Why are there so many threads/posts in the religion forum that trash/troll religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, there are multiple people responding. You might be reading it as one "monologue" erroneously.

To be clear? Really? I mean I see no evidence of this given that I can't actually see IP addresses and different people posting with my eyes. How do you believe in something which you cannot see? Where is your evidence?

You are tiresome too

I had thought you wanted to be accurate, not merely insulting. Was I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong. I know you probably get that a lot. Sorry snowflake.

[Anonymous]

How very religious of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, there are multiple people responding. You might be reading it as one "monologue" erroneously.

To be clear? Really? I mean I see no evidence of this given that I can't actually see IP addresses and different people posting with my eyes. How do you believe in something which you cannot see? Where is your evidence?

You are tiresome too

Pp sees responses other than his/her own. Thus, pp knows there are multiple people responding because pp knows he/she is not the only person responding. That is the evidence. It is available only to people with similar responses to and to the moderator, who can see different IP addresses.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe you atheists out there trolling the religion forum should ask the site owner for your own forum.

He has decided that all discussion about religion stay in one area. I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with staying out of thread started by obvious believers looking for solely religious answers, as he indicated was the intent.

Maybe if you want him to change his mind about the way he set up his site, you should do the asking.

Imagine an education forum where a person asked about a certain school and it was not allowed to mention other schools as an option. Or a politics forum where discussions about only one point of view were allowed. Or a relationships forum that only supported staying with your current spouse.

I recall a thread a while back where a person had been trying unsuccessfully for years to get their faith back and many on the forum thought it was wrong for atheists to suggest that perhaps they'd be happier if they stopped trying.

I doubt something like that would happen in discussions about other beliefs or choices.

Your examples are misstating my intentions as outlined above. To be more accurate, your examples would have to be:

Imagine an education forum where a person asked about a certain school and was told that the entire concept of schools was invalid. Or a politics forum where discussions were always derailed because posters where told there was no such thing as politics. Or a relationship forum in which posters were regularly informed that relationships don't exist.

The issue I have is not with non-believers offering a different viewpoint, but with their tendency to reject the entire basis of the topic, making the desired discussion impossible. Join topics when you can contribute to them productively, but not when your participation will only derail, hijack, or prevent discussion.

Insults are ok? Like “Bible is immoral book”? Would you also tolerate “Koran is immoral book”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, what happens when you report those posts as off-topic to the thread?

I don't report them. I just ignore them. What's to gain by reporting them?

The right to complain. If you can’t take the basic easy step to get rid of something you can’t then claim that it’s there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe you atheists out there trolling the religion forum should ask the site owner for your own forum.

He has decided that all discussion about religion stay in one area. I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with staying out of thread started by obvious believers looking for solely religious answers, as he indicated was the intent.

Maybe if you want him to change his mind about the way he set up his site, you should do the asking.

Imagine an education forum where a person asked about a certain school and it was not allowed to mention other schools as an option. Or a politics forum where discussions about only one point of view were allowed. Or a relationships forum that only supported staying with your current spouse.

I recall a thread a while back where a person had been trying unsuccessfully for years to get their faith back and many on the forum thought it was wrong for atheists to suggest that perhaps they'd be happier if they stopped trying.

I doubt something like that would happen in discussions about other beliefs or choices.

Your examples are misstating my intentions as outlined above. To be more accurate, your examples would have to be:

Imagine an education forum where a person asked about a certain school and was told that the entire concept of schools was invalid. Or a politics forum where discussions were always derailed because posters where told there was no such thing as politics. Or a relationship forum in which posters were regularly informed that relationships don't exist.

The issue I have is not with non-believers offering a different viewpoint, but with their tendency to reject the entire basis of the topic, making the desired discussion impossible. Join topics when you can contribute to them productively, but not when your participation will only derail, hijack, or prevent discussion.

Insults are ok? Like “Bible is immoral book”? Would you also tolerate “Koran is immoral book”?

See, that's your problem. "The Bible Is An Immoral Book" is an opinion, not an insult -- even though you may find that opinion insulting. The opinion was presented with direct quotes the OP found immoral.

And yes, all old holy books are subject to modern scrutiny, including the Koran, The Book Of Mormon, the Bhagavad Gita, and others, if they espouse an encourage immoral things.

[Anonymous]

If you can't handle responding to criticisms of your religion, then your faith is likely not particularly well-grounded. You should be able to defend your beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you can't handle responding to criticisms of your religion, then your faith is likely not particularly well-grounded. You should be able to defend your beliefs.

Most people surfing the religion forum aren't looking to debate you or defend their beliefs on a topic you just hopped on to stir the pot. You're trolling and looking for trouble. Time to get a job and move out of your parents basement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't handle responding to criticisms of your religion, then your faith is likely not particularly well-grounded. You should be able to defend your beliefs.

Most people surfing the religion forum aren't looking to debate you or defend their beliefs on a topic you just hopped on to stir the pot. You're trolling and looking for trouble. Time to get a job and move out of your parents basement.

Petulant, juvenile responses like this do absolutely nothing to keep Atheists from posting and in fact encourage them more. Additionally they make Christians look like they have no substantive response so they resort to "your parents basement" comments which were tired when the internet was ASCII.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't handle responding to criticisms of your religion, then your faith is likely not particularly well-grounded. You should be able to defend your beliefs.

Most people surfing the religion forum aren't looking to debate you or defend their beliefs on a topic you just hopped on to stir the pot. You're trolling and looking for trouble. Time to get a job and move out of your parents basement.

Petulant, juvenile responses like this do absolutely nothing to keep Atheists from posting and in fact encourage them more. Additionally they make Christians look like they have no substantive response so they resort to "your parents basement" comments which were tired when the internet was ASCII.

The same way hijacking threads celebrating Easter is petulant and Juvenile? Struck a nerve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't handle responding to criticisms of your religion, then your faith is likely not particularly well-grounded. You should be able to defend your beliefs.

Most people surfing the religion forum aren't looking to debate you or defend their beliefs on a topic you just hopped on to stir the pot. You're trolling and looking for trouble. Time to get a job and move out of your parents basement.

Petulant, juvenile responses like this do absolutely nothing to keep Atheists from posting and in fact encourage them more. Additionally they make Christians look like they have no substantive response so they resort to "your parents basement" comments which were tired when the internet was ASCII.

The same way hijacking threads celebrating Easter is petulant and Juvenile? Struck a nerve.

Since you ask, no, not the same way. They are very different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't handle responding to criticisms of your religion, then your faith is likely not particularly well-grounded. You should be able to defend your beliefs.

Most people surfing the religion forum aren't looking to debate you or defend their beliefs on a topic you just hopped on to stir the pot. You're trolling and looking for trouble. Time to get a job and move out of your parents basement.

Petulant, juvenile responses like this do absolutely nothing to keep Atheists from posting and in fact encourage them more. Additionally they make Christians look like they have no substantive response so they resort to "your parents basement" comments which were tired when the internet was ASCII.

The same way hijacking threads celebrating Easter is petulant and Juvenile? Struck a nerve.

Since you ask, no, not the same way. They are very different.

I’m with top pp and think her point is spot on and realistic.

Also, the moderator just called out exactly the type of behavior pp describes re hijacking an Easter thread.

[Anonymous]

Then there are the rhetorical games played by some (not all) atheists on this forum.

I’m not even thinking of the childish ad homonyms. Those are tedious but easily ignored.

As just one example, pretending to misunderstand empirically demonstrable things, like the words in bible passages. I’m thinking in particular of the recent “The Bible is immoral” thread, where someone posted a passage from Matthew about the New Testament relationship to supposedly “immoral” parts of the Old Testament. This particular atheist spent pages misinterpreting it and pretending not to understand it. Note: all anybody asked of her was to try her darndest to understand 4 simple sentences consisting of very short words—nobody expected her to believe it. Dumb as a brick or deliberately obtuse? You tell me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then there are the rhetorical games played by some (not all) atheists on this forum.

I’m not even thinking of the childish ad homonyms. Those are tedious but easily ignored.

As just one example, pretending to misunderstand empirically demonstrable things, like the words in bible passages. I’m thinking in particular of the recent “The Bible is immoral” thread, where someone posted a passage from Matthew about the New Testament relationship to supposedly “immoral” parts of the Old Testament. This particular atheist spent pages misinterpreting it and pretending not to understand it. Note: all anybody asked of her was to try her darndest to understand 4 simple sentences consisting of very short words—nobody expected her to believe it. Dumb as a brick or deliberately obtuse? You tell me.

Not only are you insulting again, you are lying - again.

You were asked for evidence as to why the quotes from matthew did not refer to the old testament, and you provided none but responded:

"It’s obvious on its face of you read carefully—or if you read it at all, which apparently you haven’t. Nobody is going to let you troll them like this."

To help those not reading the whole thread, here is one of the important quotes:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

So, I guess we do agree. It IS obvious on it's face if you read it carefully.

Stop being dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then there are the rhetorical games played by some (not all) atheists on this forum.

I’m not even thinking of the childish ad homonyms. Those are tedious but easily ignored.

As just one example, pretending to misunderstand empirically demonstrable things, like the words in bible passages. I’m thinking in particular of the recent “The Bible is immoral” thread, where someone posted a passage from Matthew about the New Testament relationship to supposedly “immoral” parts of the Old Testament. This particular atheist spent pages misinterpreting it and pretending not to understand it. Note: all anybody asked of her was to try her darndest to understand 4 simple sentences consisting of very short words—nobody expected her to believe it. Dumb as a brick or deliberately obtuse? You tell me.

Not only are you insulting again, you are lying - again.

You were asked for evidence as to why the quotes from matthew did not refer to the old testament, and you provided none but responded:

"It’s obvious on its face of you read carefully—or if you read it at all, which apparently you haven’t. Nobody is going to let you troll them like this."

To help those not reading the whole thread, here is one of the important quotes:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

So, I guess we do agree. It IS obvious on it's face if you read it carefully.

Stop being dishonest.

I’m a different poster. I quoted an entire passage from Matthew on that thread. That’s the passage you pretended for pages to misunderstand. But obviously you couldn’t have done that if the passage wasn’t there in the first place.

You’re also quoting the “do not think...” passage, which btw was quoted *to follow up on the Matthew passage you claim wasn’t there (with the result that your post just now is a long non sequitur)* out of context. The context was explained to you in that thread, but are you also conveying that context here? No, you’re continuing to quote it out of context.

Who’s dishonest?