Started by Steven Clark2 · · 👁 5 views · 20 replies
bluemason3 said:this heated debate
are acceptable
Gregory Turner71 said:Religion isn't some sacred cow here, nor does it get any special protection,
Susan Price30 said:And honestly, it’s even more pathetic that people like that just lie to the owner (who was actually around to deal with it back then) and lie to the local government agency admins by claiming, "We asked believers if they wanted to moderate this religious subforum, but nobody 'accepted the offer' or wanted to 'step up'..." never ever lool. Not one single person [it's been ten years flat lol]. Just a total lie and a fake excuse, if you ask me.
Susan Price30 said:If that’s the moderator's call, then I guess we just have to live with it! I’ve always felt pretty strongly that most of the major, established religions here in America are fundamentally broken. Honestly, I can't help but feel a deep sense of skepticism toward them. So, if we're assuming that there’s no such thing as a neutral or open-minded stance from the get-go—meaning everything is already biased—then does that actually make it acceptable? Is it okay to just roll with it?
Susan Price30 said:And thirdly—how on earth does someone who’s openly anti-theist, or even actively involved in anti-religion organizations here in the States, end up moderating a subforum that's clearly dedicated to theistic questions? It just doesn't add up!
Susan Price30 said:And honestly, it’s probably even more pathetic when you realize that people like that end up... Lies. Just straight up lies. ....
Gregory Turner71 said:It really all depends on the context.
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.
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.
Steven Clark2 said:Just like you don't need to be a pro tennis player just to edit a PDF, right? 🙂
Steven Clark2 said:Totally agree. Honestly, the religious crowd should just move over to the Alternative scene. They’re constantly getting roasted anyway—people are always comparing their beliefs to old wives' tales, Santa Claus, or some pink little pony nonsense. Just let them go!
Steven Clark2 said:They’d fit right in at an alternative lifestyle retreat. Or honestly? They should just move over to the Psychology department. At the end of the day, faith and religion are just one big delusion anyway!
Steven Clark2 said:If not—then why did Arthur Flores2, for example, have to wait two and a half months just to get a response to his request to return to the Religion subforum? Why did Parsifal receive a permanent ban at first, only to have it downgraded to a partial ban on that very same Religion board? And why did Tony end up with a partial ban on that same Religion section?
Steven Clark2 said:You can't just kick people off the forum simply because they write things that clash with your own worldview—you don't have the right to do that.
Steven Clark2 said:It's not like you have to be an expert in tennis to moderate the tennis subforum, right? 🙂
Steven Clark2 said:That’s not really my point, though; it's about how that subforum is actually managed and developed. I mean, go ahead and explain to me how someone ends up with a partial ban just because their posts "get under the skin" of the moderators, while posts that align perfectly with the moderators' own views somehow never "depend on context"?
Steven Clark2 said:I'll tell you what I really think about this. Personally, I feel like it’s high time we saw some massive changes within the realm of religion. We need something big, something truly radical. One way to go about that, if you ask me, would be to just shut down religion entirely.
rustydrifter10 said:We aren't going to debate someone else's sanctions; those should have been dealt with when they actually mattered.
Steven Clark2 said:Furthermore, I find myself wondering whether the worldview you advocate for enjoys any sort of "special protection" within our society. If it doesn't, I'm curious to know why you believe that is the case. Arthur Flores2I mean, seriously, did they really make him 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 critiquing the very worldview you represent. You might argue he’s just "throwing around phrases," but I don't see how "throwing around phrases" is a punishable offense when it comes to faith—so why should it be treated as a crime if someone does the exact same thing to any other belief system? We talk about sacred cows all the time, yet everything is perfectly fine right up until someone decides to touch the icons, the messiahs, or the sacred cows of atheism. 😁 Why is it... Parsifal I was hit with a permanent ban back in the day, but then somehow it got downgraded to a partial one—all within that same religion? I can't help but wonder why that would be the case. Tony So, they handed out a partial ban over that same religious topic? Honestly, it feels incredibly unjust. You simply shouldn't be allowed to drive people away from an online community just because their perspectives clash with your own worldview. It’s fundamentally wrong to censor users for expressing views that differ from yours; you don't have that kind of authority.
Arthur Flores2 said:The various nations that God commanded to be destroyed within the pages of the Bible are truly grotesque, and in my view, they deserve nothing less than death.
If I had been born back in those days, I would have followed God’s commandments without a single moment of hesitation. I would have personally dealt with every last one of those idolaters worshipping the golden calf—taking them out one by one—and then I wouldn't have stopped until everyone else was gone too. They would have scattered before my path like ants running for cover.
We are currently living through an era defined by God's mercy, yet we must remember that we previously lived through an era of God's justice—and that period was just as profoundly sacred as the one we inhabit today.
Long live PBS and those upcoming footage clips depicting the absolute catastrophe involving the Egyptian firstborns!
I honestly have zero patience for those self-proclaimed wizards and charlatans...
Arthur Flores2 said:Based on my own personal walk through life, I’ve come to realize that atheists tend to be nothing more than the most mediocre, unremarkable crowd you could ever encounter.
It seems to me that almost every spineless, slimy, and self-important freak I have encountered throughout my life shares one singular, unmistakable characteristic...
They claim to have no belief in God...
There are certainly exceptions to the rule, I suppose. However, most of those outliers aren't actually atheists, even if they insist on calling themselves that. We see the exact same pattern playing out here on this subreddit as well.
Steven Clark2 said:You haven't even offered any better discussions yourself. While I am always open to meaningful dialogue, given the way you express yourself, you aren't capable of facilitating better discussions either; your posts consistently lower the quality and standard of our discourse.
I didn't even see this thread or your replies a year ago. And frankly, the point isn't to trade insults, but to have an actual discussion.
Tony, you should probably sort out your own issues and viewpoints before labeling someone else a cultist, because you aren't any better. Of course, if you could present your arguments and stances clearly, I would find it a pleasure to read them and share my thoughts. How can you not grasp that your posts are beneath the level of the Unknown and those like him? My friend, anything can be said in a more pleasant manner without resorting to primitivism and verbal insults.
Arthur Flores2 said:Since Nicole James can't seem to explain why I was hit with a second suspension, he's calling in shadoworca3 to dig up posts from my first one—which happened years ago—just to muddy the waters regarding how things actually unfolded. Those old posts were written back when the religion sub was at such a low point that people were actually permitted to call for the deaths of believers' children (my own children, specifically...), to which I naturally responded, albeit somewhat reluctantly and with restraint.
F. Chief said:Well, what can I say? May God reward your children in that very same way...
Arthur Flores2 said:.And because of my complaints, the religion sub was finally restructured into something decent, though I paid for that victory with a second suspension that Nicole James was unable to explain...
Arthur Flores2 said:By the way, speaking of spreading hate, shadoworca3 is a moderator who tried to push the idea that it was acceptable to call the Virgin Mary a WHORE...
I would like to reiterate my previous points regarding his moderation style and his attempt to argue against the Virgin Mary:
Even if someone were to argue that Mary was not a virgin, one has to wonder why shadoworca3 feels the need to immediately label her a slut , which is arguably the most degrading insult a woman can face. It is pure malice when someone calls a prostitute a slut, let alone when they target a figure held sacred by millions. Based on shadoworca3's logic, I suppose it wouldn't be an insult to call any other woman on this platform a slut if it could be proven she wasn't a virgin. Therefore, what we see here is that the moderator, shadoworca3, is actually prone to trolling, essentially watching to see how he can make fools out of us believers....
shadoworca3 said:It was never allowed on Reddit anyway.
It was never allowed on Reddit to call for anyone's death, especially not children—and certainly not yours.
I guess some believers probably try to justify what Yahweh did to the firstborn in Egypt.
Oops, looks like you were one of them too.
Regarding that pathetic claim of yours about people invoking the deaths of your (devout) kids—honestly, I can only assume you're just being paranoid or letting your imagination run wild. The reality is you were actually glorifying the whole act of God's mercy when He was wiping out those firstborns in Egypt, which is exactly why F. Chief responded like this:
Quote:
F. Chief says: Check out this post
What can I even say to you? I guess I'll just say, may God reward your children the same way...
So, basically, shadoworca3 is acting like they don't notice how malicious that post directed at me actually was. Look, I get it. The whole massacre of the firstborns in Egypt was an absolute nightmare of a tragedy. But honestly? The real horror wasn't even about those kids who passed away so quickly in their sleep. It was for the parents. I mean, imagine being left behind to carry that grief, just sobbing for years on end after everything went down. That’s the part that actually sticks with you.
Because F. Chief is exactly that kind of guy. Personally, if you ask me... He basically wished me ill—like, he actually wanted me to lose my kids just like what happened in Egypt. Since God punished those parents so harshly by taking their little ones away, anyone wishing that kind of fate on me is essentially wishing the absolute worst upon me. I mean, it doesn't even matter if those kids went straight to paradise and weren't actually punished themselves. The whole point is the punishment hits the parents, not the children. That's where the sting is.
So, shadoworca3 is up there claiming that since I believe God justly punished those parents in Egypt—which, yeah, I absolutely do—that I somehow don't have the right to post here. I guess that's how they work.I really hope I never end up with the kind of fate those Egyptian parents dealt with... honestly, just thinking about it gives me the creeps.
shadoworca3, do you even realize you're not seeing things clearly? I guess you're just bitter because of how our last few arguments went down. You were throwing unfair accusations at me before, too, so I had to stand my ground and deal with you.
So, you're actually trying to argue that people have the right to curse us out just because of what we believe? I mean, I guess that's your take, but seriously?
(shadoworca3 is imagining some kind of righteous crusade, where he can smugly lecture us saying, "Here you go—now that you put all your faith in the God of the Bible, you finally got what you asked for""...😕... personally, I just firmly believe that good triumphs in the end, and there’s a solid answer for everything. But shadoworca3 is convinced that’s not how it works. He’s an average guy, I guess—nothing smarter than me, really—but he lacks that spiritual insight I possess, the kind you only find by following Jesus' mystical paths if your heart is actually open and humble...)You still don't get it because the discussion was about a believer requesting that people shouldn't post against church officials on this forum. I responded that you can—and should—be able to speak out against anyone, especially public figures, provided you back it up with arguments. For instance, I mentioned you could even argue against Mary if you have the evidence, otherwise, it's just an insult punishable by 35 or 45 points.
Of course, you won't understand, because thanks to your emotional colorblindness, you can't see that if you're allowed to criticize someone like Ivo Sanader, Ivo Josipović, or Zoran Milanović... then you can certainly criticize Vladimir Bojanić, Pozaić, the Pope, and that whole bunch of mythical figures, including Mary.
That nasty little concept is called freedom of speech, and it's even mentioned in the Constitution.
What rotten apologetics, just trying to push through insults against my mother in heaven. I mean, sure, anyone has the right to try and prove the Virgin Mary wasn't a virgin, but once they supposedly prove it, they'll probably write "Mary wasn't a virgin" , or maybe "Mary lost her innocence" , or "Mary wasn't even chaste" , or "Mary liked to sleep around" , and so on...
But if someone takes a loss of innocence as an excuse to immediately call a woman a slut, then that’s just straight-up an insult, especially when you know you're messing with someone's sacred beliefs...
Such pathetic apologetics...
Besides, it isn't even possible to prove that the Virgin Mary was a slut , because a slut can't actually be a human being...
shadoworca3 claims it's possible to argue that the Virgin Mary was a SLUT !!!
😂
And this is coming from shadoworca3, who is a moderator in the natural sciences section...
he he he...
.
shadoworca3 said:I don't want to be too dramatic, but reading how you trade children's lives is just horrific.
shadoworca3 said:What’s actually more dangerous, and harder to spot, is that you aren't even mourning your own kids. In your mind, they'd already be dead because of F. Chief's curse, so you're really just mourning yourself. It's a textbook (Nicole James)ian reaction from a psychopath.
Actually, come to think of it, your sickness isn't caused by faith or Yahweh. If he didn't exist, you'd just find some other figure from another mythology to justify why you feel this way.
Arthur Flores2 said:(you kicked me out of the religion without any explanation...)
...
By the way, it isn't actually possible for anyone to prove that the Virgin Mary was a bitch, because a bitch can't be a human being at all...
shadoworca3 claims it's possible to argue that the Virgin Mary was a SLUT!!!
😂
And this comes from shadoworca3, who is a moderator on the natural sciences forum...
he he he...
.