flux, so why should this forum be any different? The core issue is that you want to modernize this platform, to make it higher quality, more engaging, and more welcoming. But sir, that kind of evolution doesn't happen without making some radical moves. This doesn't strictly apply to Religion, though that is our current focus. Please give it some thought and let me know if my reasoning holds water.

Nationalism and chauvinism simply cannot exist without people and nations to fuel them. Yet, we constantly see discussions about hatred directed toward Americans, Romanians, Mexicans, Germans—whoever it may be—which usually results in harsh sanctions, typically a permanent ban rather than just a yellow card or a penalty point, wouldn't you agree? 🙂 To demonstrate what it looks like when such rhetoric is applied to a specific nation, I will simply swap out some terms. I am curious to know to what extent a post like this would be permitted on any sub-forum here:

Targeting Romanians would probably throw them straight back into the Stone Age and into a deep depression, much like a narco when they go a month without their "medicine."

EVIL exists only within the Romanian context; EVIL does not exist outside of Romania. The followers of ideologies and religious fundamentalists/fanatics—they are the EVIL.

Romanians and Nazis are essentially the same thing in different packaging. Honestly, I no longer wish to waste my time on "sheep" who are bored with their pasture; believe whatever you want, just make sure you offer enough charity so that Satan doesn't visit you in your sleep.

Regards.

PS

And yes, all of us Americans/Germans/Canadians are essentially deluded; we haven't discovered Romania yet, and we are basically uneducated folk without ambition. Of course, Romanians know more than we do; they KNOW what happened and how it happened, and they KNOW what will happen and how it will be. We Americans/Canadians/Germans are merely at the beginning of a journey to discover that—whether it be today, tomorrow, or five thousand years from now, it makes no difference to me. Quite simply, life is too short to waste on nonsense like Romania and its people.

EoD

Naturally, I have effectively committed social suicide here, but a post like this wouldn't pass, would it? I highly doubt it. Nationalism, chauvinism... these things don't exist without a nation or a people. 😉

P.S. This is merely an example; I trust we understand one another? 🙂

At the end of the day, there are no fans without football, nor is there football without fans; therefore, I see no one complaining that there is a dedicated "Fans" sub-forum within the "Football" section. 🙂

This is a perfect illustration of why an atheism sub might be established specifically to handle posts like this one:

MioM300 said:Religious people would probably just end up tossed back into the Stone Age and spiraling into a deep depression, much like a junkie when they go a month without their fix.

EVIL exists solely within a religious context; EVIL simply does not exist outside of religion. It is the followers of ideologies and religious fundamentalists or fanatics who constitute true EVIL.

Believing in some old man in the sky or Jesus is just the same nonsense in different packaging. Honestly, I don't even think it's worth my time to deal with the "sheep" who are bored with their pastures. Believe whatever you want, just make sure you give enough to charity so Satan doesn't pay you a visit in your dreams.

Regards.

PS

And yes, all of us atheists, realists, and skeptics are essentially deluded; we just haven't discovered Jesus or Allah yet, making us nothing more than uneducated, unambitious souls. Of course, theists know more than we do—they claim to KNOW what happened in the past, how it happened, and what will happen in the future. We atheists are merely at the beginning of a journey to discover those truths, whether that happens today, tomorrow, or five thousand years from now; it makes no difference to me. Quite simply, life is far too short to waste on nonsense like religion and its various dogmas.

EoD

Nicholas King said:Do you happen to have at least five or six discussion topics tucked away in your sleeve that would only truly make sense within the context of that specific PDF? 😕

Ultimately, this comes down to the atheists rather than the theists. In truth, even those with religious beliefs are perfectly free to initiate topics that might primarily invite discussion with the atheists, should they find something interesting to explore. Personally, I believe that opening up this PDF—and perhaps even creating another one—would actually foster much higher quality discussions. It would lead to clearer rules and better overall organization within the document. I suspect it would minimize the confusion we see now and curb the number of "free riders" who jump onto almost every single thread just to repeat the same tired arguments. Honestly, it’s been getting quite tedious; this repetitive cycle has been dragging on for over a year now, though I suppose that's just how things go. 🙂

Brenda Cook4 said:Generally speaking, on most online forums that aren't strictly religious in nature, you'll find atheists participating quite frequently—often sparking discussions exactly like the one we have here in this PDF. This brings me to my question: do you believe atheists should be banned from a dedicated religion sub-section on a secular forum, like the ones found on Reddit or similar large US message boards, simply because they don't subscribe to a faith?

Actually, that isn't my point at all. What I am suggesting is that we establish a dedicated space where we can engage in more serious, high-quality discussions regarding theistic and atheistic topics. From an administrative standpoint, it would be much more organized and efficient to manage; having a specific section allows for much clearer guidelines than what we currently have in place. I don't view this as some sort of crackdown or a way to ban anyone—I simply see it as a practical improvement for the forum's structure.

I am making a public pledge right now: I will never post on this entire forum again if you—or anyone else here—insists that starting a new PDF thread would somehow constitute banning an atheist from the Religion subforum. Furthermore, I will step away permanently if there is any belief that opening an Atheism thread would lead to such an outcome. In my view, any rational atheist should have plenty of meaningful things to discuss with a theist. On the other hand.In my view, creating separate subforums would actually foster much more mutual respect—something that is clearly lacking right now. Not to mention it would help steer clear of some of the more intense, heated topics currently cluttering the Religion board. If you look at this from a purely sociological and practical standpoint, there isn't a single logical reason why we shouldn't have such a space. And I’m not just talking about atheists here; I mean all of us. As a moderator and administrator who has been deeply involved in studying religion for quite some time, I have yet to encounter a single constructive explanation—or "proof," if we want to use the lofty terminology often found on the Religion board—as to why we shouldn't implement additional subforums. Frankly, most of the opposition seems rooted in paranoia. There is this underlying fear among atheists regarding the potential dominance of theists, a worry that they might somehow "take over" the Religion board. To me, that strikes me as rather irrational. After all, the Religion board inherently belongs to the theists; they are the vast majority. What exactly could they possibly "take over"? 🤷

If this matters to you—and I suspect it might, especially regarding how we handle administration—I want to be clear: I am not suggesting that we remove the current moderators from the Religion section. Should a new PDF be opened, the existing team should stay put. However, I am strongly in favor of increasing our moderation staff. Honestly, I believe adding more hands on deck would benefit everyone here. To be perfectly clear, I have no issue with you remaining a moderator, nor with Ego or VeronikaN staying in their roles; what I am proposing is simply bringing in a few new people, who, if we are being honest, would be a massive help given the current circumstances.

When you say:

May I ask why you wouldn't just head over to a Christian forum where you could enjoy the company of like-minded people? Personally, I’ve never visited those types of forums, but that’s precisely why I am here on a secular one; I believe there should be no limits on what anyone can write anywhere (since atheists don't just stick to their own specific threads, but participate across the entire subforum).

Well, if you have never actually visited Christian forums populated by "like-minded people"—which is really just a tired internet cliché used by folks like Shady when they were attacking Christianity on Religion—then how can you possibly know that "like-minded people" are even there? 🤷 I truly wanted to ask you, quite sincerely, which Christian forums you have visited and which ones you have written on to know for certain that they consist of "like-minded people." 🙂 You see, I have posted on about fifteen different forums, including Reddit, various lifestyle blogs, news sites like CNN, and other highly secular platforms, but I have also participated in several Christian forums where I never encountered a single "like-minded" person. If what you say were true, such forums wouldn't even need to exist. It is simply a cliché, nothing more.

By the way, the Religion section won't become exclusively Christian even if atheists were to have their own dedicated subforum; it will remain the Religion section. Just as it is now, the demographics include roughly 10% Muslims, about 15% who hold personal spiritual beliefs (people who don't identify primarily as Christian or Muslim), at least 10% Muslims again, and about 40% Christians—which includes Protestants and Orthodox believers, not just Catholics. Atheists make up slightly less than 30%. Of course, if a specific "Christianity" subforum were opened, that would be a different story, but this section can never be "single-denomination" or anything similar, otherwise, it wouldn't be called Religion.

In principle, due to an aversion toward religion (perhaps specifically toward this Religion section), I feel it isn't feasible to add another subforum to Religion, though I understand the sentiment. There is a difference between saying "that is the forum policy," which I find to be a much more honest explanation, and attempting to "explain" why a certain subforum is *not* allowed on Religion. There isn't a single rational or logical reason to deny a subforum other than the one I mentioned. That is the most honest answer, even if it doesn't feel entirely fair. Ultimately, because the forum is privately owned, the owner or the administration has every right—if they insist—to create twenty subforums dedicated to black magic or witchcraft while abolishing, say, Sports or Religion. It is perfectly orderly and legitimate because a forum has its own concept, policy, and purpose. Therefore, no one has any grounds to complain; that is simply how it works.

Ultimately, given certain statements—much like the one I wanted to include in my signature—it might actually be useful to have a dedicated subforum where religion can be mocked or religious sentiments can be insulted. Up until now, this has almost always been permitted in the Religion section under the guise of "democracy" and "freedom of speech," but that is an oxymoron in itself. You cannot insult the views and feelings of the very community a subforum is dedicated to, no matter how much you disagree with them. What has happened in the Religion section over the years is the product of poor forum policy (though I think management needs to realize they should adjust their internal policies regarding Religion) and a certain bias from the moderators themselves—their aversion to religion, their mockery of it, and so on.