Posts by Jeremy Young19
19 posts shown.
The discussion regarding the pope's visit over on the religion subforum is really just a symptom of the ongoing atmosphere that’s been festering there for quite some time. It is a stroke of pure luck that the politics section actually had a thread dedicated to the visit, which serves as a glaring indictment of our moderators over on the religion board—both in terms of the caliber of debate and the general conduct of the users and staff alike.
As far as I’m concerned, it would be best if the atheists themselves weighed in on this matter; if they find it agreeable and believe there’s a viable path forward for the Democratic Party, then fine, why not? But if not, that's perfectly alright too—we’re all just learning how to coexist in the same society 🙂
Brenda Cook4 said:On most forums that aren't strictly religious in nature, you’ll frequently find atheists participating—often sparking threads exactly like this one. So, here is my question: do you believe atheists ought to be banned from a dedicated religion sub-section on a secular site like Reddit, simply because they don't adhere to the core subject matter?
Not happening.
Brenda Cook4 As stated by:
Because when you say:
Might I ask why you don't simply migrate to a Christian forum where you could enjoy the company of like-minded individuals? Personally, I have never felt the need to frequent those types of spaces; instead, I prefer staying on secular forums. In my experience, there aren't any arbitrary boundaries regarding what one can say on a general board—after all, atheists don't just confine their discussions to a single isolated thread, but participate across the entire subforum.
I didn't mean to imply that atheists were being "cleansed" or anything of the sort—if that’s how it came across—but I did notice that believers seem to be posting all over this subforum. My observation was simply that atheists here show a disproportionate interest in questions regarding worldviews centered on the existence of God, and it strikes me that perhaps both atheists and theists could benefit from being a bit more precise about where they stand.
restlesssurfer6 As stated by:
Then we might as well put together a dedicated PDF covering Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and the rest.☕
We went looking for a section dedicated to Christianity, but they wouldn't give us one—classic. Still, if there’s actual interest in the topic, why not? There’s a subforum for just about everything else, so we might as well see what happens.
hollowtrucker77 said:so what exactly should atheists be debating on this subforum??
🙂
Presumably about atheism itself and the worldview that stems from it—their specific perspective on existence. It seems to me they feel a necessity to discuss these topics because there is an abundance of discourse regarding religion, whereas finding space for religious discussion can be more difficult since they are essentially operating on someone else's home turf, if I may put it that way. Consequently, one tends to encounter more negative responses than positive ones.
hollowtrucker77 said:
or would it end up looking identical to religion, just with everything framed through a negative lens?
That depends entirely on how the atheists choose to carry themselves.
I have been contributing to the religion subforum for over three years now—roughly 90% of my total activity happens there—and I’ve been lurking around the boards for about four or five years. From what I can see, the religion section is heavily populated by atheists; in fact, two out of the three moderators are atheists themselves. Given that we have active members and even leadership who are genuinely invested in the study of atheism as a concept, I find myself wondering why we haven't seen the creation of a dedicated "atheism" subforum yet.
That’s precisely why I phrased it as "what might be possible" rather than stating it as a certainty. While certain indicators are present, I have no way of knowing their true weight or how much they've actually matured; besides, seeing similar patterns in previous signatures doesn't exactly inspire confidence. My intention was simply to highlight this because, for the sake of basic professional courtesy, it feels right to let someone else weigh in on the matter. It’s about maintaining a sense of fairness.
And that's really all there is to it.
By the way, mellowraven22 and ego actually know each other in real life. It’s enough to raise some serious questions about potential bias, especially since they even use identical signature layouts... honestly, just tear him apart.
hollowtrucker77 said:Jeremy Young19, since Mirzakv is the one who went out of his way to emphasize his religious identity before adding what ego has in his signature, maybe the real question we should be asking is whether he’s actually spreading religious intolerance or just a general civilizational bias rather than anything else.
In this specific instance, ego is just the guy pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, yet you seem more bothered by the fact that someone is speaking up than by the actual reality of the situation itself.
🙂
Besides, I’m not exactly a fan of pigeonholing people either, so if you ask me, labeling him as a "declared Muslim" feels a bit off and isn't quite the right way to frame it.
It isn't that I'm bothered; I haven't commented on the statement nor do I share such an opinion. My stance is simply that actions like this ought to be sanctioned, though I can't say for certain if that post was flagged yesterday—I haven't felt like checking.
hollowtrucker77 said:Jeremy Young19, since Mirzakv is the one who went out of his way to emphasize his religious identity before adding what ego has in his signature, maybe the real question we should be asking is whether he’s actually spreading religious intolerance or just a general civilizational bias rather than anything else.
In this specific instance, ego is just the guy pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, yet you seem more bothered by the fact that someone is speaking up than by the actual reality of the situation itself.
🙂
Besides, I’m not exactly a fan of pigeonholing people either, so if you ask me, labeling him as a "declared Muslim" feels a bit off and isn't quite the right way to frame it.
That specific part is my main contention in this whole affair. We are talking about a religious moderator who is supposed to foster a constructive environment within the sub-forum, yet it seems to me that his conduct is improper, as he is merely inciting intolerance and ramping up tensions. That is my perspective, and the final decision rests with you all, whatever it may be.
I’m genuinely curious: does an assertion like this, especially when you tack on the author's religious affiliation, qualify as inciting intolerance toward a specific faith group?
I’m wondering if it’s actually permissible to include a statement like this in a signature:
women are less valuable than men in certain sectors. They are only equal when it comes to reproduction. (by. mirzakv, self-identified Muslim)
particularly in the religion section where the user's handle and his religious affiliation are explicitly mentioned—if I’m not mistaken, shouldn't such a post be flagged for sexism?
I worry that doing this essentially fuels animosity toward Muslims; I fail to see what purpose highlighting a user's faith serves in the context of such a claim.
What’s even more baffling to me is that the moderator for the religion board,
http://forum.us/member.php?u=213, is actually the one who put this statement in his signature.
rowdyhawk10 said:To me, this is simply another symptom of how distorted that faith has become. ...
It’s quite amusing to see him lecturing about the Republic of America when he used to be a moderator over in the religion forum. That’s essentially how this post begins.
ZgSash;26959137 said:and?
which part is difficult to explain??
well, prior to the ritual sacrifice to God, blood was spilled and the meat of the sacrificed creature was consumed (one hopes it was merely an animal)
it was believed that through the act of sacrifice, that flesh and blood became sanctified, bestowing a blessing upon whoever consumed it.
🙂
There you have it. In the Jewish tradition, even though they practiced blood sacrifices, consuming blood was strictly forbidden; the blood was shed within the Temple because life resides in the blood and it belongs solely to God. There were also instances where the sacrifice was entirely burned, meaning no one could partake of the meat at all. It is certainly useful to understand the context of what is being moderated. Yet, we still encounter individuals who label Jews or Christians as vampires, and when someone reacts to those provocations—bam, they get slapped with a "vampire" ban. Red flags everywhere.
Alternatively, we could pursue a more productive path: we could purge this religion PDF of everyone incapable of civilized communication, regardless of their specific denomination, thereby preserving space for those truly interested in interfaith dialogue and who possess a genuine desire to learn from "the other side."
👍
hollowtrucker77 The user states:
And they say moderators don't actually grasp the nuances of what they're overseeing.
I won't name names here, but I'll tell you this: most of these moderators don't even grasp the basic tenets of religious doctrine, let alone understand the nuances of religion itself.
A moderator’s role isn't to act as a thought police or dictate exactly how people should frame their perspectives; rather, it is to step in when content crosses the line into being genuinely inappropriate.
The notion that one can simply spout whatever nonsense crosses their mind—hurling insults and baseless claims only to retreat behind the shield of "God told me so"—is nothing more than the flawed logic of someone who is fundamentally bad at mental math.
A moderator really ought to possess a fundamental grasp of the subject matter they are overseeing if they intend to distinguish actual discourse from mere mindless rambling. When I find myself wading through endless theological disputes regarding Islam, I am often left completely lost; I have no clue what the core arguments even are, let alone how to tell whether a user is engaging in genuine debate or simply shouting nonsense to provoke a reaction.
When it comes to insults, people generally spot them when they're laid bare, but if someone manages to mask an affront behind a veneer of trivialities, it goes completely unnoticed—mostly because people simply lack the perception to see through the act.
When you look at the discussions regarding atheism over on the Religion subreddit, it becomes quite apparent that atheists lack any sort of centralized organization to bring them under one cohesive roof, much like the way a church functions. Because there is no unifying body, the understanding of atheism is almost entirely left to the discretion of the individual. Consequently, having an "atheist moderator" in that space feels somewhat redundant; such a person can really only speak for themselves and offer their own specific perspective on how things should be handled.
hollowtrucker77 said:Roger Barrett2, have you finally realized that you're the only one left who thinks Twitter actually messed this up?
And regarding what the moderators are doing... well, they're moderating.
They’re just doing their jobs by keeping the subforum readable and preventing a flood of nonsense from people who desperately want to be seen as religious, pious, or deeply spiritual.
Look, you don't need to belong to some specific, recognized religious denomination to recognize when someone is being outright insulting or intentionally trying to start a fight.
A moderator's actual job is to remain objective, not to take sides or try to "understand" where one particular group is coming from.
How can a moderator claim to be objective if they lack the fundamental understanding or context of the very content they are supposed to be overseeing?
I honestly haven't the slightest clue what atheism is actually attempting to accomplish within the context of this religion subforum. Generally speaking, it just seems to be an exercise in posturing and acting intellectually superior. If you ask me, the whole thing is a comedy. It becomes even more absurd when you consider that we even have atheists masquerading as religious types here, which only adds to the farce. Then again, life itself is frequently nonsensical, so perhaps this sheer absurdity is simply being mirrored in our dear little "religion" subforum.
It’s become this catch-all label used whenever you dare to utter a single sentence that doesn't align perfectly with the LGBTQ+ agenda. Anything at all. The unspoken rule seems to be that everything they do must be treated as peak normalcy, requiring us to offer nothing but constant validation, pampering, and absolute indulgence. It’s a minefield; you could practically complain about the smell of a bad fart in their presence and—BAM—suddenly you're branded a homophobe.
Here’s a link for those kinds of things; I honestly had no idea that just cruising through the city actually had its own official designation.
http://www.adventure-sport.net/index...onid=60&rid=11
Personally, I try to bike to work or wherever else I need to go whenever the opportunity arises. There is a certain charm to seeing the city from a bike seat, even if my heart truly belongs to the deep woods. I’m planning to ride to the office tomorrow, and just knowing that's the plan already has me in a great mood today.🙂
I was just scanning through to find the right spot to wish everyone a happy New Year, and I decided this subforum felt like the place.
I hope 2008 treats you all well and gives you the grit and determination needed to chase down whatever it is you're actually aiming for deep down. Cheers.
And for heaven's sake, try to keep things sensible during the celebrations.😁
🙂 🙂 🙂