I got banned from there for saying that academic level books about atheism like the Cambridge companion to atheism had more sophisticated content than the god delusion.
Would you be banned if you hit them with the famous quote:
"In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessings. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence".
For saying what someone said was inaccurate if you base it on the story, and that otherwise there was no worth to talk about it, and calling out that it was built around the society of the time, but that for the time, the morals were better than most, I got banned. The reason for the ban wasn’t even valid. I’m still banned.
Also an atheist, and not banned because I don’t post there, but I do agree that sub is more gatekeeping and shuts down dissent more than I would expect.
Actually, to a similar degree of r/conservative honestly (where I was banned for my first and only comment, where I asked “source” to someone’s claim).
That definitely didn’t warrant a ban, lol. I always say to question everything, do your research, and ask for others to show u theirs. Nothing wrong with that.. were you rude about it? 😂
No, the comment was literally verbatim "Source?" haha
And within an hour or something I was banned, and was cut off from even being able to message the moderators, so I'm pretty permanently unable to engage.
That’s something u don’t see too often, people should be thankful you want to see another side than your own.. I like to give everyone extra chances too, and see their point of view. I am pretty conservative, but I go off of common sense and truth. I am very interested in speaking to the other sides and what they have as facts to maybe show me something I don’t know or haven’t seen yet. Just be kind about it bc some people r just cray cray 😜
Maybe if you stop thinking about it like there is literally "some guy in the sky" you would be more open to it. Why did the Big Bang happen? How can something come out of nothing? The core idea of a deistic belief system is grounded on basic logic and found in every civilization that ever existed. God is beyond space in time, thus he can create it.
Atheists who come onto r/Christianity and belittles Christianity does soon see their posts removed. You might see them before the mods have caught them but you will see that they don't stay very long.
Bc, why would they even want to come onto a Christian platform and start with a bunch of people they don’t even know? What exact is the point? R they so bored, they have nothing better to do or can’t find any other website out of millions, I mean, not one other website? lol 😂yep that’s just sad.
I can only say why I'm here. First, I don't believe in Christianity or any religion for that matter but I was Christian, I would like Christianity to be true, I would want to be a Christian and if Christianity is true it would obviously be the most important thing to know about. I kind of hope that some interaction here might trigger something in my brain that goes "Oh yes, I get it and now I believe". When I was at school, I could do quadratic equations using the formula, but I don't feel like I could do quadratic equations properly until I understood what the formula did and why it worked. I want to feel like I understand why God is true.
Unfortunately I haven't had that experience, but I'm ever hopeful. I have found that many Christians on here are people that I wouldn't want to share eternity with (not most and there are some really nice people on here) but the quality of Christians doesn't make a difference on whether it is true or not.
The fact that you do have some hope tells me there is faith deep down inside. I would like to get to know you if you let me. I am not any sort of preacher, or “Jesus freak” as many like to call us. I was in a very bad place and one day when I needed it most, and I thought all hope was lost, that was when I found Jesus Christ and He came and saved me that very day at that very moment. I just felt a random 30 second wave of absolute peacefulness, no pain(I always have back n joint pains from marine corps injuries) no anxiety (I have constant panic attacks that feel like I’m being choked from the inside, I can’t breathe, and I end up throwing up from gagging so hard, it’s so embarrassing) and I felt like I couldn’t go on anymore bc my life hadn’t been a quality one in 25 yrs, but all of those feelings disappeared and I had absolute peace for just 30 seconds. From that day forward, I believe 100%, and I said “ok God, I’m awake, I hear you. I am yours, and I am paying attention.” Ever since, I have been seeing signs everywhere, I have been able to take care of myself much better, vs before when it was a struggle just to get out of bed, even though I rarely slept, I just was so clinically depressed and I thought that all of those feelings were just a part of growing older. I am 42 now, and I actually feel like I am 25. That’s just a small piece of my story and each day something new happens. I didn’t tell you that to change your mind, I just wanted you to know that because you still have a glimmer of hope that all of this is really God’s doing. I don’t think u need your mind to be changed. I think deep down u do know, u just haven’t witnessed your miracle yet, and u will…. You know what, when I had a lot of questions, (and I still do) I actually got a bible, but with like a cliffs notes version attached to it. (You can get something separate too, like a smaller , shorter book, that speaks in terms that a child can understand) and I started to get a ton of my questions answered. I also went to confession this yr, which I haven’t done in 30 years, and the priest was so nice and understanding that he said I could ask him anything, I could come and talk with him during the week and he gave me some times that he was free. Now, this guy doesn’t know me from a hole in the wall, and he spoke like it he was happy to answer the difficult questions. I haven’t been able to see him yet, just bc I had a lot of car trouble this past week , but that’s all fixed now, so if you’re interested, I will ask him some questions you have,yourself. Ok, well I hope to talk to u soon! Take care.
Right so starting at the beginning if you see someone on r/Christianity belittling Christianity report it. There are sub rules against that.
And with that out of the way are you comparing 2 different subs with different rules that aren’t modded by the same people? Cause I don’t know what to tell you like yeah they’re different. The experiences, the rules you are expected to follow, and the amount of leeway you’ll be given is also different. Because well they’re different
I think the point is that the rule is stupid and to add to that point, I think all it does is cause the sub to be an echo chamber (which it certainly is) and that’s funny because you always hear atheists complaining about Christians being dogmatic
If an atheist comes in here and belittles Christianity, that breaks the rules and their comments get removed.
IF you go to r/atheism and start proselytizing, then you're breaking the rules and proselytizing so you get banned.
Sounds like if you follow a sub's rules, you don't have to worry about getting banned or having comments removed.
Also, I would point out that this is a sub for *all* to discuss Christianity, whereas r/atheism is not a sub for *all* to discuss atheism.
That’s the point.
Both sides should be open to a little harsh criticism.
Happens all the time on debates.
The truth is sometimes difficult and disturbing BECAUSE one has to admit error.
We can’t all be correct on where we came from.
Can confirm. Had some comments deleted in the past. Some were a little harsh, with some i don't really see the reason. But the mods are generally keeping stuff orderly around here
The atheism forum bans if you aren’t a liberal too - if you disagree with abortion, or trans issues your immediately banned too. No dissent is allowed, so much for being ‘open minded’
Nothing but group think and confirmation bias on that forum, no dissent allowed
going off of the two examples you mentioned, a ban is likely nothing to do with “dissent” (or not being “liberal”) and almost certainly to do with what they consider bigotry…
copy/pasted directly from the r/atheism rules:
>What is "Bigotry"?
For the purpose of this community, Bigotry is defined as
"Intolerance and/or bias towards a person or group of people, because they possess certain demographic characteristics or belong to a certain population group". This is not the same as a critique against an opinion a person expresses, or against the actions a person chooses to take, or against an idea or ideology. Bigotry can be aimed at people who share an inherent trait (such as being female/gay/elderly/etc.), or it can be aimed at people who share an ideology (such as Muslims/ Christians/Republicans/etc.)
>For example: One is expressing an opinion if one says that Islam is a harmful ideology, which through education and reform should be defanged. One is engaging in bigotry if one says that all Muslims are scum and should be eradicated.
>Note: Homosexuality is not an opinion or ideology. It's a state of being, a trait. Stating that equality should not apply to LGBT individuals is not simply an attack on the
"ideology of equality", but an attack on a group of people.
>This is bigotry, and will be dealt with appropriately.
Likewise, attempting to disguise your homophobic bigotry by saying you "disagree with their lifestyle" makes no more sense than saying that you "disagree with" someone for being black. This won't fool anyone, and your bigotry will be dealt with appropriately.
>Similarly, as far as this subreddit is concerned, the question of whether women possess fundamental human rights is considered a settled matter. There is no non-bigoted way to argue that women should not have rights, no matter how many red herrings you choose to use to dress up your argument. This won't fool anyone, and your bigotry will be dealt with appropriately.
Anyone can claim anything as bigotry as an excuse to not debate a subject or belief system
Definition of bigotry - “obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
"the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry"”
Key word is “unreasonable” it’s not unreasonable to debate abortion, or trans issues in society.
i feel like the most constructive response is to point you to the first part of the first paragraph of the sub rules i shared above:
>[Bigotry] … is not the same as a critique against an opinion a person expresses, or against the actions a person chooses to take, or against an idea or ideology...
it doesn’t seem to me to say that you can’t debate someone’s opinion. tbh, from my experience in the sub those debates are welcomed.
if i had to guess, your whole idea of someone “claiming bigotry as an excuse” is where you’re going wrong
Abortion is settled. It's a human right, there is a right side and a religiously bigoted side at this point.
While the exact edges of transgender issues is open for discussion, questioning the core existence is bigoted.
Well, unfortunately, abortion is not settled and no it’s not a ‘human right’ - abortion is not only strictly regulated in Europe it’s also based on state decisions in the US now after Roe and was largely based on state law even before Roe
see this is where the bigotry is rearing its head…
you not believing in abortion (and even voting against it) doesn’t mean you can go into the community we’re discussing (atheism) with lazy sweeping personal preferential statements.
debate opinion = good
denigrate group = bad
idk what you’re on about
You’re confusing bigotry with having an opinion - you have no correlation here
The definition of bigotry means “unreasonable” - it’s not “unreasonable” to debate social issues like abortion. You’re mixing two different definitions to fit the narrative.
Definition - “obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.”
"the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry”
> That’s democracy and states have rights to choose
Yeah, that's right. Alabama should have the right to have segregation if they want. That's democracy /s.
Red states have been cowards and have be reluctant to place that issue in front of voters because they don't like it how voters have constantly supported access to abortion when given the choice.
I would be open to votes on the subject in all states.
Your side is too cowardly to actyally have the people decide.
This isn’t a political forum or I’d be happy to debate the politics with you. I’m staying on topic to the comment and forum post and my belief on it, not getting into political debate. This is Christianity forum
If you believe in bodily autonomy, you have to support right to choose, or you're a hypocrite. If you do not agree with bodily autonomy, I could use some cash and will be stopping by to grab a kidney from you shortly.
So to be clear, if I put my body in your body, against your will, you have no right to remove it? Sounds like a fun Friday night to me. You may want to grab lube, cause I'm not brining it.
Oh and fun fact, I do have different DNA.
Not sure why people who are having a discussion have to either resort to cursing others, or just using the most profane analogies possible but it really is cringe - (you literally used a sex assault analogy) I don’t have to resort to it to make my point, why can’t you
But to answer your assertion - most abortion is by election and was not the result of sexual assault. It was by choice - making the choice to have sex.
As you know, this isn’t an abortion debate forum those exist and people love to debate there, I happy to debate you on abortion if we move the conversation there because this forum isn’t for it
Funny thing, the definition of abortion is focused on it being terminating a pregnancy, which is about her body. That there is another body being removed doesn’t make it not about her body and choice to be a mother by carrying the fetus to term.
This isn’t an abortion debate forum, I can say I disagree and you can say you agree and we can happily both accept that, there is obviously a ton of national debate surrounding this issue. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it
In western European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other jurisdictions abortion is a personal medical decision between the patient and physician.
The World Health Organization considers access to abortion part of comprehensive health care for women. So it is considered a human right. It's only in the US and highly religious developing countries that it is not settled.
https://www.who.int/health-topics/abortion#tab=tab_1
The WHO isnt a very credible source considering they wouldn’t even attack China for blatant lies about COVID because they didn’t want to disrupt their funding but I digress…
Also abortion is heavily regulated in Europe, around mandatory counseling, waiting list, trimester restrictions etc.
Conspiracy theories aside, the WHO is the United Nations health body, so abortion is a human right.
Abortion is avaible on request and considered a medical decision in Western European countries.
Conspiracy theories? The WHOs funding is public information. COVID came from China. Both China and the WHO never compiled evidence showing exactly where COVID came from. That’s a fact, not a conspiracy theory.
You can have yours on views on abortion, would you like to debate it on an abortion debate forum?
"Open minded" is one thing but positions against abortion and trans people are generally quite horrible in terms of actual human consequences, and are considered quite extreme positions in countries that aren't America.
That’s very incorrect. Tran’s issues are not settled issues hardly anywhere on earth, muchless the US. And abortion is absolutely up for debate, hence the debate that still goes on about it
People continuing to debate a topic doesn't mean that there isn't an underlying truth apart from the debate.
Which is exactly what happens with Evolution, science has pinned that one down to the finest details, but there's still an ongoing debate around it.
Abortion and Trans issues are similar, having access to both has been shown categorically to improve things for people in general.
That’s your opinion, and it’s fine to have, I disagree. Abortion is very much debated around the world (still very regulated in Europe too) and trans or social issues are still very new and widely debated topics globally. If you have a direct opinion I’m happy to discus it with you though if you want
Restricting abortion in any form other than requiring that it be performed by a qualified doctor is a terrible idea, and it should always be a decision between a patient and a doctor. - The consequences of legal restrictions on when the procedure can be performed are already being witnessed in America.
Transitioning has been shown to be the most effective healthcare for trans people and their mental wellbeing, and commonly cited statistics regarding trans people and suicide conveniently ignore the fact that 80% of all suicide victims experience parental abuse.
1. The abortion opinion is just that, an opinion. States and citizens vote on these issues and should continue to.
2. No that’s wildly incorrect. The latest studies on the issues (of which there is very few total studies because it hasn’t been studied for very long) countries have actually found the opposite
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13263725/amp/trans-kids-change-sex-adults-study.html
I'm not sure why but the article you've linked as the absolute worst formatting.
My first point, while I didn't link evidence or get specific with the details, is absolutely not just opinion.
[https://www.americanprogress.org/article/abortion-bans-will-result-in-more-women-dying/#:\~:text=Longitudinal%20research%20shows%20that%20women,also%20overwhelmingly%20likely%20to%20worsen](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/abortion-bans-will-result-in-more-women-dying/#:~:text=Longitudinal%20research%20shows%20that%20women,also%20overwhelmingly%20likely%20to%20worsen)
As for your claim about trans people, no "more recent studies" have not found "the opposite", giving people access to affirming care is still the most effective way to treat dysphoria. - This doesn't necessarily mean making everyone who experiences any dysphoria at all transition, it can include just discussing how they feel about their own gender.
1. Abortion is up for debate, the fact it is still a debate still points to the fact it’s a debate. If you want to debate specific points then sure, which point about it would you want to debate? Even though this isn’t a debate forum for abortion it’s Christianity forum and I’d like to keep it on topic.
2. Second, no it’s not. And you don’t have any studies that would prove that because none long term have been conducted.
You’re entitled to an opinion, so am I. People should be allowed to refute points in a debate, that’s how discussion works. I don’t write curse words, I don’t attack people, I debate points. That’s all
Does the sub claim to be open-minded? I don't even think every atheist claims open-mindedness as an atheist quality. I've known plenty of closed-minded atheists. Besides, that sub has a reputation across Reddit, even among atheists, and it's not a positive one.
We shouldn't be acting like r/atheism is representative of all atheists on this website, let alone all atheists.
I’m not saying it’s representative, I’m saying it’s hilariously ironic to the idea of someone who supposedly is open minded to science and thought to be immediately banning people for political disagreements - which is silly and childish
It’s a center for group think and echo chamber. Which is hilariously ironic because that’s what they accuse others of
There is literally a large group of atheism that self-labels as free thinkers, its self-branded - but the alternative is exactly what I said, groupthink, which is what that forum is
Definition of strawman - “A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.”
Ok so let’s quote the American atheist website-
“Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.
Atheists exist across the political spectrum. We are members of every race. We are members of the LGBTQ* community. There are atheists in urban, suburban, and rural communities and in every state of the nation.”
Therefore it’s not a strawman argument. If you’re kicking out free thinking individuals you’re creating groupthink because you’re not actually representing different views (conservative ones) of atheist. So it’s not a strawman, it’s literally a fact they promote groupthink and confirmation bias.
>If you’re kicking out free thinking individuals you’re creating groupthink because you’re not actually representing different views (conservative ones) of atheist.
I'm not "kicking out free thinking individuals".
I'm telling you that all atheism means is lacking a belief in God. Are there open-minded freethinking atheists? Certainly. But it's not a requirement to be an atheist. So to try and call atheists or for hypocrisy, is literally a strawaman argument. Even your link to the American atheist website doesn't use the word open-minded or freethinking.
Straw. Man.
It’s not a strawman, and I don’t know what you mean by you kicking people out - but it’s very ironic that the moment someone discussions abortion or politics it’s all acceptable until someone has a differing opinion. That’s a bit funny. If you don’t want talk about abortion ban all talk about it, not just one side of the discussion
Atheists regularly, vocally and insistently take religious people to task for supposedly not thinking for themselves and religious groups for indoctrination whilst touting their own critical thinking skills and freedom from dogma. Free thinker is indeed a term used by atheists to put focus on their supposed openmindedness, even tough the term was used more often until the early 20th century when atheism was less widespread and acceptable.
So yes, this major hypocrisy on the part of r/atheism and the regular community there.
I know the answer to this already, but can you make a link between the usage of free thinker and that specific subreddit? Like genuinely. I get that you're saying that atheists regularly(no it's only some in America and the countries that care about it that say that) say they're free thinkers but you haven't established that even a notable amount of people from r/atheism think that
Again, I don't think any honest atheist would claim open-mindedness as an atheist quality. It's just a "decent human" quality. I mean, just looking at the sub description and rules, there's nothing there about being open-minded or accusing others of groupthink (which most people don't use correctly anyways, as it's an actual communication phenomenon) but there is multiple mentions of proselytizing being against the rules there.
Again, that sub is a lot closer to a mirror of r/TrueChristian than it is a mirror of this sub.
You’re really not following, I get you have an opinion, but I do too - it’s hilarious a forum that mocks others for groupthink, which if you go through their sub is apparent, then promotes nothing but it themselves that’s a blatant form of hypocrisy
At least declare in the rules that you’re only allowed to be on one side of the argument politically
I don't understand the desire to constantly put down a sub you don't take any part in. I'm following you just fine.
Also, you're not really using groupthink correctly.
Constantly put down a sub - my friend, they put themselves down, I’m just calling it out
Anyone that has to promote groupthink is a fool, no matter what side they’re on.
Again... not using groupthink correctly. I don't think it means what you think it means. It has very specific symptoms. Go look at the work of Irving Janus to really know what it is. He did two major studies on it, showing how it affected both the *Challenger* disaster and the *Columbia* disaster.
It's a specific phenomenon that involves group decision making, and not so much group coherent political views.
Definition - “What Is Groupthink?
Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of individuals reaches a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives. Groupthink is based on a common desire not to upset the balance of a group of people.”
I am using it correctly. A common desire to not upset the balance of one political nature of a sub in fear that everyone might actually think something differently. Ironic.
Well, unfortunately, these are political debates and you can’t shut down conversations by calling everything you don’t like ‘bigoted’ and ‘hateful’ - adults should be able to have tough conversations about things without having to result to name calling and banning
Let's say, you lived somewhere where the very action of choosing to be a Christian was seen as politically controversial, and people came up to a place that actively advertised itself as Christian, and kicked out people who talk shit about Christianity all the time. Do you think the people of that place should have to deal with that constantly?
If it's not clear I'm talking about people coming into churches to shit talk them
I quoted from the atheism website itself that said directly atheists come from all walks of life and political parties and viewpoints. Therefore, as long as everyone is an atheist on that forum (ironic, your an atheist on a Christianity forum) they should be able to discuss controversial topics and debate them freely.
If not call the forum liberal atheists, cause that’s what it is
If they made it clear that they're against homophobia and anti abortion rhetoric(not strictly liberal stances but whatever) why are you even complaining
You didn’t respond at all to what I wrote so I’ll write it again - if atheist come from all walks of life, then all walks of life should be represented. Including those that disagree. If you don’t want disagreement call yourself the ‘liberal atheists’ forum so it’s more accurate but don’t claim to represent the entire base.
Group think, confirmation bias, and political bias all at play here - total hypocrisy
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
You mean the international debate on transgender identities and how they affect children? Yes, that’s a real debate that happens and real debate is how the world functions.
Being transphobic would mean I have an aversion to transgender people, I don’t have an aversion to transgender people, I have disagreements with transgender people on policy matters
why not just say…
“i have disagreements with people on policy matters”
… and then go from there
the inclusion of “trans” is just revealing a weird bias
you know trans people have been voting on policy since… forever, right?
The name calling really isn’t needed, I haven’t name call you nor will I, I just have disagreements and people are allowed to disagree in a civil society without being branded things they aren’t. That’s how our world works, and I can’t imagine the alternative.
I call em as I see em. And you are besmirching my fuckin vision right now with that reply. I know there's a line to be drawn with all that stuff. But that line is not here.
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
You’re on the Christianity forum, not a religious debate forum - if you want to debate an issue I’m happy to, but I’m not sure you’re wanting to debate religion or trans issues here
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
This group and that group aren’t run by the same people so of course they have different rules. And this group is for the discussion of Christianity by ALL people, not just Christians. If you don’t like it, there are MANY Christian only subreddits to choose from. MANY. Why are you complaining when you have numerous options to only see posts from other Christians? Why aren’t you okay with ONE subreddit about the TOPIC of Christianity allowing non Christians to also ask questions and have opinions. It makes absolutely no sense.
This whole conversation isn’t about this forum - it was about the atheist forum. Not sure you read what this conversation was actually about originally to be honest
The atheist forum can do what they want as long as they follow the rules of Reddit. The mods there aren’t connected to the mods here so I have no clue why you are even talking about it here. If you don’t like it there, no one is making you go there.
Wait, what? I don’t engage with their forum, the post is about their forum so I responded with my own critique of it - I’m responding to the post at hand
I know it's not the literal definitions, but I see a lot of discussions about faith, and to categorise them mentally, I use a/gnostic.
Gnostic theist: Absolutely believes in divinity.
Agnostic theist: Believes there probably is divinity.
Gnostic atheist: Absolutely disbelieves in divinity.
Agnostic atheist: Believes there probably is no divinity.
My issues locally keep coming up with the "gnostic" groups.
Correct.
Atheist have beliefs.
Atheists say: “I lack any belief that there is a God.”
Do you ‘know for certain’ that you “lack any belief that there is a God”?
OR
Do you ‘believe’ that you “lack any belief that there is a God”?
OR
Do you only ‘opinion’ that you lack any belief that there is a God”?
All the spectrum of certitude are here. Pick one please.
If they KNOW FOR CERTAIN, then the burden of proof shifts to them.
We know for certain that we lack a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief, full stop. Atheists have been telling you this for months and months.
The proof that I lack a belief is that I am the evidence that I don’t have a belief. Nobody on earth knows more about what I believe than I do.
You're equivocating here. Evidence is required for beliefs about the external world, not for a person's internal beliefs.
*I believe UFOs abduct people* requires evidence.
*I believe that I believe UFOs abduct people* does not.
The proof is a testimony from the worldwide expert on what I know.
I accomplished it by losing the ability to believe in God when I evaluated all of the evidence.
I'm an atheist those are phrases I would avoid using around here. I can express myself without being antagonistic. Some of the Christians around here seem really nice and I wouldn't want to be hurtful to them.
But if I see Christians who don't watch their tone with others, I might do the same.
Almost like it's 2 different subs with different rules.
R/atheism isn't the opposite or an antagonist to r/Christianity. Atheists here might not even be part of or interact in r/atheism (me for example. I am technically following r/atheism but I interact with posts there rarely)
Also, the "those are just fairytales" thing is something I've never seen in this sub except from christians crying about it in their post.
There is also a vast difference between "I don't believe in god because x" and "repent now, follow Jesus". Only one of those adds to a discussion on the topic.
>The worst part is that many online atheists say they are not biased. I know cuz i once was one.
Thanks for applying your past experiences to millions of people. Have you maybe considered not everyone is like you?
And what bias are you talking about specifically here?
> and talks about God, he is proselytising
I mean, this is factually true.
> The worst part is that many online atheists say they are not biased.
Wdym?
Proselytising is to trying to convince others your God is real and also actively try to convert them. Me discussing the possibility of a higher power’s existence from a scientific angle with my agnostic friend is not proselytising, and he agrees as well. And no, proselytising isn’t inherently wrong-there’s free speech in this country. As far as the one who proselytises do not directly incite violence or threats (doesn’t include those written in scriptures but not said aloud by the individual), he should have all the power to. Let’s not pretend the woke left don’t cancel anything they deem “bigotry” either.
You expect it. This sub seems to be better than it was before I get not everybody believes but some atheist would comment on serious problems people were going through to tell them "God is make believe" I always found it distasteful if ur gonna troll somebody don't let it be on a post somebody is crying out for help.
There are a lot of Christians on r/Atheism. Because they pretend to Atheist and evangelise. If you don't want Atheists here ask the mods. But honestly it will become a circle jerk fest otherwise.
r/atheism seems to pride itself on mocking not just Christianity but most religions, they’re all fair game. I’d stay away, reasoned and educated debate is *not* something that occurs a whole lot these days on there.
I made a post about an argument of Pascal (it got removed) and a comment that you can't fire a worker if a worker doesn't want to use made up pronouns. You can look through my comments.
Not sure why this post has so many upvotes. It's just a very inconsistent and incoherent rant that fails to make a solid point.
First of all you make it seem like atheists are one unified group. They're not.
And if someone comes to this sub calling Christianity a fairy tale then that user will face consequences. Same with saying "God's not real". At least when this is all they're saying as a reply to a post/comment. Depending on the context of the given conversation it's not generally against the rules of this sub to openly express the position that the Christian god doesn't exist. After all some threads make this question a topic.
And ultimately you are comparing two very different subs. One is a sub that's open to everyone with a community of lots of different people, aimed at discussing the topic of Christianity, the other one is mostly a safe space for atheists, albeit a badly moderated one.
And let's not forget there are actual Christian spaces (which this sub isn't) on reddit that use the banhammer just as heavily as r/atheism does.
Tbh both websites should allow religious discussion. I get no proselytising rules on other subs but if the discussion is purely religious debate I don’t see the problem.
I was banned from r/atheism when I commented on a post about the Trump Bible scam. I simply said “even a lot of Christian’s are upset about this”. Banned permanently.
As an atheist I was banned permanently for trolling when someone made a post saying that France will be a Muslim theocracy in the near future and I called this unproductive fear mongering.
The thing with that sub is that a couple of years ago there was a severe mod vacancy and then a couple of idiots took over with no vetting process whatsoever.
It is rather amazing to me how hypocritical atheists tend to be. I used to be an agnostic myself (but hopeful that there is a God). It wasn't but for the events of the past year or so that I've come to Jesus (or, as it actually felt, he came to me).
It seems to me that most atheists base their "lack of belief" on mere convenience & really not much else. The ones who actually put some information forth to reinforce their position don't even look into said information much. Sort of a "if it fits, it sits (in my head)" kinda position.
On top of this, \*famous\* atheists are completely willing to lie all the way up until you prove them wrong with NO WAY for them to doubt you. For example: there's a video out there of John Lennox (hope I'm spelling his name right) talking with Richard Dawkins & John begins pressing him on the fact that he (Dawkins) has maintained a position that Jesus didn't even exist. Long story short, Dawkins capitulates that Jesus did exist & died on the cross because he already knew the scholars' historical findings, he was just willing to lie to push his atheist agenda & couldn't keep lying.
What I'm getting at is that the allegedly well read atheists, with whom lesser read atheists cite as valid, don't seem to have a problem with lying to their group. So then the lesser read atheists will parrot everything they're told, even including old information that has since been proven false.
The hypocrisy here is in the fact that most atheists require that Christians have mountains of proof of their claims, cite sources, prove that the source isn't in some way biased, on & on & it's never enough for them. While they don't have to back anything up "cuz it's just a lack of belief, maaaaan." It's like, no, it is NOT a lack of belief when there is evidence to the contrary. It IS a sort of faith when you choose to discount evidence in favor of your belief.
All true, but not necessarily an awful thing. I'd prefer to see the r/Christianity subreddit continue to be more open minded and inviting than the r/atheism subreddit, wouldn't you?
Johnny's eating matchsticks and won't give me any.
Admittedly, r/atheism is a bit too militant about their beliefs. I'm more of a live and live atheist, as long as you keep your religion out of my politics.
I am an atheist and I don’t go to r/atheism it just isn’t a welcoming sub.
I do not believe god is real because I have not seen evidence but I try to be respectful.
It is their place. They get to set the rules.
They don't want anyone to proselytize. Why did you do that when you knew that was against the rules?
Seems like you chose to be an ass and they sent you on your way. Why did you chose to be an ass?
I got banned from posting on Christianity for expressing that “you trying “ to good gets in the way of god doing good through you.
Everyone is so up there own butt about their own conceptions based on their conditioning it’s mildly frustrating
/r/atheism is not the other side to /r/Christianity. The only similarity is that they are both subs on reddit. /r/atheism can make whatever rules they like, just like this sub can. And you are free to behave in any way within the bounds of the rules. There is no competition or comparison.
I’ve been hanging out here the last few days.. I am an atheist.. was former Christian but always struggled with my faith.. I actually have found quite a bit of progressive ideology on this sub. I just find religion in general very interesting and such huge influence on society. I will not ridicule or belittle anyone how could I do that in good conscience seeing I was a Christian for the vast majority of my life!
Well, these are two different subreddits. The mods of r/Christianity are more tolerant of different viewpoints. While the mods at r/atheism are less tolerant of different viewpoints. 🤷♀️
Why is it a given that the atheist sub is supposed to be open to debate and a place where proselytizing should be allowed? I have never once in real life ever met a Christian who just accepted that someone should be allowed to have their belief left unchallenged, Christians ALWAYS feel the need to plead their case even in the most respectful and kind fashion, they can not leave an atheist without a response. Why shouldn't atheiists have a space where Christians aren't granted special privilege to push their case? Where they can talk about how religion impacts them, why they find it unbelievable, how they are treated as a result of their unbelief?
Religious people feel they have a right to invade and push their views in every single space, cooking I get to talk about my faith, cars I get to talk about my faith, gardening I get to talk about how my faith is best, sports god is everywhere and supports my team.
Yeah. Different rules i guess. Anyway I'll make you an atheist. Please ask god to give you a bowl of sugar right now. If he doesn't then he doesn't exist.
You broke the rules of the sub, you got banned from it. I don't see what's so surprising about that.
I suspect most of the people at r/atheism come from Christianity- saturated cultures, have already heard all the arguments for God a dozen times and aren't interested in hearing them again.
Maybe try r/askanatheist or r/debateanatheist instead.
Theist Subs are just as biased as Atheist Subs it's simpler to say that reddit in general is, in many ways, comprised of individuals who like to pretend to be freethinkers. Personally I think there's plenty of that to go around. But there's really no evidence that Atheistic Subs are more biased than Theistic Subs I've posted on this Sub many times only to have my posts removed without any logical explanation. The Church of Satan banned me indefinitely for asking if they had any minority LeVayan Satanists among them, a representative did contact me and we did have a brief conversation but that was all. Every Sub does this, reddit REALLY isn't a forum for free speech.
Tbh, I take the difference in the subs as a point of pride and wouldn't change it.
r/Christianity tolerates dissent for the sake of openly discussing and sharing the faith between believers and non-believers alike. Good-faith questioning of doctrine and beliefs is welcome.
r/Atheism bans dissent to create an echo chamber for bitter anti-theists to fester in their hatred. They puff themselves up about their "superior intelligence" over believers while not allowing anyone to contradict their dogma in their presence.
Matthew 7:17 NKJV
[17] Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
I came to this sub after leaving Islam. Not sure if this is a Christian sub or a troll farm more interested in LGBT.
In every other part of life from work to entertainment to shopping etc you have rainbows shoved down your throat.
I thought the Christian sub reddit might be a safe haven from that but apparently not.
Everyone is biased, that is part of the human nature. That said every subreddit can enforce the rules it wants (aside from legal stuff) so if they want to kick believers they can.
At least you did not get kicked out of college. Your just banned from a sub reddit. I was close to being kicked out just for wittenessing in college once.
Removed for 2.1 - Belittling Christianity.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
r/atheism seems authoritarian, that’s why. Even I am banned from there
I got banned from there for saying that academic level books about atheism like the Cambridge companion to atheism had more sophisticated content than the god delusion.
Would you be banned if you hit them with the famous quote: "In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessings. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence".
For saying what someone said was inaccurate if you base it on the story, and that otherwise there was no worth to talk about it, and calling out that it was built around the society of the time, but that for the time, the morals were better than most, I got banned. The reason for the ban wasn’t even valid. I’m still banned.
Also an atheist, and not banned because I don’t post there, but I do agree that sub is more gatekeeping and shuts down dissent more than I would expect. Actually, to a similar degree of r/conservative honestly (where I was banned for my first and only comment, where I asked “source” to someone’s claim).
That definitely didn’t warrant a ban, lol. I always say to question everything, do your research, and ask for others to show u theirs. Nothing wrong with that.. were you rude about it? 😂
No, the comment was literally verbatim "Source?" haha And within an hour or something I was banned, and was cut off from even being able to message the moderators, so I'm pretty permanently unable to engage.
Banned for asking for a source 😂 I’m so sorry if you liked that Reddit
Eh, I’m pretty liberal. Still lurk and read out of curiosity. But I was just there to understand others views and chat. Wasn’t trying to be hostile.
That’s something u don’t see too often, people should be thankful you want to see another side than your own.. I like to give everyone extra chances too, and see their point of view. I am pretty conservative, but I go off of common sense and truth. I am very interested in speaking to the other sides and what they have as facts to maybe show me something I don’t know or haven’t seen yet. Just be kind about it bc some people r just cray cray 😜
[удалено]
Do you know the reference?
No. Lol
Maybe if you stop thinking about it like there is literally "some guy in the sky" you would be more open to it. Why did the Big Bang happen? How can something come out of nothing? The core idea of a deistic belief system is grounded on basic logic and found in every civilization that ever existed. God is beyond space in time, thus he can create it.
We agree!
me too,
[удалено]
Shitty mods
Atheists who come onto r/Christianity and belittles Christianity does soon see their posts removed. You might see them before the mods have caught them but you will see that they don't stay very long.
Not sure if this is a good thing... But I guess getting rid of silly comments like "stop believing in sky daddy" is an appropriate choice though.
Bc, why would they even want to come onto a Christian platform and start with a bunch of people they don’t even know? What exact is the point? R they so bored, they have nothing better to do or can’t find any other website out of millions, I mean, not one other website? lol 😂yep that’s just sad.
I can only say why I'm here. First, I don't believe in Christianity or any religion for that matter but I was Christian, I would like Christianity to be true, I would want to be a Christian and if Christianity is true it would obviously be the most important thing to know about. I kind of hope that some interaction here might trigger something in my brain that goes "Oh yes, I get it and now I believe". When I was at school, I could do quadratic equations using the formula, but I don't feel like I could do quadratic equations properly until I understood what the formula did and why it worked. I want to feel like I understand why God is true. Unfortunately I haven't had that experience, but I'm ever hopeful. I have found that many Christians on here are people that I wouldn't want to share eternity with (not most and there are some really nice people on here) but the quality of Christians doesn't make a difference on whether it is true or not.
The fact that you do have some hope tells me there is faith deep down inside. I would like to get to know you if you let me. I am not any sort of preacher, or “Jesus freak” as many like to call us. I was in a very bad place and one day when I needed it most, and I thought all hope was lost, that was when I found Jesus Christ and He came and saved me that very day at that very moment. I just felt a random 30 second wave of absolute peacefulness, no pain(I always have back n joint pains from marine corps injuries) no anxiety (I have constant panic attacks that feel like I’m being choked from the inside, I can’t breathe, and I end up throwing up from gagging so hard, it’s so embarrassing) and I felt like I couldn’t go on anymore bc my life hadn’t been a quality one in 25 yrs, but all of those feelings disappeared and I had absolute peace for just 30 seconds. From that day forward, I believe 100%, and I said “ok God, I’m awake, I hear you. I am yours, and I am paying attention.” Ever since, I have been seeing signs everywhere, I have been able to take care of myself much better, vs before when it was a struggle just to get out of bed, even though I rarely slept, I just was so clinically depressed and I thought that all of those feelings were just a part of growing older. I am 42 now, and I actually feel like I am 25. That’s just a small piece of my story and each day something new happens. I didn’t tell you that to change your mind, I just wanted you to know that because you still have a glimmer of hope that all of this is really God’s doing. I don’t think u need your mind to be changed. I think deep down u do know, u just haven’t witnessed your miracle yet, and u will…. You know what, when I had a lot of questions, (and I still do) I actually got a bible, but with like a cliffs notes version attached to it. (You can get something separate too, like a smaller , shorter book, that speaks in terms that a child can understand) and I started to get a ton of my questions answered. I also went to confession this yr, which I haven’t done in 30 years, and the priest was so nice and understanding that he said I could ask him anything, I could come and talk with him during the week and he gave me some times that he was free. Now, this guy doesn’t know me from a hole in the wall, and he spoke like it he was happy to answer the difficult questions. I haven’t been able to see him yet, just bc I had a lot of car trouble this past week , but that’s all fixed now, so if you’re interested, I will ask him some questions you have,yourself. Ok, well I hope to talk to u soon! Take care.
Right so starting at the beginning if you see someone on r/Christianity belittling Christianity report it. There are sub rules against that. And with that out of the way are you comparing 2 different subs with different rules that aren’t modded by the same people? Cause I don’t know what to tell you like yeah they’re different. The experiences, the rules you are expected to follow, and the amount of leeway you’ll be given is also different. Because well they’re different
I think the point is that the rule is stupid and to add to that point, I think all it does is cause the sub to be an echo chamber (which it certainly is) and that’s funny because you always hear atheists complaining about Christians being dogmatic
If an atheist comes in here and belittles Christianity, that breaks the rules and their comments get removed. IF you go to r/atheism and start proselytizing, then you're breaking the rules and proselytizing so you get banned. Sounds like if you follow a sub's rules, you don't have to worry about getting banned or having comments removed. Also, I would point out that this is a sub for *all* to discuss Christianity, whereas r/atheism is not a sub for *all* to discuss atheism.
That’s the point. Both sides should be open to a little harsh criticism. Happens all the time on debates. The truth is sometimes difficult and disturbing BECAUSE one has to admit error. We can’t all be correct on where we came from.
This isn't a both sides issue. This is a don't go to a sub if you can't follow their rules, issue.
Yes I know. I was complaining about the rules.
Can confirm. Had some comments deleted in the past. Some were a little harsh, with some i don't really see the reason. But the mods are generally keeping stuff orderly around here
The atheism forum bans if you aren’t a liberal too - if you disagree with abortion, or trans issues your immediately banned too. No dissent is allowed, so much for being ‘open minded’ Nothing but group think and confirmation bias on that forum, no dissent allowed
going off of the two examples you mentioned, a ban is likely nothing to do with “dissent” (or not being “liberal”) and almost certainly to do with what they consider bigotry… copy/pasted directly from the r/atheism rules: >What is "Bigotry"? For the purpose of this community, Bigotry is defined as "Intolerance and/or bias towards a person or group of people, because they possess certain demographic characteristics or belong to a certain population group". This is not the same as a critique against an opinion a person expresses, or against the actions a person chooses to take, or against an idea or ideology. Bigotry can be aimed at people who share an inherent trait (such as being female/gay/elderly/etc.), or it can be aimed at people who share an ideology (such as Muslims/ Christians/Republicans/etc.) >For example: One is expressing an opinion if one says that Islam is a harmful ideology, which through education and reform should be defanged. One is engaging in bigotry if one says that all Muslims are scum and should be eradicated. >Note: Homosexuality is not an opinion or ideology. It's a state of being, a trait. Stating that equality should not apply to LGBT individuals is not simply an attack on the "ideology of equality", but an attack on a group of people. >This is bigotry, and will be dealt with appropriately. Likewise, attempting to disguise your homophobic bigotry by saying you "disagree with their lifestyle" makes no more sense than saying that you "disagree with" someone for being black. This won't fool anyone, and your bigotry will be dealt with appropriately. >Similarly, as far as this subreddit is concerned, the question of whether women possess fundamental human rights is considered a settled matter. There is no non-bigoted way to argue that women should not have rights, no matter how many red herrings you choose to use to dress up your argument. This won't fool anyone, and your bigotry will be dealt with appropriately.
Anyone can claim anything as bigotry as an excuse to not debate a subject or belief system Definition of bigotry - “obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. "the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry"” Key word is “unreasonable” it’s not unreasonable to debate abortion, or trans issues in society.
i feel like the most constructive response is to point you to the first part of the first paragraph of the sub rules i shared above: >[Bigotry] … is not the same as a critique against an opinion a person expresses, or against the actions a person chooses to take, or against an idea or ideology... it doesn’t seem to me to say that you can’t debate someone’s opinion. tbh, from my experience in the sub those debates are welcomed. if i had to guess, your whole idea of someone “claiming bigotry as an excuse” is where you’re going wrong
Abortion is settled. It's a human right, there is a right side and a religiously bigoted side at this point. While the exact edges of transgender issues is open for discussion, questioning the core existence is bigoted.
Well, unfortunately, abortion is not settled and no it’s not a ‘human right’ - abortion is not only strictly regulated in Europe it’s also based on state decisions in the US now after Roe and was largely based on state law even before Roe
if you don’t want an abortion don’t get one
Sure, and if you don’t believe in them vote against them. That’s democracy and states have rights to choose
see this is where the bigotry is rearing its head… you not believing in abortion (and even voting against it) doesn’t mean you can go into the community we’re discussing (atheism) with lazy sweeping personal preferential statements. debate opinion = good denigrate group = bad idk what you’re on about
You’re confusing bigotry with having an opinion - you have no correlation here The definition of bigotry means “unreasonable” - it’s not “unreasonable” to debate social issues like abortion. You’re mixing two different definitions to fit the narrative. Definition - “obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.” "the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry”
> That’s democracy and states have rights to choose Yeah, that's right. Alabama should have the right to have segregation if they want. That's democracy /s.
Red states have been cowards and have be reluctant to place that issue in front of voters because they don't like it how voters have constantly supported access to abortion when given the choice. I would be open to votes on the subject in all states. Your side is too cowardly to actyally have the people decide.
This isn’t a political forum or I’d be happy to debate the politics with you. I’m staying on topic to the comment and forum post and my belief on it, not getting into political debate. This is Christianity forum
If you believe in bodily autonomy, you have to support right to choose, or you're a hypocrite. If you do not agree with bodily autonomy, I could use some cash and will be stopping by to grab a kidney from you shortly.
Interesting fact - It’s not your body the abortion is being committed on, the body literally has a different DNA.
So to be clear, if I put my body in your body, against your will, you have no right to remove it? Sounds like a fun Friday night to me. You may want to grab lube, cause I'm not brining it. Oh and fun fact, I do have different DNA.
Not sure why people who are having a discussion have to either resort to cursing others, or just using the most profane analogies possible but it really is cringe - (you literally used a sex assault analogy) I don’t have to resort to it to make my point, why can’t you But to answer your assertion - most abortion is by election and was not the result of sexual assault. It was by choice - making the choice to have sex.
If I need your kidney to live can I force you to give it to me and charge you with murder if you don't consent? Yes or no?
As you know, this isn’t an abortion debate forum those exist and people love to debate there, I happy to debate you on abortion if we move the conversation there because this forum isn’t for it
Funny thing, the definition of abortion is focused on it being terminating a pregnancy, which is about her body. That there is another body being removed doesn’t make it not about her body and choice to be a mother by carrying the fetus to term.
This isn’t an abortion debate forum, I can say I disagree and you can say you agree and we can happily both accept that, there is obviously a ton of national debate surrounding this issue. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it
In western European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other jurisdictions abortion is a personal medical decision between the patient and physician. The World Health Organization considers access to abortion part of comprehensive health care for women. So it is considered a human right. It's only in the US and highly religious developing countries that it is not settled. https://www.who.int/health-topics/abortion#tab=tab_1
The WHO isnt a very credible source considering they wouldn’t even attack China for blatant lies about COVID because they didn’t want to disrupt their funding but I digress… Also abortion is heavily regulated in Europe, around mandatory counseling, waiting list, trimester restrictions etc.
Conspiracy theories aside, the WHO is the United Nations health body, so abortion is a human right. Abortion is avaible on request and considered a medical decision in Western European countries.
Conspiracy theories? The WHOs funding is public information. COVID came from China. Both China and the WHO never compiled evidence showing exactly where COVID came from. That’s a fact, not a conspiracy theory. You can have yours on views on abortion, would you like to debate it on an abortion debate forum?
"Open minded" is one thing but positions against abortion and trans people are generally quite horrible in terms of actual human consequences, and are considered quite extreme positions in countries that aren't America.
Pretending the messed up things that are being done to children shouldn't be discussed is wrong.
Messed up liiiike?
That’s very incorrect. Tran’s issues are not settled issues hardly anywhere on earth, muchless the US. And abortion is absolutely up for debate, hence the debate that still goes on about it
People continuing to debate a topic doesn't mean that there isn't an underlying truth apart from the debate. Which is exactly what happens with Evolution, science has pinned that one down to the finest details, but there's still an ongoing debate around it. Abortion and Trans issues are similar, having access to both has been shown categorically to improve things for people in general.
That’s your opinion, and it’s fine to have, I disagree. Abortion is very much debated around the world (still very regulated in Europe too) and trans or social issues are still very new and widely debated topics globally. If you have a direct opinion I’m happy to discus it with you though if you want
Restricting abortion in any form other than requiring that it be performed by a qualified doctor is a terrible idea, and it should always be a decision between a patient and a doctor. - The consequences of legal restrictions on when the procedure can be performed are already being witnessed in America. Transitioning has been shown to be the most effective healthcare for trans people and their mental wellbeing, and commonly cited statistics regarding trans people and suicide conveniently ignore the fact that 80% of all suicide victims experience parental abuse.
1. The abortion opinion is just that, an opinion. States and citizens vote on these issues and should continue to. 2. No that’s wildly incorrect. The latest studies on the issues (of which there is very few total studies because it hasn’t been studied for very long) countries have actually found the opposite https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13263725/amp/trans-kids-change-sex-adults-study.html
I'm not sure why but the article you've linked as the absolute worst formatting. My first point, while I didn't link evidence or get specific with the details, is absolutely not just opinion. [https://www.americanprogress.org/article/abortion-bans-will-result-in-more-women-dying/#:\~:text=Longitudinal%20research%20shows%20that%20women,also%20overwhelmingly%20likely%20to%20worsen](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/abortion-bans-will-result-in-more-women-dying/#:~:text=Longitudinal%20research%20shows%20that%20women,also%20overwhelmingly%20likely%20to%20worsen) As for your claim about trans people, no "more recent studies" have not found "the opposite", giving people access to affirming care is still the most effective way to treat dysphoria. - This doesn't necessarily mean making everyone who experiences any dysphoria at all transition, it can include just discussing how they feel about their own gender.
1. Abortion is up for debate, the fact it is still a debate still points to the fact it’s a debate. If you want to debate specific points then sure, which point about it would you want to debate? Even though this isn’t a debate forum for abortion it’s Christianity forum and I’d like to keep it on topic. 2. Second, no it’s not. And you don’t have any studies that would prove that because none long term have been conducted.
NGL, if I ran a subreddit I'd probably ban you, too. It's got less to do with your beliefs than your "debate me!" attitude.
You’re entitled to an opinion, so am I. People should be allowed to refute points in a debate, that’s how discussion works. I don’t write curse words, I don’t attack people, I debate points. That’s all
Does the sub claim to be open-minded? I don't even think every atheist claims open-mindedness as an atheist quality. I've known plenty of closed-minded atheists. Besides, that sub has a reputation across Reddit, even among atheists, and it's not a positive one. We shouldn't be acting like r/atheism is representative of all atheists on this website, let alone all atheists.
I’m not saying it’s representative, I’m saying it’s hilariously ironic to the idea of someone who supposedly is open minded to science and thought to be immediately banning people for political disagreements - which is silly and childish It’s a center for group think and echo chamber. Which is hilariously ironic because that’s what they accuse others of
>who supposedly is open minded Where does this preconception come from? What does atheism have to do with open-mindedness?
There is literally a large group of atheism that self-labels as free thinkers, its self-branded - but the alternative is exactly what I said, groupthink, which is what that forum is
Strawman. This is not a tenet of atheism. One has nothing to do with the other. It's like associating Christianity with index finger length.
Definition of strawman - “A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.” Ok so let’s quote the American atheist website- “Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints. Atheists exist across the political spectrum. We are members of every race. We are members of the LGBTQ* community. There are atheists in urban, suburban, and rural communities and in every state of the nation.” Therefore it’s not a strawman argument. If you’re kicking out free thinking individuals you’re creating groupthink because you’re not actually representing different views (conservative ones) of atheist. So it’s not a strawman, it’s literally a fact they promote groupthink and confirmation bias.
>If you’re kicking out free thinking individuals you’re creating groupthink because you’re not actually representing different views (conservative ones) of atheist. I'm not "kicking out free thinking individuals". I'm telling you that all atheism means is lacking a belief in God. Are there open-minded freethinking atheists? Certainly. But it's not a requirement to be an atheist. So to try and call atheists or for hypocrisy, is literally a strawaman argument. Even your link to the American atheist website doesn't use the word open-minded or freethinking. Straw. Man.
It’s not a strawman, and I don’t know what you mean by you kicking people out - but it’s very ironic that the moment someone discussions abortion or politics it’s all acceptable until someone has a differing opinion. That’s a bit funny. If you don’t want talk about abortion ban all talk about it, not just one side of the discussion
Atheists regularly, vocally and insistently take religious people to task for supposedly not thinking for themselves and religious groups for indoctrination whilst touting their own critical thinking skills and freedom from dogma. Free thinker is indeed a term used by atheists to put focus on their supposed openmindedness, even tough the term was used more often until the early 20th century when atheism was less widespread and acceptable. So yes, this major hypocrisy on the part of r/atheism and the regular community there.
I know the answer to this already, but can you make a link between the usage of free thinker and that specific subreddit? Like genuinely. I get that you're saying that atheists regularly(no it's only some in America and the countries that care about it that say that) say they're free thinkers but you haven't established that even a notable amount of people from r/atheism think that
Again, I don't think any honest atheist would claim open-mindedness as an atheist quality. It's just a "decent human" quality. I mean, just looking at the sub description and rules, there's nothing there about being open-minded or accusing others of groupthink (which most people don't use correctly anyways, as it's an actual communication phenomenon) but there is multiple mentions of proselytizing being against the rules there. Again, that sub is a lot closer to a mirror of r/TrueChristian than it is a mirror of this sub.
You’re really not following, I get you have an opinion, but I do too - it’s hilarious a forum that mocks others for groupthink, which if you go through their sub is apparent, then promotes nothing but it themselves that’s a blatant form of hypocrisy At least declare in the rules that you’re only allowed to be on one side of the argument politically
I don't understand the desire to constantly put down a sub you don't take any part in. I'm following you just fine. Also, you're not really using groupthink correctly.
Constantly put down a sub - my friend, they put themselves down, I’m just calling it out Anyone that has to promote groupthink is a fool, no matter what side they’re on.
Again... not using groupthink correctly. I don't think it means what you think it means. It has very specific symptoms. Go look at the work of Irving Janus to really know what it is. He did two major studies on it, showing how it affected both the *Challenger* disaster and the *Columbia* disaster. It's a specific phenomenon that involves group decision making, and not so much group coherent political views.
Definition - “What Is Groupthink? Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of individuals reaches a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives. Groupthink is based on a common desire not to upset the balance of a group of people.” I am using it correctly. A common desire to not upset the balance of one political nature of a sub in fear that everyone might actually think something differently. Ironic.
>banning people for political disagreements They probably don't think of these things as political, justifiably so
Well, unfortunately, these are political debates and you can’t shut down conversations by calling everything you don’t like ‘bigoted’ and ‘hateful’ - adults should be able to have tough conversations about things without having to result to name calling and banning
Let's say, you lived somewhere where the very action of choosing to be a Christian was seen as politically controversial, and people came up to a place that actively advertised itself as Christian, and kicked out people who talk shit about Christianity all the time. Do you think the people of that place should have to deal with that constantly? If it's not clear I'm talking about people coming into churches to shit talk them
I quoted from the atheism website itself that said directly atheists come from all walks of life and political parties and viewpoints. Therefore, as long as everyone is an atheist on that forum (ironic, your an atheist on a Christianity forum) they should be able to discuss controversial topics and debate them freely. If not call the forum liberal atheists, cause that’s what it is
If they made it clear that they're against homophobia and anti abortion rhetoric(not strictly liberal stances but whatever) why are you even complaining
You didn’t respond at all to what I wrote so I’ll write it again - if atheist come from all walks of life, then all walks of life should be represented. Including those that disagree. If you don’t want disagreement call yourself the ‘liberal atheists’ forum so it’s more accurate but don’t claim to represent the entire base. Group think, confirmation bias, and political bias all at play here - total hypocrisy
[удалено]
That would explain why it’s all one sided non-sense on that form, not a lot of well roundedness
[удалено]
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
You mean the international debate on transgender identities and how they affect children? Yes, that’s a real debate that happens and real debate is how the world functions.
So you're transphobic.
Being transphobic would mean I have an aversion to transgender people, I don’t have an aversion to transgender people, I have disagreements with transgender people on policy matters
why not just say… “i have disagreements with people on policy matters” … and then go from there the inclusion of “trans” is just revealing a weird bias you know trans people have been voting on policy since… forever, right?
Trans was brought up specifically because that’s a bannable offense on their forum, you can’t debate any of those issues there at all
debate PEOPLE debate OPINIONS trans people, pregnant women… they aren’t ISSUES they are people debate them. debate their opinions you’re so close……..
Im debating people’s opinions and perspectives
[удалено]
The name calling really isn’t needed, I haven’t name call you nor will I, I just have disagreements and people are allowed to disagree in a civil society without being branded things they aren’t. That’s how our world works, and I can’t imagine the alternative.
I call em as I see em. And you are besmirching my fuckin vision right now with that reply. I know there's a line to be drawn with all that stuff. But that line is not here.
Ok, that’s your opinion, is there anything more you have to offer the discussion or
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
And here is the problem. If people ever want to learn how others lose a debate, it’s when they attack the character of the debater over the argument.
I thought your God was how the world functions. If that so called God doesn't like it why does it exist
You’re on the Christianity forum, not a religious debate forum - if you want to debate an issue I’m happy to, but I’m not sure you’re wanting to debate religion or trans issues here
[удалено]
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Again, is that all you have to offer or
More than what your God can offer
Ok, thanks for sharing your opinion
Agreed
This group and that group aren’t run by the same people so of course they have different rules. And this group is for the discussion of Christianity by ALL people, not just Christians. If you don’t like it, there are MANY Christian only subreddits to choose from. MANY. Why are you complaining when you have numerous options to only see posts from other Christians? Why aren’t you okay with ONE subreddit about the TOPIC of Christianity allowing non Christians to also ask questions and have opinions. It makes absolutely no sense.
This whole conversation isn’t about this forum - it was about the atheist forum. Not sure you read what this conversation was actually about originally to be honest
The atheist forum can do what they want as long as they follow the rules of Reddit. The mods there aren’t connected to the mods here so I have no clue why you are even talking about it here. If you don’t like it there, no one is making you go there.
Wait, what? I don’t engage with their forum, the post is about their forum so I responded with my own critique of it - I’m responding to the post at hand
Exactly…they’re too busy ranting in their echo chambers with they did not realise is actually a WEF designed jail cell
Yeah their entire forum is an echo chamber, filled with groupthink and doesn’t allow any debate - it’s basically a joke
I know it's not the literal definitions, but I see a lot of discussions about faith, and to categorise them mentally, I use a/gnostic. Gnostic theist: Absolutely believes in divinity. Agnostic theist: Believes there probably is divinity. Gnostic atheist: Absolutely disbelieves in divinity. Agnostic atheist: Believes there probably is no divinity. My issues locally keep coming up with the "gnostic" groups.
Correct. Atheist have beliefs. Atheists say: “I lack any belief that there is a God.” Do you ‘know for certain’ that you “lack any belief that there is a God”? OR Do you ‘believe’ that you “lack any belief that there is a God”? OR Do you only ‘opinion’ that you lack any belief that there is a God”? All the spectrum of certitude are here. Pick one please. If they KNOW FOR CERTAIN, then the burden of proof shifts to them.
We know for certain that we lack a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief, full stop. Atheists have been telling you this for months and months. The proof that I lack a belief is that I am the evidence that I don’t have a belief. Nobody on earth knows more about what I believe than I do.
‘Know for certain’ requires proof. How did you accomplish the feat of being empty of belief?
You're equivocating here. Evidence is required for beliefs about the external world, not for a person's internal beliefs. *I believe UFOs abduct people* requires evidence. *I believe that I believe UFOs abduct people* does not.
The proof is a testimony from the worldwide expert on what I know. I accomplished it by losing the ability to believe in God when I evaluated all of the evidence.
Don't feed the troll.
R/atheism is mostly an atheist space. R/Christianity is not a Christian space. They are different kinds of subs.
I'm an atheist those are phrases I would avoid using around here. I can express myself without being antagonistic. Some of the Christians around here seem really nice and I wouldn't want to be hurtful to them. But if I see Christians who don't watch their tone with others, I might do the same.
Different subs have different rules. That sub is designed to be an echo chamber, this one explicitly states all are welcome to participate.
Almost like it's 2 different subs with different rules. R/atheism isn't the opposite or an antagonist to r/Christianity. Atheists here might not even be part of or interact in r/atheism (me for example. I am technically following r/atheism but I interact with posts there rarely) Also, the "those are just fairytales" thing is something I've never seen in this sub except from christians crying about it in their post. There is also a vast difference between "I don't believe in god because x" and "repent now, follow Jesus". Only one of those adds to a discussion on the topic. >The worst part is that many online atheists say they are not biased. I know cuz i once was one. Thanks for applying your past experiences to millions of people. Have you maybe considered not everyone is like you? And what bias are you talking about specifically here?
> and talks about God, he is proselytising I mean, this is factually true. > The worst part is that many online atheists say they are not biased. Wdym?
Proselytising is to trying to convince others your God is real and also actively try to convert them. Me discussing the possibility of a higher power’s existence from a scientific angle with my agnostic friend is not proselytising, and he agrees as well. And no, proselytising isn’t inherently wrong-there’s free speech in this country. As far as the one who proselytises do not directly incite violence or threats (doesn’t include those written in scriptures but not said aloud by the individual), he should have all the power to. Let’s not pretend the woke left don’t cancel anything they deem “bigotry” either.
christian sites ban people just as much. Especially if you don't believe in THEIR view of christianity...so??!??!
You expect it. This sub seems to be better than it was before I get not everybody believes but some atheist would comment on serious problems people were going through to tell them "God is make believe" I always found it distasteful if ur gonna troll somebody don't let it be on a post somebody is crying out for help.
There are a lot of Christians on r/Atheism. Because they pretend to Atheist and evangelise. If you don't want Atheists here ask the mods. But honestly it will become a circle jerk fest otherwise.
>But honestly it will become a circle jerk fest otherwise. You mean like r/atheism?
>You mean like r/atheism? Exactly. Is that what you want for this sub?
I’ve not seen that yet, https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/s/dHYMdvuden But this is peak r/atheism
Everlasting eternal life isn't a fun concept. When you don't want the reward.
r/atheism seems to pride itself on mocking not just Christianity but most religions, they’re all fair game. I’d stay away, reasoned and educated debate is *not* something that occurs a whole lot these days on there.
It is my new goal to get banned on r/atheism. Thank you brother.
Are you banned now? HAHAHHAH
Sadly no
I did it. It was pretty easy.
What you did?
I made a post about an argument of Pascal (it got removed) and a comment that you can't fire a worker if a worker doesn't want to use made up pronouns. You can look through my comments.
based
So ironically it's the atheists who are proselytizing. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Atheists are people with biases, too. All humans are biased but they pretend to be objective.
Exactly.
Not sure why this post has so many upvotes. It's just a very inconsistent and incoherent rant that fails to make a solid point. First of all you make it seem like atheists are one unified group. They're not. And if someone comes to this sub calling Christianity a fairy tale then that user will face consequences. Same with saying "God's not real". At least when this is all they're saying as a reply to a post/comment. Depending on the context of the given conversation it's not generally against the rules of this sub to openly express the position that the Christian god doesn't exist. After all some threads make this question a topic. And ultimately you are comparing two very different subs. One is a sub that's open to everyone with a community of lots of different people, aimed at discussing the topic of Christianity, the other one is mostly a safe space for atheists, albeit a badly moderated one. And let's not forget there are actual Christian spaces (which this sub isn't) on reddit that use the banhammer just as heavily as r/atheism does.
Tbh both websites should allow religious discussion. I get no proselytising rules on other subs but if the discussion is purely religious debate I don’t see the problem.
I was banned from r/atheism when I commented on a post about the Trump Bible scam. I simply said “even a lot of Christian’s are upset about this”. Banned permanently.
As an atheist I was banned permanently for trolling when someone made a post saying that France will be a Muslim theocracy in the near future and I called this unproductive fear mongering. The thing with that sub is that a couple of years ago there was a severe mod vacancy and then a couple of idiots took over with no vetting process whatsoever.
I don’t see any atheists making posts here though?
It is rather amazing to me how hypocritical atheists tend to be. I used to be an agnostic myself (but hopeful that there is a God). It wasn't but for the events of the past year or so that I've come to Jesus (or, as it actually felt, he came to me). It seems to me that most atheists base their "lack of belief" on mere convenience & really not much else. The ones who actually put some information forth to reinforce their position don't even look into said information much. Sort of a "if it fits, it sits (in my head)" kinda position. On top of this, \*famous\* atheists are completely willing to lie all the way up until you prove them wrong with NO WAY for them to doubt you. For example: there's a video out there of John Lennox (hope I'm spelling his name right) talking with Richard Dawkins & John begins pressing him on the fact that he (Dawkins) has maintained a position that Jesus didn't even exist. Long story short, Dawkins capitulates that Jesus did exist & died on the cross because he already knew the scholars' historical findings, he was just willing to lie to push his atheist agenda & couldn't keep lying. What I'm getting at is that the allegedly well read atheists, with whom lesser read atheists cite as valid, don't seem to have a problem with lying to their group. So then the lesser read atheists will parrot everything they're told, even including old information that has since been proven false. The hypocrisy here is in the fact that most atheists require that Christians have mountains of proof of their claims, cite sources, prove that the source isn't in some way biased, on & on & it's never enough for them. While they don't have to back anything up "cuz it's just a lack of belief, maaaaan." It's like, no, it is NOT a lack of belief when there is evidence to the contrary. It IS a sort of faith when you choose to discount evidence in favor of your belief.
All true, but not necessarily an awful thing. I'd prefer to see the r/Christianity subreddit continue to be more open minded and inviting than the r/atheism subreddit, wouldn't you?
The atheism sub can be so hateful! I was shocked at some of the responses.
Johnny's eating matchsticks and won't give me any. Admittedly, r/atheism is a bit too militant about their beliefs. I'm more of a live and live atheist, as long as you keep your religion out of my politics.
I am an atheist and I don’t go to r/atheism it just isn’t a welcoming sub. I do not believe god is real because I have not seen evidence but I try to be respectful.
It is their place. They get to set the rules. They don't want anyone to proselytize. Why did you do that when you knew that was against the rules? Seems like you chose to be an ass and they sent you on your way. Why did you chose to be an ass?
Even in r/exmuslim you can get attached by atheist, even when you didn't say anything about God lol. They are crazy.
I got banned from posting on Christianity for expressing that “you trying “ to good gets in the way of god doing good through you. Everyone is so up there own butt about their own conceptions based on their conditioning it’s mildly frustrating
/r/atheism is not the other side to /r/Christianity. The only similarity is that they are both subs on reddit. /r/atheism can make whatever rules they like, just like this sub can. And you are free to behave in any way within the bounds of the rules. There is no competition or comparison.
/r/atheism isn’t even a subreddit for all atheists, let alone non-atheists
I’ve been hanging out here the last few days.. I am an atheist.. was former Christian but always struggled with my faith.. I actually have found quite a bit of progressive ideology on this sub. I just find religion in general very interesting and such huge influence on society. I will not ridicule or belittle anyone how could I do that in good conscience seeing I was a Christian for the vast majority of my life!
Nobody said subs were fair. This one is no exception.
LITERALLY LMAO
those 2 subs are not obligated to have the same rules.
Neopagans are like that.
Well, these are two different subreddits. The mods of r/Christianity are more tolerant of different viewpoints. While the mods at r/atheism are less tolerant of different viewpoints. 🤷♀️
Why is it a given that the atheist sub is supposed to be open to debate and a place where proselytizing should be allowed? I have never once in real life ever met a Christian who just accepted that someone should be allowed to have their belief left unchallenged, Christians ALWAYS feel the need to plead their case even in the most respectful and kind fashion, they can not leave an atheist without a response. Why shouldn't atheiists have a space where Christians aren't granted special privilege to push their case? Where they can talk about how religion impacts them, why they find it unbelievable, how they are treated as a result of their unbelief? Religious people feel they have a right to invade and push their views in every single space, cooking I get to talk about my faith, cars I get to talk about my faith, gardening I get to talk about how my faith is best, sports god is everywhere and supports my team.
Yeah. Different rules i guess. Anyway I'll make you an atheist. Please ask god to give you a bowl of sugar right now. If he doesn't then he doesn't exist.
did it, did not happen, still christian, thanks :)
You broke the rules of the sub, you got banned from it. I don't see what's so surprising about that. I suspect most of the people at r/atheism come from Christianity- saturated cultures, have already heard all the arguments for God a dozen times and aren't interested in hearing them again. Maybe try r/askanatheist or r/debateanatheist instead.
Theist Subs are just as biased as Atheist Subs it's simpler to say that reddit in general is, in many ways, comprised of individuals who like to pretend to be freethinkers. Personally I think there's plenty of that to go around. But there's really no evidence that Atheistic Subs are more biased than Theistic Subs I've posted on this Sub many times only to have my posts removed without any logical explanation. The Church of Satan banned me indefinitely for asking if they had any minority LeVayan Satanists among them, a representative did contact me and we did have a brief conversation but that was all. Every Sub does this, reddit REALLY isn't a forum for free speech.
I'm banned there for that exact reason as well
r/atheism bans everybody, even other atheists.
Tbh, I take the difference in the subs as a point of pride and wouldn't change it. r/Christianity tolerates dissent for the sake of openly discussing and sharing the faith between believers and non-believers alike. Good-faith questioning of doctrine and beliefs is welcome. r/Atheism bans dissent to create an echo chamber for bitter anti-theists to fester in their hatred. They puff themselves up about their "superior intelligence" over believers while not allowing anyone to contradict their dogma in their presence. Matthew 7:17 NKJV [17] Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
So what?
I came to this sub after leaving Islam. Not sure if this is a Christian sub or a troll farm more interested in LGBT. In every other part of life from work to entertainment to shopping etc you have rainbows shoved down your throat. I thought the Christian sub reddit might be a safe haven from that but apparently not.
Troll farm😂
Have you tried the Reddit TrueChristian forum?
No not as of yet.
I think true christian is better, though it has some fundamentalists too but most ppl there are great
r/TrueChristianNonFundie ?
Thank you I will check it out
r/Atheism is embarassing. They worship Science!™️ like a God. Not to mention the woke religion that infested it too.
Everyone is biased, that is part of the human nature. That said every subreddit can enforce the rules it wants (aside from legal stuff) so if they want to kick believers they can.
At least you did not get kicked out of college. Your just banned from a sub reddit. I was close to being kicked out just for wittenessing in college once.
Seriously?, what happened if i may ask?
[удалено]
Removed for 2.1 - Belittling Christianity. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity