Posts by Larry Baker72

rustydrifter10 said:It isn’t true that atheists inherently lack respect for religion; let's not fall into the trap of making sweeping generalizations. Besides, according to the rules of this PDF religion, making accusations without providing proof is strictly prohibited. If there are specific complaints being leveled, I’ll need to see the links to the actual reports.

Most atheists are atheists simply because they fail to grasp the actual essence of religion. When you read the works of any prominent, highly regarded atheist like Dawkins, the argument is always the same: they claim God is nothing more than an illusion and that religion exists solely as a tool for mass brainwashing.
That’s essentially the consensus among all the prominent figures in the atheist community, though I suppose you could argue that the everyday, unsung atheists have worked just as hard to build that exact same reputation for themselves.

Generalization is an absolute necessity; without it, we wouldn't have science, medicine, or even the very language and symbols we use to communicate today. In truth, if we couldn't generalize, civilization itself would never have taken root, leaving us with no scientific progress whatsoever. Think about it—without the ability to recognize patterns, our ancestors wouldn't have known to run from lions; they simply would have been eaten. Is generalization not, ultimately, the clearest proof of human intelligence?
I won't dive too deep into the actual philosophy surrounding generalization.

I’m sticking to what I said: if you're going to moderate a specific PDF religion, you really ought to grasp the very essence of that PDF religion, don't you think?
I’ve drawn parallels between racism and tolerance, and honestly, I could probably sit here and give you a million more comparisons if that's what it takes.
Is there anything more exhausting than encountering a complete mathematical illiterate on the PDF mathematics forum?
Is there anything quite as predictable as encountering a religious fanatic on an Evolution forum?
It seems like you might have hit send a little too early there. What was on your mind?


While my own critique regarding moderator Meadow isn't centered on that specific point, I couldn't help but notice how much they seem to push against religious studies—a topic that redbear2 has since expanded upon quite extensively here on the forum.

My only real issue with moderator Meadow is that they simply lack the capacity to moderate; it feels like we're dealing with a bad moderator who acts solely on their own whims.
If she can't wrap her head around a concept, or if a particular point happens to rub her the wrong way—regardless of how much sense it makes to everyone else on this forum—she’ll just issue a ban and steer the conversation exactly where she wants it to go. It's as if she views this entire platform as her own private playground, treating the rest of us like nothing more than mere numbers to be deleted whenever it suits her convenience.

I just got flagged by moderator Meadow for this.

Original Post:

Quote: gringo1 said:It’s impossible to become an atheist; you can only become religious.😉
But atheism is the default state—the natural setting—so can anyone actually give me an example of someone born religious?☕

For me, from the moment I realized I existed, the idea of God just made sense and clicked immediately.

Do you have any examples of children being born hating the church and God, which is precisely what atheists are?

Trolling.
👏

🤣

Someone should have asked sooner, but it’s pretty obvious she’s emotionally unstable and looking for a grudge to settle.

William Bennett53, here is the reality: much like bluecyclist64, whose posts make it quite clear, we no longer have the "right" to participate on this PDF religion sub-forum, because whatever we write will be interpreted however she pleases based on her own whims, leading to yet another ban.
So there you have it; I’m clearly not the only user who has reported this, even if most people don't bother to speak up like I do, choosing instead to just make a new account or walk away rather than face the consequences.

The choice is yours now, and it comes down to your standards for this site: do you want these emotionally volatile mods who end up driving everyone away from the PDF religion section?

It seems I no longer have the right to post on the PDF religion forum, since a ban is inevitably coming my way.

Sam Alvarez4 said:the history of religion. there’s a massive distinction there!

😵

The concept of "history of religion" as its own distinct academic discipline doesn't really exist; it usually just falls under the umbrella of general history or religious studies.

Besides, religions are so deeply intertwined with the timeline of humanity that if you were to strip away every historical event touched by faith, you’d essentially be deleting 99% of recorded history.

And what exactly would one even call the "history of ethics"???

I suspect she simply missed a comma or two—perhaps she meant History, or maybe Religion/Ethics? Since religion and ethics are electives in our school system, you pick one or the other; otherwise, her curriculum entry makes absolutely zero sense, wouldn't you agree? 🤦

Just like yours.

Sam Alvarez4 said:Meadow is an incredible moderator.
Patient, thorough—exactly what you want when dealing with religion.

But everything seems to suggest quite the opposite.

redbear2 said:I couldn't care less about the evidence. I'm just telling you that if you want people to actually take this thread seriously, you need to start linking those questionable posts right here. Otherwise, what's the point?

The admin who ends up reviewing this will be able to scroll through the history easily enough, so there's really no reason for me to clutter the thread with endless quotes.😵

Just as her religious leanings and her take on how history should be taught in schools don't prove she lacks the capacity to be a moderator.
You just don't like her. Period.

Are you honestly equating atheists with racists? I don't follow.
In my experience, she’s been quite rational—at least during the times I've crossed paths with her. Again, I'm telling you: provide the links that prove otherwise. It isn't for my sake, since my opinion doesn't carry much weight here; it's for the sake of this thread, if you actually intend to achieve anything at all.

If you're moderating a thread, you have to respect its core premise; atheists don't respect religion, so they should be disqualified.
I'm not saying atheists are racists; I'm using an analogy based on the same underlying logic. It seems that might be a bit too much mental gymnastics for you to handle.
Pick up a logic textbook! ☕

So your opinions are objective, are they? In every single debate I've ever had in the Religion sub-forum—of which there weren't many—I found myself agreeing with the moderator in question.

As I read this, I can't tell if you're complaining about her moderation style or her personal beliefs and convictions.🤷

My views are generally objective, even if I am a subjective person by nature; however, when someone disagrees with me, I engage them in debate or simply walk away, rather than trying to eliminate them from the conversation. If you find yourself agreeing with everything she says, well, that's great—you two must be kindred spirits.🤣

redbear2 said:I’m nobody special here, but I’m backing Meadow simply because she gathers up all the little snails. 🙂

You haven't provided a single shred of evidence, so your entire argument falls apart; if you want to claim she isn't competent, link some actual material, otherwise you're just going to end up boiling this whole thread over nothing.

I don't believe her personal views on history as an academic subject or religion in general have any bearing on her ability to moderate. Should a religious topic be moderated exclusively by a believer? (I assume she isn't one, though I don't know what her specific religious or spiritual leanings might be.)

To me, Meadow is the only mod with actual soul. 😳

And Sophia Thomas7 is fine too, but he lacks soul. 😬

Just comb through her posts; all the evidence you need is right there.

The fact that she collects emotional snails who feel abandoned when left alone, or the fact that you find her likable, isn't relevant nor does it constitute a requirement for being a capable moderator.
If you like her, fine—enjoy her as a fellow user, not a moderator, but let's move on.

As for believers and religious forums, of course not; for instance, you wouldn't appoint a bigot to moderate a forum dedicated to tolerance, but even that isn't the core of my point, because what truly matters in a moderator is objectivity, rationality, and judgment—qualities she simply lacks, as she tends to push every topic toward her own subjective opinions which she can't even explain before resorting to banning people.
I actually saw her ban someone just because what they were writing was too much for her brain to process; the guy was making sense, philosophizing about the very essence of consciousness, and he gets banned... so there you have it.

If there were more people like Meadow, this entire forum would be a wasteland.

I honestly don't think she has what it takes to be a moderator; she just doesn't grasp basic modes of expression—things like sarcasm, satire, metaphors, or analogies. Instead, she just hands out warnings based entirely on her own personal feelings whenever someone happens to disagree with her.

Detriment is basically a death sentence for any relaxed discussion on this forum.

She kills off any real conversation by enforcing these bizarre, arbitrary rules, like how she’d probably classify history as nothing more than an optional elective in high school.
The moderator is overseeing discussions on religion while simultaneously being against religious studies. She’s a walking contradiction to the very guidelines she’s supposed to enforce.

For instance...
She clings to these rigid, unstated ideas about human nature, offering zero explanation for them yet expecting everyone else to bow down to her strange perspectives—and if you don't? You get a warning.
...and so on.

I’m asking for a formal re-evaluation of her moderation skills, because it feels like she treats this forum as her own personal playground. She lacks the necessary objectivity and reacts far too impulsively; frankly, I wouldn't trust her to watch over a flock of sheep.