What's going on in the Religion sub?

We have always kept all discussions regarding prayer within the Religion section (and we still do), which is why experienced moderators usually move any newly opened threads on that subject over there.

But with the constant daily jumping between all those newly opened threads, even the new PDF moderator is losing it now. Is there any reason to avoid discussing the topic of prayer? With the following reasoning:.

Little Mary. said:Hello. May I ask a question? Okay, thanks. I started a thread yesterday titled "prayer"... but it's gone now. Was it moved? If so, it would be polite to provide a notice. If it was deleted, please explain why.

Brenda Cook4 said: Your thread has been removed because it violates our community guidelines. Regarding the rules. foruma:

2) All posts need to match the specific tone and communication style intended for the forum.
Basically, lecturing, preaching, or dropping long-winded monologues—along with spamming links or anything else that shuts down actual conversation—is off-limits here, unless you're directly answering someone's question.
This rule applies specifically to opening posts. When you start a new thread, please make an effort to thoroughly explain and justify the topic you want to discuss. Lay out your initial perspective clearly and choose a title that accurately reflects the subject matter. Threads launched with a high-quality opening post typically lead to much more meaningful discussions.
The introductory thread needs to establish clear boundaries and guidelines for discussion. When topics are defined too broadly, they become nearly impossible to moderate and quickly spiral into being completely unconstructive.
Threads started using the "LINK + What do you think about this?" format, or posts where the opening message fails to actually define a topic for discussion, will be automatically deleted.

I suggest you start a new thread following those guidelines if you feel like it.

Could the forum moderators please provide some further clarification on this matter, or perhaps move the thread back to its proper section?

Thank you.

Honestly, this "topic" belongs right where it should be... in the trash. 🙂

The thing is, this isn't even a discussion—it’s just a massive pile of copy-pasted spam. I'm actually glad you pointed me toward this thread; I just submitted another report for a blatant violation of the forum rules.
The purpose of a forum is to allow a broad group of people to engage with the specific subject defined in the opening post—not to have someone's sermons, personal musings, or prayer shoved in everyone's faces. If people want to share that kind of stuff, they should stick to personal blogs.

You’d honestly think that just copying and pasting the thread creation rules would be enough to show why something got nuked, right?🙄
But this wasn't even about a discussion thread; it was just someone spamming endless, repetitive prayers.

Nicole James said:Honestly, this "topic" belongs right where it should be... in the trash. 🙂

The thing is, this isn't even a discussion—it’s just a massive pile of copy-pasted spam. I'm actually glad you pointed me toward this thread; I just submitted another report for a blatant violation of the forum rules.
The purpose of a forum is to allow a broad group of people to engage with the specific subject defined in the opening post—not to have someone's sermons, personal musings, or prayer shoved in everyone's faces. If people want to share that kind of stuff, they should stick to personal blogs.

Then one could argue that the entire Prayer section (I actually think there are several threads with similar themes) is also just a 'mountain of copy/paste spam' because people simply copy famous Christian prayers—but that is the whole point of such a thread, isn't it?

What Mary Jane wrote doesn't differ significantly from other similar posts... (of course, the mistake was opening a thread that already exists, which happens quite often—usually, mods would just merge the content into the active thread without deleting anything, at least that's how it worked on Reddit until now).

Were you expecting us to start inventing brand-new prayers and advertising them here on the Religion board?🙂

Here's link to the open thread, where the opening post says:

little mariana
Prayers and devotions
As a Catholic, I feel it's my duty to share prayers and devotions, so...
Please don't reply if you're just looking to criticize, judge, or mock us. There are other sections on the forum for that. If you want to pray, go ahead; if you don't, that's fine too. Just let those of us who pray be at peace.

Following that, it's nothing but Catholic prayers, which makes it pretty obvious that starting a topic like this doesn't really fit a forum—it belongs on a personal blog. A forum is meant to be a space for discussing specific topics.

hollowtrucker77 said:Susan Price30, I don't think we can really settle the debate since this subforum actually has moderators who have the final say on whether a thread stays up or gets tossed into the bin
Look, at the end of the day, they’re just people, plain and simple, just like the rest of us, and sure, they might slip up occasionally, but they generally know what they're doing, so it feels a bit uncalled for to constantly nitpick every single move they make
If we keep pushing them like that, it could honestly start looking like we're just trying to obstruct their work

Well, I agree that they generally do a good job, so I promise I won't harass 😁anyone.

I was just confused about why that thread regarding prayer disappeared—but now I get it...

thx

Regarding the whole religion topic, I’m honestly just curious about one thing: why is there such a tolerance for atheists popping up in those spaces?
It seems pretty obvious to everyone that a believer and an atheist can rarely have a conversation without it devolving into an argument, which makes an atheist showing up in a religious space feel like nothing more than intentional trolling... Yet, you all seem to be taking it a step further by actually appointing an atheist as a moderator for that PDF.
Does anyone truly believe that makes any sense?

Just so there’s no misunderstanding, I consider myself an agnostic, but I see absolutely no reason to try and convince someone that the concept of the Virgin Birth is anything other than a bit absurd.

William Green4 said:Regarding the whole religion topic, I’m honestly just curious about one thing: why is there such a tolerance for atheists popping up in those spaces?
It seems pretty obvious to everyone that a believer and an atheist can rarely have a conversation without it devolving into an argument, which makes an atheist showing up in a religious space feel like nothing more than intentional trolling... Yet, you all seem to be taking it a step further by actually appointing an atheist as a moderator for that PDF.
Does anyone truly believe that makes any sense?

Just so there’s no misunderstanding, I consider myself an agnostic, but I see absolutely no reason to try and convince someone that the concept of the Virgin Birth is anything other than a bit absurd.

Because this is an open forum designed for the exchange of ideas from all perspectives, not an echo chamber for like-minded individuals. If people want a space where everyone agrees, they can find specialized forums or private groups with much stricter membership requirements.👍

William Green4 said:Regarding the whole religion topic, I’m honestly just curious about one thing: why is there such a tolerance for atheists popping up in those spaces?
It seems pretty obvious to everyone that a believer and an atheist can rarely have a conversation without it devolving into an argument, which makes an atheist showing up in a religious space feel like nothing more than intentional trolling... Yet, you all seem to be taking it a step further by actually appointing an atheist as a moderator for that PDF.
Does anyone truly believe that makes any sense?

Just so there’s no misunderstanding, I consider myself an agnostic, but I see absolutely no reason to try and convince someone that the concept of the Virgin Birth is anything other than a bit absurd.

I don't quite see it that way. As a believer myself, I actually find that I clash—and let's be honest, "clash" is a polite word for argue—with other believers more often than I do with atheists. A discussion is a discussion, and an argument is an argument. If you aren't fighting over one specific point, someone will inevitably find another one to pick at.👍

William Green4 said:Regarding the whole religion topic, I’m honestly just curious about one thing: why is there such a tolerance for atheists popping up in those spaces?
It seems pretty obvious to everyone that a believer and an atheist can rarely have a conversation without it devolving into an argument, which makes an atheist showing up in a religious space feel like nothing more than intentional trolling... Yet, you all seem to be taking it a step further by actually appointing an atheist as a moderator for that PDF.
Does anyone truly believe that makes any sense?

Just so there’s no misunderstanding, I consider myself an agnostic, but I see absolutely no reason to try and convince someone that the concept of the Virgin Birth is anything other than a bit absurd.

Why discriminate? For a moderator, the priority should be competence; personal leanings ought to be irrelevant (or at least they should be). To spot someone being provocative within a thread, you don't need to hold a specific faith (or lack thereof)—you just need to be able to read objectively, which is something anyone can do when they're focused.👍

To be perfectly honest, nothing gets under my skin quite like someone jumping in to answer a question I never actually asked.
Who exactly are you to decide that I’ve earned the privilege of hearing your take?

If I were to try and explain it through an analogy, it would be like someone deciding to put a man on display in a chicken coop just for the sake of it.
How many people do you think would get banned from that situation immediately?
Generally speaking, an atheist can’t truly engage with religious debates because, from their perspective, the whole thing seems absurd from the jump; conversely, a believer won't stay silent when faced with criticism from an atheist, because they’ll feel personally attacked just for holding their convictions.
We saw this exact same dynamic play out with rowdyhawk10....

People who want to police how others moderate things really need to do some internal housekeeping first.
First off, am I even capable of grasping the nuances of what they are discussing?
Secondly, do I have the patience and the reading comprehension to actually finish what they wrote without clutching at straws like The Kid?
Just because this forum is an open space doesn't mean I’m going to show up just to mock someone else's perspectives on something I don't even claim to be.
There is an entire field of philosophy dedicated to understanding that kind of social boundary..
And while I don't personally dive into the deep end of religion being a provocation, I certainly find it interesting to follow along from the sidelines!

William Green4 said:To be perfectly honest, nothing gets under my skin quite like someone jumping in to answer a question I never actually asked.
Who exactly are you to decide that I’ve earned the privilege of hearing your take?

If I were to try and explain it through an analogy, it would be like someone deciding to put a man on display in a chicken coop just for the sake of it.
How many people do you think would get banned from that situation immediately?
Generally speaking, an atheist can’t truly engage with religious debates because, from their perspective, the whole thing seems absurd from the jump; conversely, a believer won't stay silent when faced with criticism from an atheist, because they’ll feel personally attacked just for holding their convictions.
We saw this exact same dynamic play out with rowdyhawk10....

People who want to police how others moderate things really need to do some internal housekeeping first.
First off, am I even capable of grasping the nuances of what they are discussing?
Secondly, do I have the patience and the reading comprehension to actually finish what they wrote without clutching at straws like The Kid?
Just because this forum is an open space doesn't mean I’m going to show up just to mock someone else's perspectives on something I don't even claim to be.
There is an entire field of philosophy dedicated to understanding that kind of social boundary..
And while I don't personally dive into the deep end of religion being a provocation, I certainly find it interesting to follow along from the sidelines!

It’s exactly this kind of attitude that sparks these arguments in the first place, rather than anything you personally did. For instance, if I happen to be a Catholic and you’re an agnostic, things get heated. Or is this whole thing happening just because I’m Catholic? I knew it...😉

William Green4 said:To be perfectly honest, nothing gets under my skin quite like someone jumping in to answer a question I never actually asked.
Who exactly are you to decide that I’ve earned the privilege of hearing your take?

If I were to try and explain it through an analogy, it would be like someone deciding to put a man on display in a chicken coop just for the sake of it.
How many people do you think would get banned from that situation immediately?
Generally speaking, an atheist can’t truly engage with religious debates because, from their perspective, the whole thing seems absurd from the jump; conversely, a believer won't stay silent when faced with criticism from an atheist, because they’ll feel personally attacked just for holding their convictions.
We saw this exact same dynamic play out with rowdyhawk10....

People who want to police how others moderate things really need to do some internal housekeeping first.
First off, am I even capable of grasping the nuances of what they are discussing?
Secondly, do I have the patience and the reading comprehension to actually finish what they wrote without clutching at straws like The Kid?
Just because this forum is an open space doesn't mean I’m going to show up just to mock someone else's perspectives on something I don't even claim to be.
There is an entire field of philosophy dedicated to understanding that kind of social boundary..
And while I don't personally dive into the deep end of religion being a provocation, I certainly find it interesting to follow along from the sidelines!

My apologies if I misread the punctuation at the end of some of those sentences in your comment. When you wrote, "Do you think that makes sense?", I took it as a rhetorical question directed at the general public rather than a direct inquiry. My mistake.🙏

William Green4 said:To be perfectly honest, nothing gets under my skin quite like someone jumping in to answer a question I never actually asked.
Who exactly are you to decide that I’ve earned the privilege of hearing your take?

If I were to try and explain it through an analogy, it would be like someone deciding to put a man on display in a chicken coop just for the sake of it.
How many people do you think would get banned from that situation immediately?
Generally speaking, an atheist can’t truly engage with religious debates because, from their perspective, the whole thing seems absurd from the jump; conversely, a believer won't stay silent when faced with criticism from an atheist, because they’ll feel personally attacked just for holding their convictions.
We saw this exact same dynamic play out with rowdyhawk10....

People who want to police how others moderate things really need to do some internal housekeeping first.
First off, am I even capable of grasping the nuances of what they are discussing?
Secondly, do I have the patience and the reading comprehension to actually finish what they wrote without clutching at straws like The Kid?
Just because this forum is an open space doesn't mean I’m going to show up just to mock someone else's perspectives on something I don't even claim to be.
There is an entire field of philosophy dedicated to understanding that kind of social boundary..
And while I don't personally dive into the deep end of religion being a provocation, I certainly find it interesting to follow along from the sidelines!

That’s only true if you aren't being objective. In a situation like this, a moderator shouldn't be jumping into the middle of the debate, but they should be able to spot someone being abusive, dismissive, or purely provocative quite easily. For instance, if the topic is something like eyelash extensions—which, frankly, is a concept I struggle to wrap my head around—I wouldn't bother policing most of that conversation as a male moderator. However, if one user decides to call another a "cow," a "whore," or some other equally vile slur, then I’d conclude very quickly that the discussion has veered off the rails. For those more subtle nuances, we have the report button for a reason.👍

William Green4 said:To be perfectly honest, nothing gets under my skin quite like someone jumping in to answer a question I never actually asked.
Who exactly are you to decide that I’ve earned the privilege of hearing your take?

If I were to try and explain it through an analogy, it would be like someone deciding to put a man on display in a chicken coop just for the sake of it.
How many people do you think would get banned from that situation immediately?
Generally speaking, an atheist can’t truly engage with religious debates because, from their perspective, the whole thing seems absurd from the jump; conversely, a believer won't stay silent when faced with criticism from an atheist, because they’ll feel personally attacked just for holding their convictions.
We saw this exact same dynamic play out with rowdyhawk10....

People who want to police how others moderate things really need to do some internal housekeeping first.
First off, am I even capable of grasping the nuances of what they are discussing?
Secondly, do I have the patience and the reading comprehension to actually finish what they wrote without clutching at straws like The Kid?
Just because this forum is an open space doesn't mean I’m going to show up just to mock someone else's perspectives on something I don't even claim to be.
There is an entire field of philosophy dedicated to understanding that kind of social boundary..
And while I don't personally dive into the deep end of religion being a provocation, I certainly find it interesting to follow along from the sidelines!

As I’ve already pointed out, there isn't exactly a need to dwell on their motivations, but one can certainly recognize what constitutes an insult, a smear campaign, or blatant provocation. Beyond that, there's the sheer annoyance of watching someone attempt to force their unsolicited opinions on people who couldn't care less about them in the first place.👍

William Green4 said:To be perfectly honest, nothing gets under my skin quite like someone jumping in to answer a question I never actually asked.
Who exactly are you to decide that I’ve earned the privilege of hearing your take?

If I were to try and explain it through an analogy, it would be like someone deciding to put a man on display in a chicken coop just for the sake of it.
How many people do you think would get banned from that situation immediately?
Generally speaking, an atheist can’t truly engage with religious debates because, from their perspective, the whole thing seems absurd from the jump; conversely, a believer won't stay silent when faced with criticism from an atheist, because they’ll feel personally attacked just for holding their convictions.
We saw this exact same dynamic play out with rowdyhawk10....

People who want to police how others moderate things really need to do some internal housekeeping first.
First off, am I even capable of grasping the nuances of what they are discussing?
Secondly, do I have the patience and the reading comprehension to actually finish what they wrote without clutching at straws like The Kid?
Just because this forum is an open space doesn't mean I’m going to show up just to mock someone else's perspectives on something I don't even claim to be.
There is an entire field of philosophy dedicated to understanding that kind of social boundary..
And while I don't personally dive into the deep end of religion being a provocation, I certainly find it interesting to follow along from the sidelines!

Anyone who feels "punished" usually has some underlying need to justify their own behavior, and this is just one potential excuse. For instance, people constantly accuse Veronica (which is always interesting to watch) of playing the "punishment card" via rowdyhawk10, while most of us aren't even sure why she tolerates certain things in the first place.🤷

William Green4 said:To be perfectly honest, nothing gets under my skin quite like someone jumping in to answer a question I never actually asked.
Who exactly are you to decide that I’ve earned the privilege of hearing your take?

If I were to try and explain it through an analogy, it would be like someone deciding to put a man on display in a chicken coop just for the sake of it.
How many people do you think would get banned from that situation immediately?
Generally speaking, an atheist can’t truly engage with religious debates because, from their perspective, the whole thing seems absurd from the jump; conversely, a believer won't stay silent when faced with criticism from an atheist, because they’ll feel personally attacked just for holding their convictions.
We saw this exact same dynamic play out with rowdyhawk10....

People who want to police how others moderate things really need to do some internal housekeeping first.
First off, am I even capable of grasping the nuances of what they are discussing?
Secondly, do I have the patience and the reading comprehension to actually finish what they wrote without clutching at straws like The Kid?
Just because this forum is an open space doesn't mean I’m going to show up just to mock someone else's perspectives on something I don't even claim to be.
There is an entire field of philosophy dedicated to understanding that kind of social boundary..
And while I don't personally dive into the deep end of religion being a provocation, I certainly find it interesting to follow along from the sidelines!

Exactly. Mockery will be penalized, but asking concrete questions won't. Not every disagreement with the majority constitutes a provocation or a dismissal, even though the majority (which happens quite often on the religion threads) tends to take offense immediately. However, that doesn't necessarily mean they are objectively insulted. It all comes down to how you carry yourself as an individual, regardless of whether you are a believer or an atheist.👍

William Green4 said:To be perfectly honest, nothing gets under my skin quite like someone jumping in to answer a question I never actually asked.
Who exactly are you to decide that I’ve earned the privilege of hearing your take?

If I were to try and explain it through an analogy, it would be like someone deciding to put a man on display in a chicken coop just for the sake of it.
How many people do you think would get banned from that situation immediately?
Generally speaking, an atheist can’t truly engage with religious debates because, from their perspective, the whole thing seems absurd from the jump; conversely, a believer won't stay silent when faced with criticism from an atheist, because they’ll feel personally attacked just for holding their convictions.
We saw this exact same dynamic play out with rowdyhawk10....

People who want to police how others moderate things really need to do some internal housekeeping first.
First off, am I even capable of grasping the nuances of what they are discussing?
Secondly, do I have the patience and the reading comprehension to actually finish what they wrote without clutching at straws like The Kid?
Just because this forum is an open space doesn't mean I’m going to show up just to mock someone else's perspectives on something I don't even claim to be.
There is an entire field of philosophy dedicated to understanding that kind of social boundary..
And while I don't personally dive into the deep end of religion being a provocation, I certainly find it interesting to follow along from the sidelines!

I participate minimally, but I follow along extensively.👍

Brian Edwards6 said:It’s exactly this kind of attitude that sparks these arguments in the first place, rather than anything you personally did. For instance, if I happen to be a Catholic and you’re an agnostic, things get heated. Or is this whole thing happening just because I’m Catholic? I knew it...😉

My apologies if I misread the punctuation at the end of some of those sentences in your comment. When you wrote, "Do you think that makes sense?", I took it as a rhetorical question directed at the general public rather than a direct inquiry. My mistake.🙏

That’s only true if you aren't being objective. In a situation like this, a moderator shouldn't be jumping into the middle of the debate, but they should be able to spot someone being abusive, dismissive, or purely provocative quite easily. For instance, if the topic is something like eyelash extensions—which, frankly, is a concept I struggle to wrap my head around—I wouldn't bother policing most of that conversation as a male moderator. However, if one user decides to call another a "cow," a "whore," or some other equally vile slur, then I’d conclude very quickly that the discussion has veered off the rails. For those more subtle nuances, we have the report button for a reason.👍

As I’ve already pointed out, there isn't exactly a need to dwell on their motivations, but one can certainly recognize what constitutes an insult, a smear campaign, or blatant provocation. Beyond that, there's the sheer annoyance of watching someone attempt to force their unsolicited opinions on people who couldn't care less about them in the first place.👍

Anyone who feels "punished" usually has some underlying need to justify their own behavior, and this is just one potential excuse. For instance, people constantly accuse Veronica (which is always interesting to watch) of playing the "punishment card" via rowdyhawk10, while most of us aren't even sure why she tolerates certain things in the first place.🤷

Exactly. Mockery will be penalized, but asking concrete questions won't. Not every disagreement with the majority constitutes a provocation or a dismissal, even though the majority (which happens quite often on the religion threads) tends to take offense immediately. However, that doesn't necessarily mean they are objectively insulted. It all comes down to how you carry yourself as an individual, regardless of whether you are a believer or an atheist.👍

I participate minimally, but I follow along extensively.👍

On a forum like this, fights almost always ignite because people start playing lawyer for one side or the other.

Brian Edwards6 said:It’s exactly this kind of attitude that sparks these arguments in the first place, rather than anything you personally did. For instance, if I happen to be a Catholic and you’re an agnostic, things get heated. Or is this whole thing happening just because I’m Catholic? I knew it...😉

My apologies if I misread the punctuation at the end of some of those sentences in your comment. When you wrote, "Do you think that makes sense?", I took it as a rhetorical question directed at the general public rather than a direct inquiry. My mistake.🙏

That’s only true if you aren't being objective. In a situation like this, a moderator shouldn't be jumping into the middle of the debate, but they should be able to spot someone being abusive, dismissive, or purely provocative quite easily. For instance, if the topic is something like eyelash extensions—which, frankly, is a concept I struggle to wrap my head around—I wouldn't bother policing most of that conversation as a male moderator. However, if one user decides to call another a "cow," a "whore," or some other equally vile slur, then I’d conclude very quickly that the discussion has veered off the rails. For those more subtle nuances, we have the report button for a reason.👍

As I’ve already pointed out, there isn't exactly a need to dwell on their motivations, but one can certainly recognize what constitutes an insult, a smear campaign, or blatant provocation. Beyond that, there's the sheer annoyance of watching someone attempt to force their unsolicited opinions on people who couldn't care less about them in the first place.👍

Anyone who feels "punished" usually has some underlying need to justify their own behavior, and this is just one potential excuse. For instance, people constantly accuse Veronica (which is always interesting to watch) of playing the "punishment card" via rowdyhawk10, while most of us aren't even sure why she tolerates certain things in the first place.🤷

Exactly. Mockery will be penalized, but asking concrete questions won't. Not every disagreement with the majority constitutes a provocation or a dismissal, even though the majority (which happens quite often on the religion threads) tends to take offense immediately. However, that doesn't necessarily mean they are objectively insulted. It all comes down to how you carry yourself as an individual, regardless of whether you are a believer or an atheist.👍

I participate minimally, but I follow along extensively.👍

The question was actually aimed at the moderators; and if you were a moderator, it would have been aimed at you.
But you aren't.
Besides, your response to my question is just a classic way of dodging the actual topic.
Now, I expect a pack of people to jump in behind you, posting popcorn emojis, followed immediately by a thread lock without anyone actually addressing the issue or taking it seriously.

I won't go on quoting more.
A debate involving both an atheist and a believer can never truly be objective, especially when one of them is acting as the judge.
Any time an atheist visits the "religion being a provocation" forum, it's going to feel off.
It would be exactly the same level of provocation if someone walked into an atheist forum and found Father Anthony waiting for them.
Because they didn't come there to have a conversation; they came to mock or lecture, and that path almost always leads straight into a confrontation.

William Green4 said:On a forum like this, fights almost always ignite because people start playing lawyer for one side or the other.

The question was actually aimed at the moderators; and if you were a moderator, it would have been aimed at you.
But you aren't.
Besides, your response to my question is just a classic way of dodging the actual topic.
Now, I expect a pack of people to jump in behind you, posting popcorn emojis, followed immediately by a thread lock without anyone actually addressing the issue or taking it seriously.

I won't go on quoting more.
A debate involving both an atheist and a believer can never truly be objective, especially when one of them is acting as the judge.
Any time an atheist visits the "religion being a provocation" forum, it's going to feel off.
It would be exactly the same level of provocation if someone walked into an atheist forum and found Father Anthony waiting for them.
Because they didn't come there to have a conversation; they came to mock or lecture, and that path almost always leads straight into a confrontation.

In that case, it looks like you and I are both equally invited—or perhaps equally uninvited—to weigh in on this discussion.👍

William Green4 said:On a forum like this, fights almost always ignite because people start playing lawyer for one side or the other.

The question was actually aimed at the moderators; and if you were a moderator, it would have been aimed at you.
But you aren't.
Besides, your response to my question is just a classic way of dodging the actual topic.
Now, I expect a pack of people to jump in behind you, posting popcorn emojis, followed immediately by a thread lock without anyone actually addressing the issue or taking it seriously.

I won't go on quoting more.
A debate involving both an atheist and a believer can never truly be objective, especially when one of them is acting as the judge.
Any time an atheist visits the "religion being a provocation" forum, it's going to feel off.
It would be exactly the same level of provocation if someone walked into an atheist forum and found Father Anthony waiting for them.
Because they didn't come there to have a conversation; they came to mock or lecture, and that path almost always leads straight into a confrontation.

More. I am not.🙂

William Green4 said:On a forum like this, fights almost always ignite because people start playing lawyer for one side or the other.

The question was actually aimed at the moderators; and if you were a moderator, it would have been aimed at you.
But you aren't.
Besides, your response to my question is just a classic way of dodging the actual topic.
Now, I expect a pack of people to jump in behind you, posting popcorn emojis, followed immediately by a thread lock without anyone actually addressing the issue or taking it seriously.

I won't go on quoting more.
A debate involving both an atheist and a believer can never truly be objective, especially when one of them is acting as the judge.
Any time an atheist visits the "religion being a provocation" forum, it's going to feel off.
It would be exactly the same level of provocation if someone walked into an atheist forum and found Father Anthony waiting for them.
Because they didn't come there to have a conversation; they came to mock or lecture, and that path almost always leads straight into a confrontation.

The topic at hand is "what’s going on in Religion," and honestly, the mods are an essential part of that whole dynamic. Regarding your specific contribution, you were actually the one who brought up questions from other subforums and pushed a thesis that had nothing to do with the actual subject matter, effectively derailing the thread into a completely different debate—something about "hilarious sinless conception." But hey, no harm done; we're all human after all.👍

William Green4 said:On a forum like this, fights almost always ignite because people start playing lawyer for one side or the other.

The question was actually aimed at the moderators; and if you were a moderator, it would have been aimed at you.
But you aren't.
Besides, your response to my question is just a classic way of dodging the actual topic.
Now, I expect a pack of people to jump in behind you, posting popcorn emojis, followed immediately by a thread lock without anyone actually addressing the issue or taking it seriously.

I won't go on quoting more.
A debate involving both an atheist and a believer can never truly be objective, especially when one of them is acting as the judge.
Any time an atheist visits the "religion being a provocation" forum, it's going to feel off.
It would be exactly the same level of provocation if someone walked into an atheist forum and found Father Anthony waiting for them.
Because they didn't come there to have a conversation; they came to mock or lecture, and that path almost always leads straight into a confrontation.

The issue was actually resolved in the comment right before your first one. Everything following that is just unnecessary noise.👍

William Green4 said:On a forum like this, fights almost always ignite because people start playing lawyer for one side or the other.

The question was actually aimed at the moderators; and if you were a moderator, it would have been aimed at you.
But you aren't.
Besides, your response to my question is just a classic way of dodging the actual topic.
Now, I expect a pack of people to jump in behind you, posting popcorn emojis, followed immediately by a thread lock without anyone actually addressing the issue or taking it seriously.

I won't go on quoting more.
A debate involving both an atheist and a believer can never truly be objective, especially when one of them is acting as the judge.
Any time an atheist visits the "religion being a provocation" forum, it's going to feel off.
It would be exactly the same level of provocation if someone walked into an atheist forum and found Father Anthony waiting for them.
Because they didn't come there to have a conversation; they came to mock or lecture, and that path almost always leads straight into a confrontation.

I don't believe so, though since I've already laid out my reasoning, there's really no point in me repeating myself.👍

Brian Edwards6 said:In that case, it looks like you and I are both equally invited—or perhaps equally uninvited—to weigh in on this discussion.👍

More. I am not.🙂

The topic at hand is "what’s going on in Religion," and honestly, the mods are an essential part of that whole dynamic. Regarding your specific contribution, you were actually the one who brought up questions from other subforums and pushed a thesis that had nothing to do with the actual subject matter, effectively derailing the thread into a completely different debate—something about "hilarious sinless conception." But hey, no harm done; we're all human after all.👍

The issue was actually resolved in the comment right before your first one. Everything following that is just unnecessary noise.👍

I don't believe so, though since I've already laid out my reasoning, there's really no point in me repeating myself.👍

I didn't have anything better to do than sit there reading about religion and scrolling through the corner reserved for banned users.
After sitting with my thoughts for a while, I’ve come to the conclusion that the problem hasn't actually been resolved at all; if anything, we've just circled back to the very beginning of it. 😉

William Green4 said:I didn't have anything better to do than sit there reading about religion and scrolling through the corner reserved for banned users.
After sitting with my thoughts for a while, I’ve come to the conclusion that the problem hasn't actually been resolved at all; if anything, we've just circled back to the very beginning of it. 😉

There are far too many of us here for there not to be some level of friction and discontent. It’s nothing new. If everyone sat down and had these discussions politely, without the insults or the shouting matches, we’d certainly have fewer problems—but then again, it wouldn't be much fun, would it?👍

William Green4
Just because this forum is titled Religion doesn't mean it's exclusive to religious people.
Atheism is also a specific stance regarding the existence or non-existence of God, morality, and so on.
It includes moral critiques concerning the conduct of churches and religious individuals in general.
If we segregate atheism, this subforum would essentially just turn into an "Hallelujah" board. Best regards,

rowdyhawk10 said:William Green4
Just because this forum is titled Religion doesn't mean it's exclusive to religious people.
Atheism is also a specific stance regarding the existence or non-existence of God, morality, and so on.
It includes moral critiques concerning the conduct of churches and religious individuals in general.
If we segregate atheism, this subforum would essentially just turn into an "Hallelujah" board. Best regards,

Of course not, but you have to assume there’s a baseline level of good faith in who is actually participating.
He claims he wants to talk about faith, yet he’s doing everything in his power to drag it through the mud.
I honestly just want to spit on faith, believers, and the whole church establishment. ☕

Atheism is also its own kind of stance. Existence versus non-existence. Or maybe just... being. It’s one of those heavy things that hits you when everything else goes quiet. I can't quite wrap my head around it. Is there actually a point to all this, or are we just drifting? Sometimes it feels like we're building something meaningful, and other times it feels like nothing matters at all. Just thinking out loud. Not sure if anyone else spends their time spiraling into these kinds of thoughts. God, morality, and all that stuff...
Atheism involves... I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately. It feels like there's a growing gap between what people claim to believe and how they actually act. Sometimes, looking at certain religious institutions or even just folks who call themselves devout, it's hard not to feel a sense of disappointment. There's a real lack of accountability. You see these massive organizations preaching one thing while their actions suggest something entirely different. It’s frustrating. Honestly, I struggle with it. It makes me wonder if the core values are being lost in favor of power or image. I don't mean to sound cynical, but it's hard to ignore when the behavior doesn't line up with the message. Just some heavy thoughts on my part.

Atheism is just a conscious choice to deny that God exists. It’s an active rejection of Him.Boldani, that piece you wrote about whether or not anything exists... I think it really points toward agnosticism.
So, you're asking about morality? 🙄 Part of having any kind of moral compass means actually respecting the people you're talking to. It's about not resorting to those cheap shots during a discussion.
Just crude language.
So, maybe we could start with something else... like what we actually owe? ☕

Moral critiques regarding how churches act and just religious people in general... man.
What do you think?😁 So, if that's how it works... why aren't you getting any heat for attacking Christians?
And then there are their sacred things—the Holy Trinity, the Cross, Jesus's teachings... and I could honestly go on forever.
I see you’re pretty well-connected to "their version of faith," lol. You guys really just pat each other on the back, don't you?
The affection goes both ways. And honestly, for those of you who follow the Religion & Beyond forums—which I know most Christians here are pretty familiar with—it's clear.
It seems like both you and some of the atheists out there find Jesus's Name and the Cross to be a problem—and by extension, that bothers the believers too.
The Christians posting about this stuff... they really try to go after you. So, just do whatever you have to do to call out their posts and show everyone they aren't credible.
Stop mocking people. Stop using personal attacks. You just ignore those posts when they get reported, yet you were all over this before. Now, the rest of the mods are jumping down my throat just because I had a different take on these spoiled, whining atheists. Honestly, if I could charge you for all this dramatic overacting and pseudo-intellectual philosophizing, I’d be a millionaire. 👎 🤣

If we started segregating atheists, this whole religion sub would just turn into one big, endless hallelujah fest. Best regards.

Yeah, the Religion sub would probably just end up getting trashed because people can't help themselves from being disrespectful toward God or using bottom-of-the-barrel language. That kind of toxicity would be "so incredibly hard" on everyone else. Plus, if we actually segregated atheism away from the Religion section, the atheists would be the ones losing out.
A habitat where people offer up "hymns" to God. LOL. And that part about segregation? Feels like someone's jumping straight into the future.
No coverage. ☕

Give me a break. Is this forum really turning into a church service now? 😂And what exactly have you been trying to pass yourself off as for all this time now?
Just so we don't all start panicking about some religious fervor 🤣, I was actually reading through one of those
threads yesterday, and I stumbled upon your "famous statement" claiming that "people were meant to be Muslims."
Unless, of course, you're planning on converting us all through some kind of aggressive flattery. 😂