Your thread is in the religious section of a science forum.
Therefore, atheist fanatics shall troll and attack it with the utmost discrimination and bigotry in our efforts to dismantle an intelligent community, and impose our own personal Atheist Dogma on other members of the intelligent community.
From now on all members shall post discussions in the Religion section according to Atheist and only Atheist bigotted perspective. Anybody that does not do so will be subject to Atheist fanatical bigoted attacks.




What is Atheist Dogma?
Atheist Dogma is any improvable belief about religion and theism considered to be absolutely true. There are many specific principals of Atheist Dogma that Atheists fanatically impose on others. These are some of the principals.

Atheists may abide by any combination of the following principals:
1. The belief that all the bad things in the world are caused by religion.
2. The belief that religion is a threat to mankind.
3. The belief that people should not be free to practice their religious beliefs in public. (They should do it behind closed doors like sex.)
4. Atheist Supremacy. The belief that Atheists are superior to theists in various aspects such as intellect, character, and respectability.
5. Prejudice/Discrimination. Prejudging somebody based on the fact that they have a theistic belief. An Atheist might prefer to perform experiments with a chemist that is atheist over a chemist that is theist regardless of qualification. Such prejudice is a violation of law when hiring people for work.
6. The belief that fanatically imposing your beliefs on others is rude and abominable.
7. Bias. One who grants privileges to atheists, and singles out against theists.
8. Watered down Atheism. (Beliefs in convoluted notions such as weak/strong atheism and lacks of belief.)
9. Active desire to separate theism from science.
10. Emotional animosity towards anything with religious connotation.
11. Desire to eliminate religion from as many places as possible.
12. Abuse. Abusive acts against theists in real life or online.

13. The desire to bully others in the religion section of the science forum into discussing things according to their and only their perspective.

There is no set atheist dogma. We arent an organized religion. We may share a few common ideas but atheism is free thought so its up to the individual to decide what they want to do.

There is no set atheist dogma. We arent an organized religion.
Yes there is, and yes you are. Learn how to read.
Atheists are self righteous fanatics that wish to impose their dogma on others.
What is Atheist Dogma?
Please see the first post in this thread.

Cool skill: would you go to similar lengths to type about the abuse of skeptics towards Astrology?

Why does the irrationality of religion deserve special treatment over things such as Astrology?

Yes there is, and yes you are. Learn how to read.
Atheists are self righteous fanatics that wish to impose their dogma on others.
What is Atheist Dogma?
Please see the first post in this thread.
Sure. What ever helps you sleep at night.

cool skill,

Why do you care so much?

1. The belief that all the bad things in the world are caused by religion.
2. The belief that religion is a threat to mankind.
3. The belief that people should not be free to practice their religious beliefs in public. (They should do it behind closed doors like sex.)
4. Atheist Supremacy. The belief that Atheists are superior to theists in various aspects such as intellect, character, and respectability.
5. Prejudice/Discrimination. Prejudging somebody based on the fact that they have a theistic belief. An Atheist might prefer to perform experiments with a chemist that is atheist over a chemist that is theist regardless of qualification. Such prejudice is a violation of law when hiring people for work.
6. The belief that fanatically imposing your beliefs on others is rude and abominable.
7. Bias. One who grants privileges to atheists, and singles out against theists.
8. Watered down Atheism. (Beliefs in convoluted notions such as weak/strong atheism and lacks of belief.)
9. Active desire to separate theism from science.
10. Emotional animosity towards anything with religious connotation.
11. Desire to eliminate religion from as many places as possible.
12. Abuse. Abusive acts against theists in real life or online.
13. The desire to bully others in the religion section of the science forum into discussing things according to their and only their perspective.

1. False
2. True
3. False
4. Somewhat true
5. False
6. True
7. False
8. Huh?
9. True
10. Somewhat true
11. Public places. True
12. False
13. Somewhat true

I'll give you four TRUE out of 13, three SOMEWHAT TRUE, five FALSE, and one WTF?

Not very good Mr. Skill.

Oh, I get it! This is a poll and cool skill is actually trying to collect data. My turn:



1. The belief that all the bad things in the world are caused by religion.
2. The belief that religion is a threat to mankind.
3. The belief that people should not be free to practice their religious beliefs in public. (They should do it behind closed doors like sex.)
4. Atheist Supremacy. The belief that Atheists are superior to theists in various aspects such as intellect, character, and respectability.
5. Prejudice/Discrimination. Prejudging somebody based on the fact that they have a theistic belief. An Atheist might prefer to perform experiments with a chemist that is atheist over a chemist that is theist regardless of qualification. Such prejudice is a violation of law when hiring people for work.
6. The belief that fanatically imposing your beliefs on others is rude and abominable.
7. Bias. One who grants privileges to atheists, and singles out against theists.
8. Watered down Atheism. (Beliefs in convoluted notions such as weak/strong atheism and lacks of belief.)
9. Active desire to separate theism from science.
10. Emotional animosity towards anything with religious connotation.
11. Desire to eliminate religion from as many places as possible.
12. Abuse. Abusive acts against theists in real life or online.

13. The desire to bully others in the religion section of the science forum into discussing things according to their and only their perspective.

1. False
2. Somewhat True
3. False
4. Somewhat True
5. False
6. Somewhat True
7. Somewhat True
8. ?
9. True
10. Somewhat True
11. Somewhat True
12. Somewhat True
13. Somewhat True

7% - True
93% - Not true (63% Somewhat True; 23% False; 7% - WTF)

Not exactly a perfect match, but alot of solid fuzzy relationships.

Neat!

Your thread is in the religious section of a science forum.
Therefore, atheist fanatics shall troll and attack it with the utmost discrimination and bigotry in our efforts to dismantle an intelligent community, and impose our own personal Atheist Dogma on other members of the intelligent community.
From now on all members shall post discussions in the Religion section according to Atheist and only Atheist bigotted perspective. Anybody that does not do so will be subject to Atheist fanatical bigoted attacks.




What is Atheist Dogma?
Atheist Dogma is any improvable belief about religion and theism considered to be absolutely true. There are many specific principals of Atheist Dogma that Atheists fanatically impose on others. These are some of the principals.

Atheists may abide by any combination of the following principals:
1. The belief that all the bad things in the world are caused by religion.
2. The belief that religion is a threat to mankind.
3. The belief that people should not be free to practice their religious beliefs in public. (They should do it behind closed doors like sex.)
4. Atheist Supremacy. The belief that Atheists are superior to theists in various aspects such as intellect, character, and respectability.
5. Prejudice/Discrimination. Prejudging somebody based on the fact that they have a theistic belief. An Atheist might prefer to perform experiments with a chemist that is atheist over a chemist that is theist regardless of qualification. Such prejudice is a violation of law when hiring people for work.
6. The belief that fanatically imposing your beliefs on others is rude and abominable.
7. Bias. One who grants privileges to atheists, and singles out against theists.
8. Watered down Atheism. (Beliefs in convoluted notions such as weak/strong atheism and lacks of belief.)
9. Active desire to separate theism from science.
10. Emotional animosity towards anything with religious connotation.
11. Desire to eliminate religion from as many places as possible.
12. Abuse. Abusive acts against theists in real life or online.

13. The desire to bully others in the religion section of the science forum into discussing things according to their and only their perspective.
1.not all but most things.
2.true
3.true
4.Partly true. We obviously use reason and we dont need crutches to handle our problems.
5.Flase. i have plent of theist freinds.
6.true
7.Flase. but were i live theists do that to themselves.
8.So?
9.False
10.False
11.Partly true.
12.False but theists have a habbit of threating and abusing atheists in real life.
13.False.

Why do you care so much?
I do not care if Atheists are aware of it.
There is a difference between acknowledging your own fanatical selfrighteousness and delusionally believing you are not in the least bit fanatical.


Because they are self righteous bigoted fanatics, Atheists do not say things such as:
Welcome to Sciforums Religion Section. Please feel free and comfortable to talk about any religious topic, and as intellects, we will be sure to treat all atheists and theists equally and respectfully with an open mind. We want all members to feel comfortable, and free to talk about their beliefs without being attacked or griefed for them.

An atheist is one who fiercely believes that imposing one’s beliefs on others is absolutely abominable. In an atheist’s view, imposing beliefs is bigoted behavior, and is a major factor of their disdain towards religion. Many atheists even believe that imposing beliefs on others brings about conflict and wars.

Most of all, atheists are characterized by a great deal of delusion regarding their own fanaticism. They truly and completely believe that they as “rational atheists” would never fanatically impose beliefs on others. They believe such abominable behavior is only limited to bigoted irrational theists. Atheists are in psychological denial of their own self righteous dogmatic fanaticism.

The fact is, Atheists are extremely fanatical about Atheist Dogma, and wholeheartedly impose these principals on others with just as much fanatical fervor as a witnessing theist if not more so.
Atheists strongly deny that they impose their dogma on others, and furthermore, have major animosity towards people that do impose beliefs on others.

Although Atheists are some of the strongest opponents against individuals fanatically imposing beliefs on others, they are unaware that they impose their own dogma as fanatically as theists do if not more so.

Atheists are also characterized by extreme bigotry and denial of the existence of any Atheistic Dogma. Although such dogma is not what Atheism should be about, Atheists arrogantly view such principals as credible aspects of Atheism that is not in the least bit bigoted dogma.

Although Atheists are some of the strongest opponents against individuals abiding by doctrine that is not credible, they are unaware that many of their views are very bigoted Atheist Dogma.

Instead of welcoming others to Sciforums, and approaching topics openly as an intellectual, these bigots fanatically impose their self righteous control over the way members discuss “personal” beliefs. Atheist bigots want others to have discussions in accordance to THEIR own views about how members of a science forum should approach religious discussion. If members do not abide by the views of the Atheist bigots, they will be griefed by these bullies.

An atheist or any individual that is an intellect would not set out to grief others. An intellect would not create a thread informing others that if they do not abide by the way the Atheist bigots want things to be, than the bullies will grief them.
Of course they never say:
“We will grief you.”
They say”
“You will be griefed.”

This is part of their own delusion that they are not the cause of all the malice.

I do not care if Atheists are aware of it.
There is a difference between acknowledging your own fanatical selfrighteousness and delusionally believing you are not in the least bit fanatical.


Because they are self righteous bigoted fanatics, Atheists do not say things such as:
Welcome to Sciforums Religion Section. Please feel free and comfortable to talk about any religious topic, and as intellects, we will be sure to treat all atheists and theists equally and respectfully with an open mind. We want all members to feel comfortable, and free to talk about their beliefs without being attacked or griefed for them.

An atheist is one who fiercely believes that imposing one’s beliefs on others is absolutely abominable. In an atheist’s view, imposing beliefs is bigoted behavior, and is a major factor of their disdain towards religion. Many atheists even believe that imposing beliefs on others brings about conflict and wars.

Most of all, atheists are characterized by a great deal of delusion regarding their own fanaticism. They truly and completely believe that they as “rational atheists” would never fanatically impose beliefs on others. They believe such abominable behavior is only limited to bigoted irrational theists. Atheists are in psychological denial of their own self righteous dogmatic fanaticism.

The fact is, Atheists are extremely fanatical about Atheist Dogma, and wholeheartedly impose these principals on others with just as much fanatical fervor as a witnessing theist if not more so.
Atheists strongly deny that they impose their dogma on others, and furthermore, have major animosity towards people that do impose beliefs on others.

Although Atheists are some of the strongest opponents against individuals fanatically imposing beliefs on others, they are unaware that they impose their own dogma as fanatically as theists do if not more so.

Atheists are also characterized by extreme bigotry and denial of the existence of any Atheistic Dogma. Although such dogma is not what Atheism should be about, Atheists arrogantly view such principals as credible aspects of Atheism that is not in the least bit bigoted dogma.

Although Atheists are some of the strongest opponents against individuals abiding by doctrine that is not credible, they are unaware that many of their views are very bigoted Atheist Dogma.
Mr. Skill,

You are badly confusing forum debate with "fanatically imposing beliefs". Please point to an instance, in the real world, where atheists have imposed a belief on another that forces them to act in a way that offends or disenfranchises them. Can you do this?

You are free to post what you like and talk about what you like but expect it to be rebuked if there post is in anyway illogical or lacking of reason. id expect the same to be done to me if i posted errors.

An atheist or any individual that is an intellect would not set out to grief others. An intellect would not create a thread informing others that if they do not abide by the way the Atheist bigots want things to be, than the bullies will grief them.
Of course they never say:
“We will grief you.”
They say”
“You will be griefed.”

This is part of their own delusion that they are not the cause of all the malice.
Wow. My thread really "griefed" you didn't it? I was just trying to clarify what you could expect by raising non-scientific aspects of religion in a science forum. If you begin to discuss the attributes of angels or the way god influences your bowel movements, we will question you on your facts. Simple really.

I can point to your retarded thread threatening to grief people that want to discuss Noah's relationship with Jesus. This is not debate. It is not intellectual discussion. It is fanatical bigotry.

Such griefing is not in the least bit intellectual discussion. It is fanatical extrmist caviling in efforts to impose your way of discussion on others. You impose your own ideas about how YOU want topics to be discussed on others. You do this through griefing people that wish to have normal religious discussion.

You rationalize that you are merely debating.
Typical atheist delusional self righteous fanatic.

In conlcusion:
Atheists are indeed morons.

You are free to post what you like and talk about what you like but expect it to be rebuked if there post is in anyway illogical or lacking of reason. id expect the same to be done to me if i posted errors.


Wow. My thread really "griefed" you didn't it? I was just trying to clarify what you could expect by raising non-scientific aspects of religion in a science forum. If you begin to discuss the attributes of angels or the way god influences your bowel movements, we will question you on your facts. Simple really.


The above 2 examples shows that atheists delude themselves.
Claiming that you are free to post what you like.

Then, followed by a claim that you are not really free to post what you like because if you do post what you like you will be trolled if it is not in accordance with what the bigots like.

I can point to your retarded thread threatening to grief people that want to discuss Noah's relationship with Jesus. This is not debate. It is not intellectual discussion. It is fanatical bigotry.

Such griefing is not in the least bit intellectual discussion. It is fanatical extrmist caviling in efforts to impose your way of discussion on others. You impose your own ideas about how YOU want topics to be discussed on others. You do this through griefing people that wish to have normal religious discussion.

You rationalize that you are merely debating.
Typical atheist delusional self righteous fanatic.

In conlcusion:
Atheists are indeed morons.
umm give me a link. if your gonna call call people fanatics why not show some proof?

The above 2 examples shows that atheists delude themselves.
Claiming that you are free to post what you like.

Then, followed by a claim that you are not really free to post what you like because if you do post what you like you will be trolled if it is not in accordance with what the bigots like.
No you can post what you want but if it is unreasonable it will be debated with reason. and i think this little qoute fits this situtation nicely. Reason is to theists as fire is to everything else. It burns.

What is Atheist Dogma?
Atheist Dogma is any improvable belief about religion and theism considered to be absolutely true.

That's the wrong way round. You just stated that the beliefs of religion which are considered absolutely true are atheist dogma??? Isn't that theist dogma?

No you can post what you want but if it is unreasonable it will be debated with reason. and i think this little qoute fits this situtation nicely. Reason is to theists as fire is to everything else. It burns.
Fanatical atheists have no concept of reason. They only wisht to impose their bigoted beliefs on others.

Empty threats by empty headed morons.

Fanatical atheists have no concept of reason. They only wisht to impose their bigoted beliefs on others.

Empty threats by empty headed morons.
Sure. what ever helps you sleep at night. :rolleyes:

I can point to your retarded thread threatening to grief people that want to discuss Noah's relationship with Jesus. This is not debate. It is not intellectual discussion. It is fanatical bigotry.

Such griefing is not in the least bit intellectual discussion. It is fanatical extrmist caviling in efforts to impose your way of discussion on others. You impose your own ideas about how YOU want topics to be discussed on others. You do this through griefing people that wish to have normal religious discussion.
You rationalize that you are merely debating.
Typical atheist delusional self righteous fanatic.

In conlcusion:
Atheists are indeed morons.
NOTE: This is a religion sub in a science forum. A scientific perspective will undoubtedly be brought to any religious discussion here. There are many boards, as I mentioned, for the sympathetic discussion of Noah's relationship to god. Why is this so hard for you to understand? If you start discussing Noah at all, the few theists here will chime in and so will the atheists. I do not, and would not, go to a religious board and start demanding evidence to support noahs ark.

A theist that comes here and demands complete credulity from the science-minded here is just as guilty as the athiest demanding proof on a religion board. You, sir, are the arrogant one. How dare you come to a science board and try to impose your mindless way of discussion on the rest of us?

Any theist that comes to the religion sub of a science forum is either

1) confused
2) looking for a fight
3) genuinely interested in the scientific view of religion as a phenomenon

I think I know which you are skill boy.

Atheists are self righteous fanatics that wish to impose their dogma on others.

sounds exactly like a theist to me

sounds exactly like a theist to me
exactly :D

I do not care if Atheists are aware of it.
There is a difference between acknowledging your own fanatical selfrighteousness and delusionally believing you are not in the least bit fanatical.

Because they are self righteous bigoted fanatics, Atheists do not say things such as:
Welcome to Sciforums Religion Section. Please feel free and comfortable to talk about any religious topic, and as intellects, we will be sure to treat all atheists and theists equally and respectfully with an open mind. We want all members to feel comfortable, and free to talk about their beliefs without being attacked or griefed for them...

Cool Skill,

Thanks for the detailed answer. In my opinion, the atheists aren't the problem. It's the way people on the forum tear assertions to pieces without regard to the human relationships. I would speculate that you are seeing this behavior most frequently in atheists, but if you look around the other categories of sciforums, you can see theists engaging in the same behavior.

It's typical for public 'intellectual discussion' / debate to put a far lower value on peoples feelings. You have to be strong and have 'thick skin' or you might run into problems. Look at what happened to Muslim in the 'War in Heaven (No Atheists)' thread. He literally freaked out because he wasn't emotionally equipped to deal with a public science forum. I have to be truthful and say that your behavior isn't much healthier. You can't change the fundamental behavior of people nor the thought processes and values of the common evidentualists.

Rather than fall inito the negative spiral of caustic presence (which will have no upside for you), why not lobby for something that is missing? This is just an idea. May SciForums can have a section called 'Safe-Zone', a place that values (by sub-forum rules) equality, welcoming, safety, and whatever else is needed? It's just an idea and if it was me that wanted this, I would probably rally some virtual signatures from the SciForums population for the creation of such a forum category. I am sure the SciForums staff would be open to the idea backed by the documented desire of many of its members.

A downside to that type of forum category is that it would be very moderation intensive.

Cool Skill,

Thanks for the detailed answer. In my opinion, the atheists aren't the problem. It's the way people on the forum tear assertions to pieces without regard to the human relationships. I would speculate that you are seeing this behavior most frequently in atheists, but if you look around the other categories of sciforums, you can see theists engaging in the same behavior.

It's typical for public 'intellectual discussion' / debate to put a far lower value on peoples feelings. You have to be strong and have 'thick skin' or you might run into problems. Look at what happened to Muslim in the 'War in Heaven (No Atheists)' thread. He literally freaked out because he wasn't emotionally equipped to deal with a public science forum. I have to be truthful and say that your behavior isn't much healthier. You can't change the fundamental behavior of people nor the thought processes and values of the common evidentualists.

Rather than fall inito the negative spiral of caustic presence (which will have no upside for you), why not lobby for something that is missing? This is just an idea. May SciForums can have a section called 'Safe-Zone', a place that values (by sub-forum rules) equality, welcoming, safety, and whatever else is needed? It's just an idea and if it was me that wanted this, I would probably rally some virtual signatures from the SciForums population for the creation of such a forum category. I am sure the SciForums staff would be open to the idea backed by the documented desire of many of its members.

A downside to that type of forum category is that it would be very moderation intensive.
My first reaction is that that's not such a bad idea.

NOTE: This is a religion sub in a science forum. A scientific perspective will undoubtedly be brought to any religious discussion here. There are many boards, as I mentioned, for the sympathetic discussion of Noah's relationship to god.
Thank you proving my point.

Atheist dogma: A scientific perspective is the atheist perspective. Religious diecussion in a science foum should abide by the atheist perspective.

Atheists are bigots that wish impose their self righteous ideas on how religion should be discussed in a science forum.

If you do not abide by the way Atheists want you to approach a religious discussion, you will be trolled by Atheist bullies.

Unfortunately, in a trully free intellectual forum, you will not be griefed by atheist fanatics for talking about Jesus relationship with Noah. Or Muhamads relationship with Allah.


I do not, and would not, go to a religious board and start demanding evidence to support noahs ark.
Yet you do so here, and use your self righteous dogma that this is a science forum to justify your griefing.
What you atheists do not seem to understand is a very important fact:
THIS IS NOT AN ATHEIST FORUM

Not all people in this forum believe as you do that atheism is more scientifc than theism, and therefore, atheism should take precedence in a science forum.

You cannot expect everybody here to abide by your dogma. Nor is it right to grief others for not doing so.


This is a nondenominational forum. It is open for all beliefs.
There is a difference between nondenominational and nonreligious.
In a non religious discussion, people are not allowed to discuss topics regarding religion.
In a nondenominational forum, people are allowed to freely discuss their religious beliefs. This means no grief from fanatics.

Any intellect can easily approach a topic, and know right away if that topic is meant for debate regarding their beliefs or if they are just approacihing the topic to cavile others for the sake of imposing their dogma.

Skill,

Have you visited the physics forum here? Have you ever followed any of the "perpetual motion machine" threads? Or the "Einstien was a moron/Reletivity is moronic" threads? If you don't get my point, go read some of them and then come back here and complain about how harsh we atheists are on religiosos. We're sooo mean.

deal with a public science forum.
This is typical bigoted attitude about what a science forum is.
This does nothing more than support my claims about atheist selfrighteousness.
Atheists selfrighteously believe and impose their idea of what a "public" science forum is on others. If others do not follow their notions, they will be griefed.

If Muslim was sad about anything it is not because he could not deal with a public science forum. It is because of self righteous fanatics that believe a science forum is meant abide by atheist dogma only, and wish to impose this belief on others.

Unfortunately, this is in no way an atheist forum. If you like, you can lobby for an atheist subforum, therefore, the religion forum can be open to actual intllectual discussion without atheist fantaticism.
Of course atheists would still be welcome to discuss religion, just not with any fanatical attitude about how this is a science forum, and therfore, any religious discussion will be subject to griefing if it does not abide by atheist dogmatic standards.

My first reaction is that that's not such a bad idea.

The only negative consequence (aside from insane moderation) I could think of at the moment is that if something like that became really popular, the pool of free sociological experiement participants would be harder to access (alot more touchy-feely emotion would have to be invested and some experiments might just be all out inaccessible).

Skill,

Have you visited the physics forum here? Have you ever followed any of the "perpetual motion machine" threads? Or the "Einstien was a moron/Reletivity is moronic" threads? If you don't get my point, go read some of them and then come back here and complain about how harsh we atheists are on religiosos. We're sooo mean.
Yes I do visit the physics forum.
And no it is not relevant.
This is not a discussion about the physics forum.
The physics forum could be the most fanatical tyranical psychotics or they could be the most open minded intellects.

It has no bearing on atheist self righteous attitudes and bullying in the religion forum.

just because i think it, i'm right.

that's my summation of every post you have made here.

The only negative consequence (aside from insane moderation) I could think of at the moment is that if something like that became really popular, the pool of free sociological experiement participants would be harder to access (alot more touchy-feely emotion would have to be invested and some experiments might just be all out inaccessible).
Not to mention it most likely becoming deadly boring.

'Safe-Zone', a place that values (by sub-forum rules) equality, welcoming, safety, and whatever else is needed?
BTW. What exactly do you mean by safe zone?
I take it your not aware that the entire Sciforums is moderated to the extent of free discussion as long as nobody is griefing others.

1. All people. Theists and atheists alike are free to discuss whatever they want without being griefed.

2. This is not an atheist forum. Atheists may believe that a science forum and an atheist forum are one and the same. That is fine, but treating it as such is disrespectful to others, and is not what intellectual discussion is about.

3. Griefing others for discussing their beliefs is not intellectual discussion. It is not respectful discussion in a science forum.

that's my summation of every post you have made here.
It is clear that you have no point. I cannot see why you do not get lost.

Yes I do visit the physics forum.
And no it is not relevant.
This is not a discussion about the physics forum.
The physics forum could be the most fanatical tyranical psychotics or they could be the most open minded intellects.

It has no bearing on atheist self righteous attitudes and bullying in the religion forum.
Of course it's relevant you nutjob! We are not being selfrighteous, dimwit. We are asking for reasonable, scientific support for religious claims. How stupid can you be? Please, try not to demonstrate how much worse you can get.

Not to mention it most likely becoming deadly boring.

Good point... and I can also see people challenging each other in a friendly fashion. Hey, lets take this discussion to the Life Sciences section... and then they duke it out.

BTW. What exactly do you mean by safe zone?
I take it your not aware that the entire Sciforums is moderated to the extent of free discussion as long as nobody is griefing others.

1. All people. Theists and atheists alike are free to discuss whatever they want without being griefed.

2. This is not an atheist forum. Atheists may believe that a science forum and an atheist forum are one and the same. That is fine, but treating it as such is disrespectful to others, and is not what intellectual discussion is about.

3. Griefing others for discussing their beliefs is not intellectual discussion. It is not respectful discussion in a science forum.
So why is this sub different from any other sub where conflicting views are thrown around like spears? Hmmm???

It is clear that you have no point. I cannot see why you do not get lost.

well it's clear that you have no point either, so why don't we get lost together.

oh wait, what i meant to say was - "Look at Cool Skill trying to censor me with his fanatical bigotry! I tried to express my opinion and he contradicted it, so he is supressing my personality, my dreams, my thoughts, and destroying my life! Cool Skill has raped my inner child with his fanatical lies of fanaticism and all proof to the contrary is irrelevant fanatical lying and bigotry!"

there we go.

So why is this sub different from any other sub where conflicting views are thrown around like spears? Hmmm???
Where did I say it was?
Oh you must be mistaking your fanatic psychotic greifing with debating conflicting views again.

Atheists are so blinded by utter selfrighteousness that these bigots do not even know the difference between parcital intellectual discussion and griefing others that do not abide by your dogma.

well it's clear that you have no point either, so why don't we get lost together.

oh wait, what i meant to say was - "Look at Cool Skill trying to
WTF?
More nonsensical blabbering.
I guess you have no clue how futile your existence really is.

This is typical bigoted attitude about what a science forum is.
This does nothing more than support my claims about atheist selfrighteousness.
Atheists selfrighteously believe and impose their idea of what a "public" science forum is on others. If others do not follow their notions, they will be griefed.

Public - The scope of the object (accessible to everyone and anyone)
Science - The type of object (science)
Forum - The object (a place for discussion)

It doesn't take a self-rightous bigot to place the words side by side and derive meaning.


If Muslim was sad about anything it is not because he could not deal with a public science forum. It is because of self righteous fanatics that believe a science forum is meant abide by atheist dogma only, and wish to impose this belief on others.

Unfortunately, this is in no way an atheist forum. If you like, you can lobby for an atheist subforum, therefore, the religion forum can be open to actual intllectual discussion without atheist fantaticism.
Of course atheists would still be welcome to discuss religion, just not with any fanatical attitude about how this is a science forum, and therfore, any religious discussion will be subject to griefing if it does not abide by atheist dogmatic standards.

Im not the one throwing tantrums cool skill. You are, and that consequently shows that you have the problem. If you want to reject my idea thats fine and like I said before, there's no upside for you. Have you noticed that nobody is sympathetic to your plight (atheist or theist)? That is a truth that should be very telling to you (I'm sure you will find a way to cognative dissasociate it into some atheistic super-fanatic bullying).

It doesn't take a self-rightous bigot to place the words side by side and derive meaning
Oh but I guess it would take a selfrighteous bigot to grief others into conforming to their belief.

BTW. What exactly do you mean by safe zone?
I take it your not aware that the entire Sciforums is moderated to the extent of free discussion as long as nobody is griefing others.

1. All people. Theists and atheists alike are free to discuss whatever they want without being griefed.

2. This is not an atheist forum. Atheists may believe that a science forum and an atheist forum are one and the same. That is fine, but treating it as such is disrespectful to others, and is not what intellectual discussion is about.

3. Griefing others for discussing their beliefs is not intellectual discussion. It is not respectful discussion in a science forum.

You rejected the idea before even understanding it? Brilliant. By Safe-Zone, I mean a place where peoples feelings, emotional well being, and human relationships come before the content of dialog.

Consequently, I have seen the rules of the various forum categories. They don't agree with what you are stating.

Of course it's relevant you nutjob! We are not being selfrighteous, dimwit
Not being self-righteous. That is a nice joke.

You would not partake in such griefing in a religious community, but you would in a scientific community.

How is this not self-righteous justification?

Do you not believe it is right for you do partake in such griefing because this is a science forum?
Despite the fact that perhaps, not everybody abides by the same dogma as you do?

Where did I say it was?
Oh you must be mistaking your fanatic psychotic greifing with debating conflicting views again.

Atheists are so blinded by utter selfrighteousness that these bigots do not even know the difference between parcital intellectual discussion and griefing others that do not abide by your dogma.
Mr. skill,

Since you were clearly conceived in the same fashion, why don't you go fuck your mother and get some relief from your mental anguish? I'm tired. I'm going to bed. Someone please edit this post. It's mighty offensive and completely off topic.

Oh but I guess it would take a selfrighteous bigot to grief others into conforming to their belief.

In the virtual world, people have as much power over you as you give them. If you're feeling griefed then thats really your own doing and nobody elses... of course maybe you just enjoy being a victim. Your history certainly does imply that.

You rejected the idea before even understanding it? Brilliant. By Safe-Zone, I mean a place where peoples feelings, emotional well being, and human relationships come before the content of dialog.
That makes no sense, and does not abide by free discussion.
Free discussion is discussing any content provided you are not griefing others.

Furthermore, feel free to ask for an atheist forum where you can discuss atheist dogma, and anti religion.

Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with atheists discussing their dogma and ideas about religion in the Religion section provided they are not griefing anybody.

And yes, imposing your idea on others that this forum is righteously subject to atheist griefing based on the fact that it is in a scientific community is not intellectual discussion, but fanatical griefing.

It's mighty offensive and completely off topic.
Typical.

WTF?
More nonsensical blabbering.
I guess you have no clue how futile your existence really is.

i'm just imitating you. i'm well aware that it makes me look stupid.

If you're feeling griefed then thats really your own doing
Troll rationalization.
One feeling griefed does not mean they are being griefed. Nor does it mean they are not being griefed.

Either somebody is griefing or somebody is not griefing.
Whether or not somebody is griefing is based soleley on the actions of that somebody. Not on the feelings of anybody that feels griefed.

The point is, Atheists selfrighteously feel that it is ok to grief others based on the fact that this is a science forum. They fanatically impose this belief on others.

i'm well aware that it makes me look stupid.
Obviously not.

That makes no sense, and does not abide by free discussion.
Free discussion is discussing any content provided you are not griefing others.

Furthermore, feel free to ask for an atheist forum where you can discuss atheist dogma, and anti religion.

Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with atheists discussing their dogma and ideas about religion in the Religion section provided they are not griefing anybody.

And yes, imposing your idea on others that this forum is righteously subject to atheist griefing based on the fact that it is in a scientific community is not intellectual discussion, but fanatical griefing.

Troll rationalization.
One feeling griefed does not mean they are being griefed. Nor does it mean they are not being griefed.

Either somebody is griefing or somebody is not griefing.
Whether or not somebody is griefing is based soleley on the actions of that somebody. Not on the feelings of anybody that feels griefed.

The point is, Atheists selfrighteously feel that it is ok to grief others based on the fact that this is a science forum. They fanatically impose this belief on others.

Free discussion is free discussion. People aren't going to walk on egg-shells just so you don't interpret them as greifing you. What you are looking for is not free discussion at all.

Regardless, I'll bite, how is the atheist actively griefing you? Give me one specific example.

Obviously not.

yeah, well at least i don't use the word "griefing".

yeah, well at least i don't use the word "griefing".

The theme song from Charlie Brown has been prevalent in my mind since this conversation. Over and over and over. Maybe that's what griefing means!

Free discussion is free discussion. People aren't going to walk on egg-shells.
Nobody is asking anybody to walk on egg shells.
Furthermore, you continue to idiotically refer to people griefing me as if it had any relevence to the subject matter.
If you cannot interpret the discussion, don't expect to be taken seriously.

Please show me a quote in which I spoke about anybody griefing me.
Otherwise, I don't answer false questions.

Troll rationalization.
One feeling griefed does not mean they are being griefed. Nor does it mean they are not being griefed.

Either somebody is griefing or somebody is not griefing.
Whether or not somebody is griefing is based soleley on the actions of that somebody. Not on the feelings of anybody that feels griefed.

The point is, Atheists selfrighteously feel that it is ok to grief others based on the fact that this is a science forum. They fanatically impose this belief on others.
So your calling all atheists fanatics based on what goes on at a science forum?

yeah, well at least i don't use the word "griefing".
Who cares?

So your calling all atheists fanatics based on what goes on at a science forum?
Yes based on the few Atheists on a single internet science forum, all Atheists on the planet are fanatics.

The theme song from Charlie Brown has been prevalent in my mind since this conversation. Over and over and over. Maybe that's what griefing means!

good griefing?

Yes based on the few Atheists on a single internet science forum, all Atheists on the planet are fanatics.
:rolleyes: So sad.
"Atheists are the most fanatical of all religions. They cannot help themselves. They are the most dogmatic, imposing, wackos of all religions." - cool skill

Who cares?

i do. its a sign of your lack of intelligence. buy a fucking dictionary and look up the word grief. its a noun, not a verb.

grieving would work, but you seemingly have an inability to use that word.

i mean really, if you want to claim the everyone else is a moron, you better show somebody that you are capable of intelligence, or at least capable of using language correctly.

Yes they are sad.
Hopefully their will discontinue imposing their selfrighteous dogma on others.

Yes they are sad.
Hopefully their will discontinue imposing their selfrighteous dogma on others.
i was talking about you.. :rolleyes:

i do. its a sign of your lack of intelligence. buy a fucking dictionary and look up the word grief. its a noun, not a verb.

grieving would work, but you seemingly have an inability to use that word.

i mean really, if you want to claim the everyone else is a moron, you better show somebody that you are capable of intelligence, or at least capable of using language correctly.
What an idiot.
Why are you even on the internet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefing

i was talking about you
Wow. What a revalation.
Is there any more garbage you wish to contribute?

Here is a kewl article:
http://news.com.com/Inflicting+pain+on+griefers/2100-1043_3-5488403.html

It's a good thing this forum is not for profit as the griefers on this forum tend to drive legitimate posters away.

Wow. What a revalation.
Is there any more garbage you wish to contribute?
that is a qestion you should ask your self.

What an idiot.
Why are you even on the internet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefing

try reading the disclaimer at the top retard. then buy a dictionary.

"To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup.
This article or section seems not to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry.
Please improve the article or discuss proposed changes on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions."

now, let's see what a reliable source, like uhhh merriamwebster.com has to say about the word grief:

Main Entry: grief
Pronunciation: 'grEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English gref, from Middle French, heavy, grave, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin grevis, alteration of Latin gravis
1 obsolete : GRIEVANCE 3
2 a : deep and poignant distress caused by or as if by bereavement b : a cause of such suffering
3 a : an unfortunate outcome : DISASTER -- used chiefly in the phrase come to grief b : MISHAP, MISADVENTURE c : TROUBLE, ANNOYANCE <enough grief for one day>
synonym see SORROW

Thread closed.

No obvious constructive or useful debate.