Preaching?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Ok. If I decide to denounce atheism, isn't that preaching against it? Or if I accuse Jews of being deluded, isn't that preaching against them and stereotyping? I'm just curious.:shrug:

[Simon Anders]

I'm afraid, Ham, it appears that by definition an atheist cannot preach, at least if what he or she is saying fits with their atheism, according to the rules....

7. Preaching, Proselytizing, and Evangelizing

A. Definitions:

Preaching – a “sermon” or address of a religious nature. Using religious dogma to support a point.
Proselytizing – making an attempt to convert someone to accept a religious opinion
Evangelizing – a version of proselytizing in which the religious believer’s true agenda is to spread the “word” to others of different or no faith.

B. The inclusion of religious text to support a point that isn’t related to a discussion or examination about a given religious text is considered to be, at a minimum, preaching. If the discussion is on the nature of various translations of religious text and how religious societies accept or interpret these texts, then quotes of scriptures would be appropriate.

C. A scriptural quote would be appropriate if one was attempting to explain why religious adherents make certain decisions, behave certain ways, believes certain things, etc. If, however, the quote is provided a priori from the point of view that it is a given truth that supports itself, it would be considered preaching or proselytizing.

D. Continued preaching and proselytizing would be, thus, considered evangelizing. Evangelizing in a science forum will not be tolerated.

(I am assuming this is the issue underlying your post - are atheists preaching - let me know if I'm wrong.)

If we look at the definition of 'preach'
preach /pritʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[preech] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to proclaim or make known by sermon (the gospel, good tidings, etc.).
2. to deliver (a sermon).
3. to advocate or inculcate (religious or moral truth, right conduct, etc.) in speech or writing.

–verb (used without object)
4. to deliver a sermon.
5. to give earnest advice, as on religious or moral subjects or the like.
6. to do this in an obtrusive or tedious way.
it certainly is associated with religion, though the two definitions I bolded could be more widely applied.

I think it is an interesting issue.

Sermon could be used to cover secular positions:
ser·mon /ˈsɜrmən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sur-muhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a discourse for the purpose of religious instruction or exhortation, esp. one based on a text of Scripture and delivered by a member of the clergy as part of a religious service.
2. any serious speech, discourse, or exhortation, esp. on a moral issue.
3. a long, tedious speech.

So I think there is wiggle room to call an atheist on preaching. But I am not sure how much this happens. Insults occur, mockery, generalizations, but generally speaking I haven't noticed the atheists, in general, telling people what to do in the religious forum, or giving sermons on moral issues.

I am not sure denouncing counts either.

But if you have an example, let's take a look at it.

What was the specific post or posts that set you off?

I've seen a lot of stereotyping, though, in both directions.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

hmmm, so denouncing someone's beliefs at length, over multiple posts, is not preaching or proseletyzing? If I begin a discourse on how atheism is bad and atheists are going to hell, isn't that considered preaching? (statement for example purposes only, the validity of the statement does not need to be debated here)

[Mr. Hamtastic]

This is assuming I make no scriptural references of any kind.

[Simon Anders]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86700
That would seem to fit preaching. Of course this is a new guy and a kid and not really the problem´.
Ham,
bring is a specific example, please. I think it is an interesting issue. Copy a couple of posts that you see fit the pattern of preaching:

[JDawg]

hmmm, so denouncing someone's beliefs at length, over multiple posts, is not preaching or proseletyzing? If I begin a discourse on how atheism is bad and atheists are going to hell, isn't that considered preaching? (statement for example purposes only, the validity of the statement does not need to be debated here)

I would say that if you wanted to tell me, for example, that I was going to hell for not accepting Jesus...shoot, what's his last name again? Jones? Yeah, Jesus Jones. If you tell me I'm going to hell for not accepting Jesus Jones into my life, then that would be preaching.

At the same time, if I say atheism is the best thing since sliced bread, and don't give a single reason as to why I believe atheism is the path toward enlightenment, then I'm preaching, as well.

The point is to back up the claims. Also, it would help a religious person's case if they simply cited what the Bible (or Torah, or Qu'ran) says about a certain kind of person, rather than going ahead and judging them for themselves.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2051456&postcount=152

best I could do for now. Most of these things come out in one post after another, if strung together, they begin to from a cogent set of beliefs.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86325

beliefs which force things like this on people.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86453

I mean, if you keep following the posts, it's just hate-filled drivel.

[S.A.M.]

hmmm, so denouncing someone's beliefs at length, over multiple posts, is not preaching or proseletyzing? If I begin a discourse on how atheism is bad and atheists are going to hell, isn't that considered preaching? (statement for example purposes only, the validity of the statement does not need to be debated here)

Nah, I do it all the time. As you can see from the responses I receive, all the atheists welcome self reflection based on rational thinking. ;)

Keep rolling your eyes. All you do is make people not want to post on these forums with your degrading, holier-than-thou posts.

That's the most ignorant thing I've read here today. You assume religion benefits the individual, family, community, and society, and assume that an atheist cannot be a family-oriented, community-oriented, moral person.

You truly are an idiot. Delete it, ban me, whatever. You, SAM, are the cancer of this forum, you ignorant little worm.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83199&page=13

No irrational emotional outbursts there. :D

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Then there are other followers of the belief, missionaries seem to travel in groups.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86801

[Kadark]

Nah, I do it all the time. As you can see from the responses I receive, all the atheists welcome self reflection based on rational thinking. ;)

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83199&page=13

No irrational emotional outbursts there. :D

Admit it: you can get under somebody's skin like no other. It's hardly their fault for getting mad. :shrug:


Kadark

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Sam, you have to teach me how to quote in one thread and move it to another.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Stirring the pot is one thing, but a long diatribe over several thousand posts impugning someone's beliefs and calling names? I at least do people the honor of giving thought to a post until they have repeatedly ignored said thought.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=3182

there is of course an entire 72 page thread participating in this religion bashing discourse, with a current mod being poster #2 on the topic. It was supposed to be about a seeming paradox, but was the discourse about the paradox? Or the thread title?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

It's interesting, btw, how the rules specify preaching and evangelizing to strike almost purely at those religions having "holy books". Isn't this unnecessarily prejudicial? Or is this considered a "spice" for the forums?

[JDawg]

Nah, I do it all the time. As you can see from the responses I receive, all the atheists welcome self reflection based on rational thinking. ;)




http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83199&page=13

No irrational emotional outbursts there. :D

It's only because I, like most people here, at sick of your lying, your inability to answer a direct question, and your constant use of sarcasm when a point has been proven against you, or even when someone displays an opinion that differs from yours. The worst part about you is that because someone got drunk and decided that post-whoring was all the qualifications needed to become a moderator, none of us can even put you on our ignore lists--something I guarantee at least a dozen people on this forum would do immediately.

You are clever, I will grant you that. But you are someone that should be able to be rendered invisible. Since we don't have that right, and you post in damn near every thread in every forum on this site, no one can get away from you. And when we DO attempt to ignore, as I did recently, what do I get? I get a private message from you goading me into replying.

And this person is a moderator.

[S.A.M.]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=3182

there is of course an entire 72 page thread participating in this religion bashing discourse, with a current mod being poster #2 on the topic. It was supposed to be about a seeming paradox, but was the discourse about the paradox? Or the thread title?

I hate to tell you this but Cris is also a mod

http://www.sciforums.com/showgroups.php

Atheists don't see it as proselytising when they preach their beliefs. Because they know they are right!
Unlike those deluded theists, who only think they are.


To quote a post press the http://www.sciforums.com/images/buttons/quote.gif button, it will open a window with quoted post. Select the post and press ctrl+c, then go to the post you want to reply to, press the "quote" on that post, that will give you a window with the post you are addressing. Click in the window where you want your copied post. Press ctrl+V to paste it.

To copy multiple posts, press http://www.sciforums.com/images/buttons/multiquote_off.gif for all the posts you want to quote and finally press http://www.sciforums.com/images/buttons/quote.gif either for the final post you are quoting or for the post you want to reply to [ie the last selected post]

You are clever, I will grant you that. But you are someone that should be able to be rendered invisible.

So much for questioning your beliefs.

[JDawg]

So much for questioning your beliefs.

Ah, but only if you did question my beliefs. Instead, you question, then when answered, use misdirection, change the subject, or simply make a sarcastic remark.

[S.A.M.]

I don't care what you believe, it has nothing to do with me.

[JDawg]

I don't care what you believe, it has nothing to do with me.

Actually, it does. And there are plenty of people here would agree with me.

Of course, you'll simply make a snide comment and roll your eyes, probably accuse them of being loons or something...but we all know the truth.

[S.A.M.]

No it doesn't. Apparently though, people want to know why I believe as I do. In which case, I outline whats wrong with other beliefs. Although, I have to admit while I have always liked Islam since I started delving into it a decade or so ago, I had no idea of its depth and breadth till I started answering questions here. :)

[JDawg]

No it doesn't. Apparently though, people want to know why I believe as I do. In which case, I outline whats wrong with other beliefs. Although, I have to admit while I have always liked Islam since I started delving into it a decade or so ago, I had no idea of its depth and breadth till I started answering questions here. :)

Yeah, it does have to do with you. If you would step down as a moderator, you'd see how quickly your replies drop off the map due to the sheer volume of people that put you on Ignore.

As an aside...how little does it speak of your beloved faith that when asked why you believe in it, your only answer can be what is wrong with the beliefs of others?

I had no idea there was such depth to your shallowness.

[S.A.M.]

Oh don't you know? I wrote pages and pages exploring Islamic history and beliefs and philosophy. Strangely enough, [almost] no one was interested. Preaching and delusion, they called it. So I figured, we could discuss their delusions instead. That got them interested pretty quick. I wonder why. :confused:

[JDawg]

Oh don't you know? I wrote pages and pages exploring Islamic history and beliefs and philosophy. Strangely enough, [almost] no one was interested. Preaching and delusion, they called it. So I figured, we could discuss their delusions instead. That got them interested pretty quick. I wonder why. :confused:

It's very insightful that your idea of exploring Islam is "writing pages and pages". Yes, I'm sure you can talk your way to a mighty fine education.

:Sarcastic Emoticon:

[Simon Anders]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86453

I mean, if you keep following the posts, it's just hate-filled drivel.
I am assuming you mean the responses of people to the OP and the OP writer. Certainly some of them just hurl insults, but it does seem like others try to reach him by pointing out misunderstandings he or she has about what evolutionary theory is. And he is confused about that.

But I can see where the noise created by the insults would make it impossible for me to put forward a controversial idea.

[Simon Anders]

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2051456&postcount=152

best I could do for now. Most of these things come out in one post after another, if strung together, they begin to from a cogent set of beliefs.
Yes, beliefs about theists, including psychological theories, generally not backed up in any way, a good deal of blame for the way the world is and insults. I did spend some time arguing somewhere in an atheist vs. theist thread that atheism for SOME atheists is a set of beliefs: about theists, about psychology, about their superiority, about epistemology. If someone wants to be very fussy you can say that some people who call themselves atheists have a set of beliefs that often include several of the following......(thus avoiding the whole 'is atheism a belief' to do)

One way to respond to this is to label posts, like the one above.

Ad hominem.
Unsupported psychological hypothesis.
Generalization.
Unsupported ontological claim.

Are Q's breaches there, that I can see.

So every time a post has preaching, stereotyping, etc., it gets labeled.

[Simon Anders]

So I figured, we could discuss their delusions instead. I understand this conclusion on your part.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

We need SOMETHING. I would love to answer honest questions about my beliefs, even discuss why I feel they are or are not valid, but.... If I engage someone in conversation in real life, and they look me in the eye, say my name, and proceed to discuss an entirely different topic, with the occasional insult to my beliefs thrown in... I have to tell them that we're done talking. I mean, is this behavior something that can be moderated? Perhaps if someone addresses the 2 Atheist Evangelists' method of debate, maybe a fellow atheist or a secularist or something. It's mind boggling to be discounted entirely based on one's religious beliefs, but it happens. I will call a fundy crazy in a heartbeat. Muslims are misled. Jews are bruised. Perhaps I should go and attack homosexuality, pointing out it doesn't accomplish anything for the species in question and is thus an aberration. These things would bring warnings from mods and admin I'm sure...

[Simon Anders]

I will call a fundy crazy in a heartbeat. This was something I realized after my posts. Some people bring out the ad hom in me. A fundamentalist Christian, for example, can set me off. Adstar has no doubt faced, from me, some of the things you are complaining about here. Once someone basically says 'God will send you to hell to suffer horribly for all time' I tend to snap. And they do not have to make it personal. In other words if it can be deduced from the rules he is setting forth, I may not respond in a 'proper' manner. Certainly political stances can also bring out my ridicule. I am not saying this is right, but if I feel like a history of cruelty is being justified, I do not fight fair.

I will have to look at this and reevaluate, but I thought I might as well come clean.

[JDawg]

The problem with discussing beliefs with a theist is that they come to the table wearing the theist hat. How frustrating is it to you guys and gals when an atheist argues from the position that there is definitely no god? Well, turn the tables and imagine having to carry out a discussion of ideas with a person who can't think outside of that position for even a moment.

And before we get busy pegging every atheist on this forum as an asshole, and that it is impossible to discuss your beliefs rationally with any atheist here, let's drop that act. There are plenty of intelligent atheists here that have discussed such things with honesty and integrity. If you choose to ignore people like Skinwalker, and instead opt for a barking match with Q, that's your problem, not ours. Stop pretending that you've tried and tried and gotten nowhere, because it's bullshit.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

You also have to consider that any extremist evangelist do things they do and say things they say with the best of intentions. If I thought that the ongoing attack on my core beliefs was out of any desire to help me, I'd probably be able to tolerate it. Mostly it is done just to upset me. I have found myself doing unto others as they were doing unto me, which was distressing. I've had to take breaks from the board due to this kind of harassment. It should not be this way. Is consideration really that much of a stretch? I mean, I can easily say,"Atheists have no soul" or I can say,"Do atheists believe in a soul?" Maybe that's a big piece of the pie, a declaration of fact,"You are stupid!" versus a kind question,"Do you need me to explain this in simpler terms?". That may all go towards upbringing.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Actually, JDawg, I find your postings and debate style thoughtful and refreshing. That which I have a problem with, I believe you have as well. The unwillingness to admit that another's beliefs are as valid as one's own is vexing in the extreme. The ability to agree to disagree needs to be promoted. We had an exchange about some ac I have on order for you, and you were gonna set me up with a free gym membership? Wasn't that refreshing? What's wrong with having more debating in that frame of mind?

[(Q)]

and instead opt for a barking match with Q, that's your problem, not ours.

Hey asshole, I'm getting a little fed up with your bullshit. If you want to take the gloves off and have it out, tell me to my face instead of sneaking around and dropping little pieces of shit everywhere like some cretinous rat.

I understand that you couldn't argue your way out of a used tampon, and your thinking level is one-dimensional, but there's no reason for this type of crap.

Do you get it, pal?

[JDawg]

Actually, JDawg, I find your postings and debate style thoughtful and refreshing. That which I have a problem with, I believe you have as well. The unwillingness to admit that another's beliefs are as valid as one's own is vexing in the extreme. The ability to agree to disagree needs to be promoted. We had an exchange about some ac I have on order for you, and you were gonna set me up with a free gym membership? Wasn't that refreshing? What's wrong with having more debating in that frame of mind?

Thanks, broham. I just wanted to get my perspective out there, because it sounded a bit as if you and Simon were saying that nobody on this site knows how to talk rationally despite differing opinions and beliefs. And I totally agree that we need to have more honest discussions without dealing with the BS. That's why I say we should all get together and Ignore people like Q, who have the intellect of a 4-year-old, and who, when provided intelligent counter-points, simply dismiss them because they don't have a good response. Or better, they come back at you like an internet tough guy. :rolleyes:

[(Q)]

That's why I say we should all get together and Ignore people like Q, who have the intellect of a 4-year-old, and who, when provided intelligent counter-points

:roflmao:

You can't seriously be talking about yourself?

You're welcome to start an anti-Q campaign, but it doesn't appear you have the brains to do it. :D

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Hey asshole, I'm getting a little fed up with your bullshit. If you want to take the gloves off and have it out, tell me to my face instead of sneaking around and dropping little pieces of shit everywhere like some cretinous rat.

I understand that you couldn't argue your way out of a used tampon, and your thinking level is one-dimensional, but there's no reason for this type of crap.

Do you get it, pal?

mmmmm Is that the sort of sugary sweetness you use with your mom? Wouldn't it take something on a rat's level to find little turds? I mean, I'm sorry Q, but your all christians believe X, that puts you in league with MW level debating. BTW, I took you off ignore, thought you might have posted something refreshing here. My bad.:bugeye:

[Mr. Hamtastic]

:roflmao:

You can't seriously be talking about yourself?

You're welcome to start an anti-Q campaign, but it doesn't appear you have the brains to do it. :D

It would be interesting if you caused JDawg Simon Anders Me and SAM to join forces, though. You're more powerful than I thought!:D

[JDawg]

I'd never join forces with SAM. She's the male version of Q.

[Simon Anders]

The problem with discussing beliefs with a theist is that they come to the table wearing the theist hat. How frustrating is it to you guys and gals when an atheist argues from the position that there is definitely no god? Well, turn the tables and imagine having to carry out a discussion of ideas with a person who can't think outside of that position for even a moment.

And before we get busy pegging every atheist on this forum as an asshole, and that it is impossible to discuss your beliefs rationally with any atheist here, let's drop that act. There are plenty of intelligent atheists here that have discussed such things with honesty and integrity. If you choose to ignore people like Skinwalker, and instead opt for a barking match with Q, that's your problem, not ours. Stop pretending that you've tried and tried and gotten nowhere, because it's bullshit.
I am not sure if this was directed at me or not.
For me the issue raised by Hamstatic is if certain theist posts can be seen as preaching, can atheist posts be seen as posting.
I never meant that all atheists here are __________fill in the blank. But was curious if there was a systematic fairness issue.
I haven't even drawn a conclusion yet. It certainly seems like both sides get away with breaking the rules pretty regularly.

[Simon Anders]

I'd never join forces with SAM. She's the male version of Q.There is irony here, they have communicated with each other an unbelievable number of times. Hatred creates proximity. And then we know what hatred is close to.

[JDawg]

I am not sure if this was directed at me or not.
For me the issue raised by Hamstatic is if certain theist posts can be seen as preaching, can atheist posts be seen as posting.
I never meant that all atheists here are __________fill in the blank. But was curious if there was a systematic fairness issue.
I haven't even drawn a conclusion yet. It certainly seems like both sides get away with breaking the rules pretty regularly.

It wasn't directed specifically at you, but all the theists here who claim that it's unfair, and that only the atheists are the ones who don't know how to conduct themselves.

I personally don't see any bias. I do see people on both sides actin' the fool, (Q, for one. Stranger, for another, but not always) and I call them both out on it. I think picking on one side or the other is just spinning your wheels.

[Simon Anders]

It wasn't directed specifically at you, but all the theists here who claim that it's unfair, and that only the atheists are the ones who don't know how to conduct themselves. It's not about the atheists, it's about the moderation. In the rules it refers to preaching as a no no. If theists can be called on preaching - which happens - can atheists. That's the issue. Stereotyping seems permissible on all sides as far as I can tell, despite the rules.


I personally don't see any bias. I do see people on both sides actin' the fool, (Q, for one. Stranger, for another, but not always) and I call them both out on it. I think picking on one side or the other is just spinning your wheels.Ibid.

I found this thread useful because I often react, sometimes unconsciously, to the mocking and insults - and have also done it myself. I realized in this thread a better strategy for me is simply to label.

[JDawg]

It's not about the atheists, it's about the moderation. In the rules it refers to preaching as a no no. If theists can be called on preaching - which happens - can atheists. That's the issue. Stereotyping seems permissible on all sides as far as I can tell, despite the rules.


Ibid.

I found this thread useful because I often react, sometimes unconsciously, to the mocking and insults - and have also done it myself. I realized in this thread a better strategy for me is simply to label.

What is labeling, and how do you do it?

[Simon Anders]

What is labeling, and how do you do it?



It is just another silly contrivance on the part of theists to prop up their cults. Their gods doesn't exist in, out, above, below or anywhere else other than their imaginations.So, we could probably safely conclude it is their imaginations that are, "Out of this Universe!"

Whole text : generalization/stereotyping
Unsupported psychological hypothesis.
Unsupported ontological claim.
Irrelevent/ad hom.(implicit if poorly formulated)

[JDawg]

Whole text : generalization/stereotyping
Unsupported psychological hypothesis.
Unsupported ontological claim.
Irrelevent/ad hom.(implicit if poorly formulated)

I'm colorblind, friend...oh, wait...nevermind, the words are in the code. Sweet!

[(Q)]

It would be interesting if you caused JDawg Simon Anders Me and SAM to join forces, though. You're more powerful than I thought!:D

So much for yet another one of your claims. :rolleyes:

[(Q)]

I do see people on both sides actin' the fool, (Q, for one.

What does that make you if I have to constantly correct your false assumptions?

[(Q)]

If theists can be called on preaching - which happens - can atheists.

It might help if you knew the definitions of 'preaching.'

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Q-Ask- and you shall receive!

preach (prch)
v. preached, preach·ing, preach·es
v.tr.
1. To proclaim or put forth in a sermon: preached the gospel.
2. To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or compliance with: preached tolerance and peaceful coexistence.
3. To deliver (a sermon).
v.intr.
1. To deliver a sermon.
2. To give religious or moral instruction, especially in a tedious manner

[Mr. Hamtastic]

wait, oh that's right, if you go back to the start of the thread, see, in post 2, Simon, amusingly the one who you're suggesting doesn't know what the word is, posted the definition, and investigated far more thoroughly than I'm going to.

On JDawg-He's embarrassed by you. Your corrections are usually foolish. Don't make it worse for him.

As for me, you have as much humor as you do astuteness.

[(Q)]

wait, oh that's right, if you go back to the start of the thread, see, in post 2, Simon, amusingly the one who you're suggesting doesn't know what the word is, posted the definition, and investigated far more thoroughly than I'm going to.

On JDawg-He's embarrassed by you. Your corrections are usually foolish. Don't make it worse for him.

As for me, you have as much humor as you do astuteness.

He has some definitions, I found this one, too included in a Websters Lexicon: Speak, plead, or argue in favour of.

That would count for everybody here. Clearly, the preaching being referred to as unacceptable is the "religious sermon".

[Mr. Hamtastic]

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


I want to consider this carefully, treading foolishly here simply will not do.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

so-definition 1 is unarguably theists. Definition 2 doesn't fit with preaching contextually. Definition 3 covers pagans, buddhists, etc. Definition 4. Hmm. Is atheism a cause, principal, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion?

[Simon Anders]

wait, oh that's right, if you go back to the start of the thread, see, in post 2, Simon, amusingly the one who you're suggesting doesn't know what the word is, posted the definition, and investigated far more thoroughly than I'm going to.
With Q on ignore I cannot experience him directly. I do get the sense he exists via the reactions of others. I would say that even though I cannot directly contact him, I am quite sure he is not dead. I know he exists and even what he is 'doing' via the texts of others. I may not accept everyone's reactions to him as accurate information about what he is saying. However I do think he exists and feel I can draw some conclusions about him - like he is still an atheist and he is not pleased with what some people are saying. I am a believer.

A fascinating thing.

And as I pointed out in my earlier post one can preach and be a non-theist. The question is whether this is enforced.

[Simon Anders]

so-definition 1 is unarguably theists. Definition 2 doesn't fit with preaching contextually. Definition 3 covers pagans, buddhists, etc. Definition 4. Hmm. Is atheism a cause, principal, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion?You don't even have to show that atheism is such a cause. One can have as a cause pointing out the flaws and dangers of theism. This may come from your atheism - if it is more than a mere lack of belief in God - it may come from bad experiences with a church. In fact, the burden is not on the listeners or readers to come up with the source of one's cause.

Besides the whole point of the thread is whether the rules themselves are too restrictive.

If one can go on and on lecturing and insulting from both pro and con positions in relation to theism, shouldn't the idea in the rules be that one does not do this. You don't want one rule for theists and another for atheists, who merely lack a belief, so it would be odd to group them anyway.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Simon-good points all.

The latest suggestion was that religious preaching was the problem, thus there are rules against being in favor of theistic beliefs. Perhaps I misinterpreted, which is why I wanted to ponder the definition of religious better. Religious preaching and preaching religiously seem to have very different meanings on investigation.

The fact is, if something is not well defined in the rules, the rule is null. If there is a rule against preaching, it should be defined and modded properly. If it is ignored, doesn't that weaken confidence in the moderative abilities of those holding the post? At what point does ignoring a rule tread the ground of supporting anarchy? Do all sides of the debate have an equal footing, or are some views more equal than others? I'd be interested to know admin's position on this.

[JDawg]

Simon-good points all.

The latest suggestion was that religious preaching was the problem, thus there are rules against being in favor of theistic beliefs. Perhaps I misinterpreted, which is why I wanted to ponder the definition of religious better. Religious preaching and preaching religiously seem to have very different meanings on investigation.

The fact is, if something is not well defined in the rules, the rule is null. If there is a rule against preaching, it should be defined and modded properly. If it is ignored, doesn't that weaken confidence in the moderative abilities of those holding the post? At what point does ignoring a rule tread the ground of supporting anarchy? Do all sides of the debate have an equal footing, or are some views more equal than others? I'd be interested to know admin's position on this.

OK, Hammy, I think I speak for everyone when I say we've had enough of your preaching!!!!


...:D

[Mr. Hamtastic]

:bawl:

[JDawg]

:bawl:

Aww, damn...OK, I take it back. Preach from highest mountain, Hammeneggs!

Maybe I'll even attend one of your Bible thumpings--er, I mean, studies. Bible studies.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

lol

Bible studies? Interesting places, I've been told not to come back to several. Be careful how you tell the teacher he's wrong, and always wear pants.

I don't like preaching too much, myself. I'm too easily distracted, and to have a strong faith, I try to stay ignorant as much as possible. I'm trying to nail down when we should go tattle on each other. I mean report each other.

[JDawg]

lol

Bible studies? Interesting places, I've been told not to come back to several. Be careful how you tell the teacher he's wrong, and always wear pants.

I don't like preaching too much, myself. I'm too easily distracted, and to have a strong faith, I try to stay ignorant as much as possible. I'm trying to nail down when we should go tattle on each other. I mean report each other.

:p I love it.

[(Q)]

like he is still an atheist and he is not pleased with what some people are saying. I am a believer.

It's truly amazing how wrong one can be when all they rely on is belief.

[JDawg]

It's truly amazing how wrong one can be when all they rely on is belief.

And yet here you are, with no belief, and you're twice as wrong as any theist on this forum.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Is stranger Q's sockpuppet?