Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A plea against bigotry

A plea against bigotry
In contrast, also in Florence at the Accademia, I was amazed by Michaelangelo's "David."

[Image: -NbJBAYkarLDGWr1vf0JvTN_CQdqXIxH1K6Jnp_g...kZwbWwIQYJ]


Always wondered why he gave him such a tiny dick.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • adey67, Kim
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(08-22-2021, 06:33 PM)Minimalist Wrote: In contrast, also in Florence at the Accademia, I was amazed by Michaelangelo's "David."

[Image: -NbJBAYkarLDGWr1vf0JvTN_CQdqXIxH1K6Jnp_g...kZwbWwIQYJ]


Always wondered why he gave him such a tiny dick.

Maybe he's just cold.  Angel
Justaminute   The whole point of having cake is to eat it! 
The following 1 user Likes adey67's post:
  • Kim
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(08-22-2021, 06:33 PM)Minimalist Wrote: In contrast, also in Florence at the Accademia, I was amazed by Michaelangelo's "David."

[Image: -NbJBAYkarLDGWr1vf0JvTN_CQdqXIxH1K6Jnp_g...kZwbWwIQYJ]


Always wondered why he gave him such a tiny dick.

Perhaps the idea that giant penises are preferred over smaller ones is not universal across times/cultures. In fact this AskHistorians thread suggests that is the case.
Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.  Deadpan Coffee Drinker
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(08-22-2021, 06:40 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote: Perhaps the idea that giant penises are preferred over smaller ones is not universal across times/cultures. In fact this AskHistorians thread suggests that is the case.

I think the Greek thought small dicks were the aesthetic ideal or something (definitely better looking than a big schlong, I'll give them that ;-))

"Ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes summed up the ideal traits of his male peers as “a gleaming chest, bright skin, broad shoulders, tiny tongue, strong buttocks, and a little prick.”“a gleaming chest, bright skin, broad shoulders, tiny tongue, strong buttocks, and a little prick.” (Though often smaller pricked ones tend to be really big pricks otherwise... Also, what exactly is a tiny tongue. Or a big one. Who's ever actually looked at the size of someone's TONGUE  hobo  Is a bit like in my books where they have humongous (no, not that Dodgy well, that too, but let's not go here) eyelashes. I mean, how long can eyelashes actually be?! And who even notices eyelashes that much? I swear, I've translated more time than I can count about eyelashes caressing one's cheeks. This ain't humanly possible, you hormone-addled idiotesses!)

"Historian Paul Chrystal has also conducted research into this ancient ideal. “The small penis was consonant with Greek ideals of male beauty,” he writes. “It was a badge of the highest culture and a paragon of civilization.”

In ancient Greek art, most of a great man’s features were represented as ample, firm, and shiny—so why weren’t these same aesthetic principles applied to the penis? As Lear and other historians suggest, part of the answer lies in how the phalluses of less admirable men were portrayed.

Lustful, depraved satyrs, in particular, were rendered with very large, erect genitals, sometimes almost as tall as their torsos. According to mythology, these creatures were part-man, part-animal, and totally lacked restraint—a quality reviled by Greek high society. “Big penises were vulgar and outside the cultural norm, something sported by the barbarians of the world,” writes Chrystal. Indeed, across many an amphora pot and frieze, well-endowed satyrs can be seen drinking and pleasuring themselves with abandon.

In Greek comedy, fools also routinely sported large genitals—“the sign of stupidity, more of a beast than a man,” according to Chrystal. So, too, did artistic representations of the Egyptians, says Lear, who were long-time enemies of the Greeks.

In this way, satyrs, fools, and foes served as foils to male gods and heroes, who were honored for their self-control and intelligence (along with other qualities requiring restraint, like loyalty and prudence). If large phalluses represented gluttonous appetites, then “the conclusion can be drawn that the small, flaccid penis represented self-control,” explains Lear."
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
The following 4 users Like Vera's post:
  • Teddy, GenesisNemesis, Kim, Deesse23
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(08-22-2021, 06:40 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:
(08-22-2021, 06:33 PM)Minimalist Wrote: In contrast, also in Florence at the Accademia, I was amazed by Michaelangelo's "David."

[Image: -NbJBAYkarLDGWr1vf0JvTN_CQdqXIxH1K6Jnp_g...kZwbWwIQYJ]


Always wondered why he gave him such a tiny dick.

Perhaps the idea that giant penises are preferred over smaller ones is not universal across times/cultures. In fact this AskHistorians thread suggests that is the case.

I figured it was the Pope's suggestion to stick it to the jews.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(08-22-2021, 05:36 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:
(08-22-2021, 04:53 PM)Dānu Wrote: Critic wasn't the best new member we've ever had, but neither was he the worst.  Did he make mistakes?  Sure.  We all do.  But he's making an effort.  I suggest we move on.

I would argue the worst was Lion IRC...

My vote for worst religionist here would have to be MysticKnight.     If you wanna talk about
bigotry, hypocrisy, condescension, belligerence, ad hominems etc he was the go-to man.         Aggravated
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • Kim
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(08-15-2021, 11:18 PM)Vera Wrote: 'Pparently I'm (still) naiver than I thought - I thought it was one of those loons we get occasionally, who have a pet theory or five and are just looking for yet another platform from which to spout it at innocent passers-by.

Oh well.

Your posts are my favorite ones in this thread. It's partly comic relief, but more than that, because it's mostly how I was feeling, myself, watching this unfold.
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(08-15-2021, 11:18 PM)Vera Wrote: ... one of those loons we get occasionally, who have a pet theory or five and are just looking for yet another platform from which to spout it at innocent passers-by.

I was one of those a few years ago, in some forums. I'm still am, in a way, but I'm hoping to do it in a more friendly and less insulting way.
Reply

A plea against bigotry
I'm only on page 3, but I want to post some thoughts before I forget them. I've seen what looks to me like stereotyping, prejudices, and cruelty against all kinds of people, in all kinds of forums. That includes against people who look like God-believing people, in Atheist forums, sometimes. There might be some positive statistical correlation between people identifying as atheists, and stereotyping and prejudices against Bible-believing Christians, but I don't see that as a reason to single out atheists in a plea against anti-faith bigotry. All that does is distract and divert attention from what to do about stereotyping and prejudices against God-believing and Bible-believing people. I would be interested in that discussion, and I'm thinking of posting some ideas about that, after I finish reading this thread.
Reply

A plea against bigotry
I'm on page 5 now. The conversation seems to revolve mostly around Critic's personality, character, conduct, motives and intentions, which doesn't interest me. There's also some discussion around denouncing and defending Christians and Christianity, which doesn't interest me either. I'm wondering if anyone besides me would be interested in discussing what to do about prejudices and damaging stereotypes against God-believing and Bible-believing people.
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(09-18-2021, 11:55 AM)jimhabegger Wrote: I'm on page 5 now. The conversation seems to revolve mostly around Critic's personality, character, conduct, motives and intentions, which doesn't interest me. There's also some discussion around denouncing and defending Christians and Christianity, which doesn't interest me either. I'm wondering if anyone besides me would be interested in discussing what to do about prejudices and damaging stereotypes against God-believing and Bible-believing people.

Is there anything to do? If you're someone who believes in something that you can't prove, already you're in a place where your standards of evidence are low and you're encouraging a certain level of irrational thought. It could be in just one facet of your life, and you might have this neat little story where science retroactively fits into a world where your God exists and makes itself known through natural observation. It's not a useful way to think or look at the world, especially since for most people, it is not isolated to "this just counts for my belief in a God and nothing else". It is a type of fantastical thinking that infects opinions about everything else.

I can't trust someone who makes those kinds of irrational exceptions to be able to engage with the real world the rest of us are interacting with. I'm not saying hate or bullying are warranted, or even broad brushing every theist in this way. But it is going to influence my perception of someone if they have stated they make this irrational exception to proof for this one thing and I'll examine the rest of their opinions on other things with an awareness/looking for other areas where skepticism and reason are missing. I don't think that's wrong to do.
The following 3 users Like Teddy's post:
  • jimhabegger, GenesisNemesis, Kim
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(08-15-2021, 07:16 PM)Critic Wrote: I think there needs to be an open discussion of ethics and bigotry within the atheist community.  And here's my reasoning.  More and more I see atheists go on the attack against religious people, it dies not matter the religion of if the religious person did anything wrong outside of bring religious in some way.  Even Richard Dawkins encourages this behavior to publicly humiliate and ridicule anyone who's religious if you ever get the chance.  To the point that I see innocant people publicly called out as criminal, crazy, and abusive, when they show no signs of any of these.  There's still time to step away from these kinds of attitudes and not cause atheism to become a form of bigotry.  Spread the word.  Whatever ethics you hold on to use those ethics to fight bigotry from forming within your peers of Atheist.  Thank you.
I'm seeing cruelty and violence growing and spreading in all of society, online and offline. If the purpose is to help stop it, I'm thinking that the way you've framed this is actually self defeating, distracting and diverting attention away from what to do about stereotyping and prejudices against Bible-believing people. I'm thinking that it would be better to frame it as a discussion of what to do to help stop all kinds of stereotyping and prejudices, including the ones against Bible-believing people, without thinking of it as coming only from atheists.
The following 1 user Likes jimhabegger's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(09-18-2021, 12:26 PM)Teddy Wrote:
(09-18-2021, 11:55 AM)jimhabegger Wrote: I'm wondering if anyone besides me would be interested in discussing what to do about prejudices and damaging stereotypes against God-believing and Bible-believing people.

Is there anything to do? If you're someone who believes in something that you can't prove, already you're in a place where your standards of evidence are low and you're encouraging a certain level of irrational thought. It could be in just one facet of your life, and you might have this neat little story where science retroactively fits into a world where your God exists and makes itself known through natural observation. It's not a useful way to think or look at the world, especially since for most people, it is not isolated to "this just counts for my belief in a God and nothing else". It is a type of fantastical thinking that infects opinions about everything else.

I can't trust someone who makes those kinds of irrational exceptions to be able to engage with the real world the rest of us are interacting with. I'm not saying hate or bullying are warranted, or even broad brushing every theist in this way. But it is going to influence my perception of someone if they have stated they make this irrational exception to proof for this one thing and I'll examine the rest of their opinions on other things with an awareness/looking for other areas where skepticism and reason are missing. I don't think that's wrong to do.
I'm not sure if that means that you're interested, or not interested, in discussing what to do about prejudices and damaging stereotypes against God-believing and Bible-believing people.
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(09-18-2021, 12:33 PM)jimhabegger Wrote: I'm not sure if that means that you're interested, or not interested, in discussing what to do about prejudices and damaging stereotypes against God-believing and Bible-believing people.

I'm not. I think a caution and prejudice against theists is justified.
The following 2 users Like Teddy's post:
  • Kim, adey67
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(09-18-2021, 12:27 PM)jimhabegger Wrote: I'm seeing cruelty and violence growing and spreading in all of society, online and offline. If the purpose is to help stop it, I'm thinking that the way you've framed this is actually self defeating, distracting and diverting attention away from what to do about stereotyping and prejudices against Bible-believing people. I'm thinking that it would be better to frame it as a discussion of what to do to help stop all kinds of stereotyping and prejudices, including the ones against Bible-believing people, without thinking of it as coming only from atheists.

Is cruelty and violence spreading, or are we just hearing more about them because of improved communications?  If there actually are more cruelty and violence in the world, is it because there are more people fighting over dwindling resources?  Could some people just use religious (and racial and national) differences as a means to an end -- to achieve power, leverage, importance, or whatever?  Don't religious people have adequate communications to promote their own messages and answer challenges to their ideas?  Isn't assuming that atheists are prejudiced because we reject religious assumptions rather begging the questions?

Stereotypes and prejudice so-called may be nothing more than over-simplified assumptions due to lack of detailed information.  Surprisingly, many atheists are very well-informed about religious beliefs, rituals, holy books, and so on.  Many of us were brought up to be religious.  Some of us were deeply religious before we became atheists.

If you want to enlist people to defend the religious, making an appeal to atheists seems wrongly directed.  While I don't want to harm religious people, I certainly don't want to help them either.  They are typically much more prejudiced against atheists than I am against them.
The following 9 users Like Alan V's post:
  • Teddy, GenesisNemesis, Dom, julep, Thumpalumpacus, Inkubus, Kim, skyking, adey67
Reply

A plea against bigotry
Ah yeah, the good ole peaceful days, when religion reigned and people lived like brothers. The days of loving Crusades and cuddly Inquisitions, and nice friendly priests, spreading the loving word of our loving Lord at the end of swords. Oh yeah, those were the days.

And they had such jolly fun back then:

"Also known as the wooden horse or the chevalet, the Spanish donkey slowly cut a woman in half through her genitals. It was used throughout medieval times and during the Spanish Inquisition.

The device consisted of a sharp triangular wedge supported by either two or four legs. The woman would be forced to straddle the pointed end of the device, which was sometimes covered in spikes (as shown in the above photo), so that it could slowly cut into the woman’s crotch. Weights were sometimes added to the victim’s feet to make the triangular edge dig even deeper, eventually cutting into her organs."

Show ContentSpoiler:


Not like today, where good, loving Xtians apparently are under the insufferable yoke of prejudice and stereotypes.... esp. in America, Xtians have it sooooo bad in America, I wonder how they make it through the day, poor, oppressed things.

I can barely hold back my tears Deadpan Coffee Drinker
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
The following 6 users Like Vera's post:
  • Szuchow, Dom, Teddy, Inkubus, Kim, Minimalist
Reply

A plea against bigotry
I think you (jim) are engaged in the same type of stereotyping you claim to want to reduce. Not a good start. Atheists come in all stripes. I'm a live and let live person. That attitude ends where their fist meets my nose.
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
The following 4 users Like Dānu's post:
  • Dom, Vera, Inkubus, Kim
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(09-18-2021, 11:55 AM)jimhabegger Wrote: ... I'm wondering if anyone besides me would be interested in discussing what to do about prejudices and damaging stereotypes against God-believing and Bible-believing people.

There are just as many prejudices (in the US at least) directed towards atheists than theists.
This is largely because the theist groups—of all denominations—have a cohesive, well-oiled
and ready publicity "machine" working for them.  They have a ready-made and accessible public
platform in order to promulgate their beliefs, social commentary, misrepresentation, lies, and
political persuasions.  Theistic organisations can and have influenced the outcome of elections,
overshadowed legislation regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research, voluntary
assisted dying, school curricula, and even the opening hours of shops and hotels or the licensing
of casinos.

Atheists have no such options, as any sort of cohesive group simply doesn't exist with a public face.

In an era of increasing diversity and the breaking of long-rigid political-demographic barriers, there
is no self-identifying atheist in national US politics. Throughout its history, only one self-identified
atheist in Congress comes to mind, California Democrat Peter Stark [Jan 1973-Jan 2013].

A 2019 poll asking Americans who they were willing to vote for in a hypothetical presidential election
found that 96% would vote for a candidate who is black, 94% for a woman, 95% for a Hispanic
candidate, 93% for a Jew, 76% for a gay or lesbian candidate and 66% for a Muslim—but atheists
fall below all of these, down at 60%. That's a sizable number who'd not vote for a candidate
solely on the basis of their non-religion.

A 2014 Pew Research Center survey found Americans would be more willing to vote for a presidential
candidate who had never held office before, or who had extramarital affairs, than for an atheist. Trump
anyone, as proof of this?     Whistling

In a country that changed its original national motto in 1956 from the secular E pluribus unum
(out of many, one) to the religious "In God We Trust", it seems Americans don’t trust someone who
doesn’t believe in God.

—This is a classic case of unreasonable bigotry, hidden hypocrisy, and discrimination by theists.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 5 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Vera, Teddy, Thumpalumpacus, Dānu, Alan V
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(09-18-2021, 03:14 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(09-18-2021, 11:55 AM)jimhabegger Wrote: ... I'm wondering if anyone besides me would be interested in discussing what to do about prejudices and damaging stereotypes against God-believing and Bible-believing people.

There are just as many prejudices (in the US at least) directed towards atheists than theists.
This is largely because the theist groups—of all denominations—have a cohesive, well-oiled
and ready publicity "machine" working for them.  They have a ready-made and accessible public
platform in order to promulgate their beliefs, social commentary, misrepresentation, lies, and
political persuasions.  Theistic organisations can and have influenced the outcome of elections,
overshadowed legislation regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research, voluntary
assisted dying, school curricula, and even the opening hours of shops and hotels or the licensing
of casinos.

Atheists have no such options, as any sort of cohesive group simply doesn't exist with a public face.

In an era of increasing diversity and the breaking of long-rigid political-demographic barriers, there
is no self-identifying atheist in national US politics. Throughout its history, only one self-identified
atheist in Congress comes to mind, California Democrat Peter Stark [Jan 1973-Jan 2013].

A 2019 poll asking Americans who they were willing to vote for in a hypothetical presidential election
found that 96% would vote for a candidate who is black, 94% for a woman, 95% for a Hispanic
candidate, 93% for a Jew, 76% for a gay or lesbian candidate and 66% for a Muslim—but atheists
fall below all of these, down at 60%. That's a sizable number who'd not vote for a candidate
solely on the basis of their non-religion.

A 2014 Pew Research Center survey found Americans would be more willing to vote for a presidential
candidate who had never held office before, or who had extramarital affairs, than for an atheist. Trump
anyone, as proof of this?     Whistling

In a country that changed its original national motto in 1956 from the secular E pluribus unum
(out of many, one) to the religious "In God We Trust", it seems Americans don’t trust someone who
doesn’t believe in God.

—This is a classic case of unreasonable bigotry, hidden hypocrisy, and discrimination by theists.

Yup.  There are 7 states in the US which bans atheists from holding a public office.  Can you imagine if 7 states banning Irish people from holding an office?  People would be up in arms about that but don't bat an eye over banning an atheist.  

There was a very funny video in which an elected official (uber christian type) didn't know it was not the law to swear on a Bible to take an oath of office.   At 00:50 in this video his gapped mouth expression is pure gold.  It never gets old. LOLOL




ETA: I'll add this little ditty.
"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

- Article VI Section 3 of the US Constitution
                                                         T4618
The following 5 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Teddy, Dānu, Alan V, Deesse23, SYZ
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(09-18-2021, 11:55 AM)jimhabegger Wrote: I'm wondering if anyone besides me would be interested in discussing what to do about prejudices and damaging stereotypes against God-believing and Bible-believing people.

I'd suggest not holding them. The same goes for any other prejudices and stereotypes.
Freedom isn't free.
The following 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Dom, Tres Leches, jimhabegger
Reply

A plea against bigotry
That expression is priceless.
[Image: sea-stones-whimsy-7-sm.jpg]
The following 2 users Like Dānu's post:
  • Dancefortwo, Thumpalumpacus
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(09-18-2021, 12:26 PM)Teddy Wrote:
(09-18-2021, 11:55 AM)jimhabegger Wrote: I'm on page 5 now. The conversation seems to revolve mostly around Critic's personality, character, conduct, motives and intentions, which doesn't interest me. There's also some discussion around denouncing and defending Christians and Christianity, which doesn't interest me either. I'm wondering if anyone besides me would be interested in discussing what to do about prejudices and damaging stereotypes against God-believing and Bible-believing people.

Is there anything to do? If you're someone who believes in something that you can't prove, already you're in a place where your standards of evidence are low and you're encouraging a certain level of irrational thought. It could be in just one facet of your life, and you might have this neat little story where science retroactively fits into a world where your God exists and makes itself known through natural observation. It's not a useful way to think or look at the world, especially since for most people, it is not isolated to "this just counts for my belief in a God and nothing else". It is a type of fantastical thinking that infects opinions about everything else.

I can't trust someone who makes those kinds of irrational exceptions to be able to engage with the real world the rest of us are interacting with. I'm not saying hate or bullying are warranted, or even broad brushing every theist in this way. But it is going to influence my perception of someone if they have stated they make this irrational exception to proof for this one thing and I'll examine the rest of their opinions on other things with an awareness/looking for other areas where skepticism and reason are missing. I don't think that's wrong to do.

You know, Teddy, I don't really care what anyone "believes."  They can believe in allah cracking the moon in half, or a dead jew coming back to life to atone for their sins, or Fuckface having had the last election stolen from him.  As long as they keep it to themselves it doesn't matter.  But when they start crashing planes into buildings or trying to stuff their medieval nonsense into our laws or assault the capitol, that is not "belief."  That is "action."  And action is what matters because action causes the harm.  No jesus or allah freak showing up here rises to that level.

Yet I will admit a certain pre-disposition against them.  To venture into the lion's den I find them to be on a fool's errand or simple trolls.  Mystic Knight, mentioned above, was a different case.  I dealt with him for years before this board and he was a goofy teenager at first but as he got older he really went off the deep end.  Classic pattern of schizophenreia.  By the end I was starting to feel like Cato ending every speech in the senate saying "Carthago delenda est" no matter what the topic of the speech was.  With MK it was, "get professional help!"  He did not need to argue with us.  He needed some stiff meds.

But the normal run-of-the-mill theist who shows up here seems to have one of two stated purposes:

a-  "I want to bring you the truth of ______________"  ( jesus for the xtians, allah for the moslems, quetzlcoatl for the Aztecs.)

b-  "Atheists are immoral."

There is a third group which tries the old "I was an atheist until jesus stroked my dick...now I have seen the light" bullshit.  I wish I had a dollar for everyone of them who has pulled that routine.

No matter how cloying they start out I figure that eventually they will devolve into one of these categories.  Therefore, I do not give them the benefit of the doubt.  Ever.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 4 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Teddy, Dānu, Inkubus, Kim
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(09-18-2021, 03:54 PM)Dānu Wrote: That expression is priceless.

I know.  Still funny after all these years.    Nod Nod   What's amazing is that this guy is the spokeman for Roy Moore who was a judge on the Alabama State Supreme court.  Think about that for a moment.  Roy Moore's spokeman doesn't know swearing on a Bible is not a constitutional requirement.  LOLOL.
                                                         T4618
Reply

A plea against bigotry
I love this post:

(08-21-2021, 04:28 PM)julep Wrote: I'm happy to be supportive of people who are genuinely curious or questioning. I also understand that new posters can start off on the wrong foot without intending offense. 

Given that there are quite a few posts by Critic, many of them rejecting to view evidence or entertain arguments or bother to clarify his writing, I don't feel the need to coddle him. He came here to admonish "atheists," and he has gotten polite and not so polite pushback, almost all of which he's ignored. He continues to show his contempt for us by continuing to treat atheists as identical.  

Also--I have a lot of experience of proselytizers and the "soft" approaches to winning souls. There are a lot of boxes being checked off, but I'll take him at his word that these are simply coincidental. For now. 

In my experience here and in the old place, the percentage of religious newbies who are actually questioners/believers interested in participating in these communities or having real questions answered is vanishingly small--maybe 2-3%.  The rest want to evangelize or are doing the religious version of owning the libs to reassure themselves that atheists are deservedly bound for hell. 

Compared to other atheist forums, it's my impression that the reception here is about average. Pushback, insults from some, but mostly genuine attempts to engage in the content of the newbies' posts. Contrastingly, as many posters have pointed out, in most Christian forums atheists get a quick banning before being allowed to express any ideas at all. At least here the religious get to air out their thoughts fully and for quite a long time; most never get banned at all. A polite, fast ejection versus a raucous reception.   

Christians coming in and slashing the atmosphere with their swords of the spirit are going to trigger some who see the forum as a refuge from the religiosity of their daily lives.    

Maybe a good way to approach the issues you raise would be through PMs from mods to newbies, which I used to do a fair amount at the old place.
Reply

A plea against bigotry
(08-22-2021, 03:58 PM)Kim Wrote: I don't think I'd refer to him as an artist ... his grammer is atrocious & his context is garbled & blatantly disingenuous.  

He actually sucks as a troll.   Shy

His grammar wasn't bad. I kinda liked her when she wasn't babbling.
Freedom isn't free.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)