Do some moderators have a bias against non-religious posts?

[Bodhimalik]

I expect that this thread will not go far because of bias on the part of moderators for this type of complaint and also because I have not proved this comment. I have run into this "power struggle" before on other posts.

I had for awhile, a running argument with one of the moderators on my post "Nobody can prove God exists and nobody can prove He doesn't. This moderator kept insisting that I prove that comment. I kept trying to explain that nobody can prove the obvious and I kept asking him to prove that what I said was not true. Of course he couldn't do it. He would not talk about that part - just ignored it.

He warned me that if I kept insisting on posting things that I didn't prove, that he would put those posts in "The Hall of Questions" where nobody would see them. Excomuniation, I guess. I told him that I had posted lots of posts like that and I never heard a word about them until they related to religion. He is religious.

And can you imagine having to prove statements on a religious board? On a Philosophical board, if he did it, I would think it stupid, but as least possible. But on a religious board where almost nothing can be proved? Pah!

What I see happening - besides the obvious censoring of beliefs contrary to the censor's, is that when you give somebody a little power, they get bored because they don't have that much to do. So what they do is to start expanding their power. The only way to do that is to start making subjective "rules" that they can now enforce with impunity. I saw that in the military and I see it here, now. It seems to be the human condition, akin to the common practice of mistreating the helpless.

Shame shame shame.

[Moreno]

I had for awhile, a running argument with one of the moderators on my post "Nobody can prove God exists and nobody can prove He doesn't. This moderator kept insisting that I prove that comment. I kept trying to explain that nobody can prove the obvious

1) Plenty of obvious things can be very strongly supported by the evidence and in logic some obvious things can be deduced. 2) One persons 'obvious' (self evident truth, axiom, etc.) is another person's extraordinary claim is another person's possibility.

and I kept asking him to prove that what I said was not true. Of course he couldn't do it. He would not talk about that part - just ignored it.

But he was responding to your claim, I assume.

For exactly the same reasons a theist responding to their assertion that God exists will be called on it if their defense is 'proof there is no God' an atheist should be called on it if their defense is prove there is a God after their claim. I mean, that's the idea here, vaguely followed. Someone makes a claim, people argue for and against it, the claimant gives support or tries to after challenges.

Try going into the ethics forum and making what you think is an obvious moral rule. If you don't back up what you think is obviously morally correct - and demand that they disprove it - you will also meet with strong resistance. How the moderators would act I don't know.

If someone asserts X, they can be challenged on this assertion and whether the other person can prove not X is, basically, another topic.

And can you imagine having to prove statements on a religious board?

If this is Felix I thought he was generally, if accused, accused of being anti-religious. If I have the right overview he can use this to defend himself against those claims, at least as anecdotal evidence.

On a Philosophical board, if he did it, I would think it stupid, but as least possible. But on a religious board where almost nothing can be proved? Pah!

As far as I can tell, he does challenge religious people to back up their assertions. Though perhaps some bias is present, I haven't read enough posts to judge.

What I see happening - besides the obvious censoring of beliefs contrary to the censor's, is that when you give somebody a little power, they get bored because they don't have that much to do. So what they do is to start expanding their power. The only way to do that is to start making subjective "rules" that they can now enforce with impunity. I saw that in the military and I see it here, now. It seems to be the human condition, akin to the common practice of mistreating the helpless.

Shame shame shame.

Well, I can't resist asking for evidence that this is relevent here. It just seems like a vaguely aimed ad hom and psychic claim.

[James S Saint]

I expect that this thread will not go far because of bias on the part of moderators for this type of complaint and also because I have not proved this comment. I have run into this "power struggle" before on other posts.

I had for awhile, a running argument with one of the moderators on my post "Nobody can prove God exists and nobody can prove He doesn't. This moderator kept insisting that I prove that comment. I kept trying to explain that nobody can prove the obvious and I kept asking him to prove that what I said was not true. Of course he couldn't do it. He would not talk about that part - just ignored it.

He warned me that if I kept insisting on posting things that I didn't prove, that he would put those posts in "The Hall of Questions" where nobody would see them. Excomuniation, I guess. I told him that I had posted lots of posts like that and I never heard a word about them until they related to religion. He is religious.

And can you imagine having to prove statements on a religious board? On a Philosophical board, if he did it, I would think it stupid, but as least possible. But on a religious board where almost nothing can be proved? Pah!

What I see happening - besides the obvious censoring of beliefs contrary to the censor's, is that when you give somebody a little power, they get bored because they don't have that much to do. So what they do is to start expanding their power. The only way to do that is to start making subjective "rules" that they can now enforce with impunity. I saw that in the military and I see it here, now. It seems to be the human condition, akin to the common practice of mistreating the helpless.

Shame shame shame.

Altruism, balanced judgment, and intelligent is a pretty uncommon state amongst homosapian.
I'm still trying to figure out what a "non-religious post" means. And what it has to do with the inherent easy with which people abuse the power they are given.

[Bodhimalik]

I'm still trying to figure out what a "non-religious post" means. And what it has to do with the inherent eas[e] with which people abuse the power they are given.

A "Non-religious post" is a post written by a person who has no religion. "Non-religious" people do have God in their lives however, to differentiate them from atheists and agnostics.

It has nothing to do with the ease with which people abuse the power they are given. That seems to be a human trait by (one might say) everybody.

[James S Saint]

I'm still trying to figure out what a "non-religious post" means. And what it has to do with the inherent eas[e] with which people abuse the power they are given.

A "Non-religious post" is a post written by a person who has no religion. "Non-religious" people do have God in their lives however, to differentiate them from atheists and agnostics.

So you are talking about moderators that have a bias against non-religious people's posts? Against atheistic posts?

[Bodhimalik]

But he was responding to your claim, I assume.

You assume wrong.

For exactly the same reasons a theist responding to their assertion that God exists will be called on it if their defense is 'proof there is no God' an atheist should be called on it if their defense is prove there is a God after their claim.

However, my claim was that no one could prove there is a God nor prove there isn't a God. And I'll give you the same chance I gave that moderator. YOU Prove either He exists or prove He doesn't. If you can prove either one, that will prove my claim is in error. That's fair, isn't it?

Try going into the ethics forum and making what you think is an obvious moral rule. If you don't back up what you think is obviously morally correct - and demand that they disprove it - you will also meet with strong resistance. How the moderators would act I don't know.

I don't often call out people who put words into my mouth and then argue that those words are nonsense, but this time I will.

At no time did it ever cross my mind that this was a moral issue, and to tell you the truth, I don't know how you came up with that from anything I've said.

If someone asserts X, they can be challenged on this assertion and whether the other person can prove not X is, basically, another topic.

Are you saying that if I assert that no one can prove or disprove God, if someone else can prove that that is not true, then that guy's proof is another topic? Is that what you are saying?

If this is Felix I thought he was generally, if accused, accused of being anti-religious.

You were fooled by his post entitled, "Help Me Understand Why I'm An Atheist." That wording alone should have tipped you off.

If I have the right overview he can use this to defend himself against those claims, at least as anecdotal evidence.

well, you don't have, so there's that.

On a Philosophical board, if he did it, I would think it stupid, but as least possible. But on a religious board where almost nothing can be proved? Pah!

As far as I can tell, he does challenge religious people to back up their assertions. Though perhaps some bias is present, I haven't read enough posts to judge.

Of course! That is exactly what I was trying to get him to see. No matter which way a person goes with whether or not God exists, He says, "Prove it!" And they can't. I kept telling HIM, Prove it! He couldn't. Which is exactly my point. Nobody can!

We are back to you confusing my statement that no one can prove whether or not God "is" with proving God exists or proving God does not exist, and I reiterate, Prove either and I will shut my mouth.

You are not alone in this, however. Felix also was confusing my statement with the statements, "God exists" and "God doesn't exist". People tend to see what they expect to see. Obviously neither of you has ever run across what I stated before. It was new to you. You couldn't get your head around it, being used to "God exists" or "God doesn't exist."

Well, I can't resist asking for evidence that, "It seems to be the human condition, akin to the common practice of mistreating the helpless."

you want evidence that that is the way it seems to me? Really?

How about you giving me evidence that existence exists?

This is relevent here. It just seems like a vaguely aimed ad hom and psychic claim.

Doesn't seem that way to me, and can you prove that statement ? You did declare, didn't you, that obvious statements can be proved? Well, here's your chance

[James S Saint]

We are back to you confusing my statement that no one can prove whether or not God "is" with proving God exists or proving God does not exist, and I reiterate, Prove either and I will shut my mouth.

Define what you mean when you say "God" and I will take that challenge.

[Bodhimalik]

We are back to you confusing my statement that no one can prove whether or not God "is" with proving God exists or proving God does not exist, and I reiterate, Prove either and I will shut my mouth.

Define what you mean when you say "God" and I will take that challenge.

God is consciousness. Hell, make any definition you like and see if you can still do it.

[Bodhimalik]

I'm still trying to figure out what a "non-religious post" means. And what it has to do with the inherent eas[e] with which people abuse the power they are given.

A "Non-religious post" is a post written by a person who has no religion. "Non-religious" people do have God in their lives however, to differentiate them from atheists and agnostics.

Being "non-religious" has nothing to do with the apparent ease with which people abuse the power they are given. That seems to be the human condition. Everybody except the truely humble does it, and the truely humble are not likely to ever be in a position of power anyhow. Self fixing.

So you are talking about moderators that have a bias against non-religious people's posts?

Actually, I was talking about one who was that way, and I was talking about moderators with biases against anything. This one seemed to take an instant dislike to me. I have my ideas about why he was that way, but I am not going to go into that.

The first indication that I was going to run into that "power for power's sake" thing was when someone who was not named (so I assume it was a moderator) said that one of my posts belonged in another thread. That's the problem I had with another moderator on another board, so I thought, "whoops, here we go again."

[Moreno]

You assume wrong.

Then your story doesn't make sense. Weren't you claiming in that thread that one cannot know whether there is a God or not? Wasn't that the claim he challenged? (I just looked back and yes, that was the case. he specifically says it is unsupported. In fact it seems to me he was asking for you to support it, not to prove it. I can't be sure, but I would doubt he demands everyone prove their assertions, which you claim later in this post I am quoting. I would guess he asks for support, which by the way, facilitates discussion.)

However, my claim was that no one could prove there is a God nor prove there isn't a God

Which is a claim and I assume the one he challenged.

. And I'll give you the same chance I gave that moderator. YOU Prove either He exists or prove He doesn't. If you can prove either one, that will prove my claim is in error. That's fair, isn't it?

Actually, no. I do not have to prove a counterclaim. You are doing precisely what theists do, though you are doing it from an agnostic stance. Agnosticism is correct, theism and strong atheism are wrong. When challenged you demand that they demonstrate you claim is false.

I don't often call out people who put words into my mouth and then argue that those words are nonsense, but this time I will.

At no time did it ever cross my mind that this was a moral issue, and to tell you the truth, I don't know how you came up with that from anything I've said.

Here you are actually putting words in my mouth. I never said that you couched it as an ethical issue.

In fact I said...

Try going into the ethics forum and making what you think is an obvious moral rule. If you don't back up what you think is obviously morally correct - and demand that they disprove it - you will also meet with strong resistance. How the moderators would act I don't know.

But from a charitable perspective I will assume you misinterpreted what I wrote. I was jumping to a DIFFERENT set of philosophical issues to try to make clear why making a claim and then when challenged demanding that others prove you wrong as your only evidence
is a problematic defense of your claim. In fact it isn't one.

If someone asserts X, they can be challenged on this assertion and whether the other person can prove not X is, basically, another topic.

Are you saying that if I assert that no one can prove or disprove God, if someone else can prove that that is not true, then that guy's proof is another topic? Is that what you are saying?

yes, I am. If the proof is easy and clear, then it can be handled right there, though still it is really another topic.

If someone asserts intelligent design is correct and is challenged and the OP writer than demands the other person prove evolution, it is another topic. Yes, evolutionary theory contradicts ID, but we now have a shift of burden of proof from the OP writer to other people. At the very least the OP writer is generally expected to make a case. Not to say, it is obvious, obvious things can't be proved, etc. This isn't necessarily the only way to have useful discussions, but it is a cultural norm in philosophy forums. And there are good reasons for that. Obviously someone responding to your OP who proves it is in correct is on topic. But the shifting the burden on your part is changing the topic. You made a claim, support it.

Imagine what it would be like if Intelligent design people used your line of reasoning. They assert ID. When challenged for support, they demand that evolutionary theory be proved - to them naturally - and the rest of the thread is focused on potential flaws in Evolutionary Theory and no support for ID. What I think is confusing you here is that your claim is a negative one. But this is still a claim.

If this is Felix I thought he was generally, if accused, accused of being anti-religious.

You were fooled by his post entitled, "Help Me Understand Why I'm An Atheist." That wording alone should have tipped you off.

If I have the right overview he can use this to defend himself against those claims, at least as anecdotal evidence.

well, you don't have, so there's that.

No, I wasn't thinking of that thread. I was thinking of this one...

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=178627&hilit=religion+moderator&view=viewpoll

He started the thread because he was accused of being hostile to religion. The poll results do support him NOT BEING HOSTILE. With a significant minority thinking he is hostile to religion. And those who voted he was not hostile were not asserting he was positively inclined or biased against non-religious posts.

So actually I have got it right.

As far as I can tell, he does challenge religious people to back up their assertions. Though perhaps some bias is present, I haven't read enough posts to judge.

Of course! That is exactly what I was trying to get him to see. No matter which way a person goes with whether or not God exists, He says, "Prove it!" And they can't. I kept telling HIM, Prove it! He couldn't. Which is exactly my point. Nobody can!

You mean, nobody here at ILP has via posts over the internet proven it so far to FElix? I am sorry but your assertion does not seem sufficiently supported to me. You also seem to be confusing support with proof.

We are back to you confusing my statement that no one can prove whether or not God "is" with proving God exists or proving God does not exist, and I reiterate, Prove either and I will shut my mouth.

I am not asking you to shut your mouth and I have no interest in making either of those claims.

You are not alone in this, however. Felix also was confusing my statement with the statements, "God exists" and "God doesn't exist". People tend to see what they expect to see. Obviously neither of you has ever run across what I stated before. It was new to you. You couldn't get your head around it, being used to "God exists" or "God doesn't exist."

Actually I did understand that, though I can see how using the theist example above might have been misleading. That was a poor choice on my part in an argument against an agnostic position. And yes, in fact, I have come across this type of agnosticism. It is a fairly common one. Usually it is presented as one cannot know whether there is a God or not, but I have seen this version also before. Further for many agnostics they are the same.

Well, I can't resist asking for evidence that, "It seems to be the human condition, akin to the common practice of mistreating the helpless."

you want evidence that that is the way it seems to me? Really?

Here you misquote me and eliminate what I actually quoted from you....

which starts

What I see happening

Directly after you are writing about Felix. That is a claim or terrible writing. Either way your responsibility and either way really slimy posting here, trying to make me look silly by misquoting me and presenting it as if some much smaller quote was the one I was responding to.

I really don't respect that shit. Scoring points through BS.

How about you giving me evidence that existence exists?

I don't need to, you already believe it. And sure, I am making a psychic claim.

Doesn't seem that way to me, and can you prove that statement ? You did declare, didn't you, that obvious statements can be proved? Well, here's your chance

Misquoting me again. I said

1) Plenty of obvious things can be very strongly supported by the evidence and in logic some obvious things can be deduced.

I did not refer to anything being obvious there either. But I am glad you think obviousness applies in this case.

Note that you clearly misunderstood me. I said plenty can be. This is not a claim that all can. So your pulling out a counterexample as if my lack of ability to supply strong evidence, is confused. Like hey, the claim, people tend to dislike pain. SEems obvious, but I will bet some masters students did experiments that demonstrated this. Lots of obvious things turn out to have very strong evidential support. Not all science, for example, is counterintuitive. Many of the conclusions of scientific research - under enormous amounts of testing - would have been no surprise to the guy or gal on the street with an elementary school education. Obviousness does not necessitate insupportability, even at strong levels.

But further, the really ironic thing is, you may have chosen an example where one cannot only provide strong evidence but even proof. Since it looks rather analytic. IOW if it means How about giving me evidence that the totality of what exists exists? we are simply dealing with something analytic and a proof CAN BE OFFERED. Of course we would have to define existence first. And some versions of what that sentence means could be nonsense.

Back to the quote I responded to and not the one you quoted me responding to: Sure, I think I could provide strong evidence that your description OF WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE coming after what you had just said about Felix is ad hom. But since you so poorly quoted me and misrepresented by claims, I'll ask you to look back on the ACTUAL QUOTE I was responding to IN CONTEXT and see if you really think I was wrong.

I have some evidence right here that your arguments misrepresent, at least on some occasions, the positions Felix and I have taken. I believe he asked you to support your claim, not prove it. And then there are some examples here how you misquote and misrepresent my positions in ways that are convenient, even if there is no conscious intent to do this. One misunderstanding was my fault, I should not have used the theist example without at least explaining I was not taking you as a strong atheist.

But frankly, you seem like a poster I would prefer to avoid. Intentional or not, I don't like this kind of shit. I'll ignore you from here on out.

[James S Saint]

Define what you mean when you say "God" and I will take that challenge.

God is consciousness. Hell, make any definition you like and see if you can still do it.

Oh, I can do it for many definitions.

In your case, given your definition that God == Consciousness, all I have to prove is that consciousness exists.
And to prove that consciousness exists only requires a single incident.

1) Are you conscious?
2) Is anyone conscious?

[tentative]

Bodhimalik ,

When you start a thread that basically asks how high is up? Then having it moved to a less formal forum really isn't much of a big surprise. The thread you seem to be concerned with is basically a no position thread for anyone. I realize that this is your point, but pointing out the completely brain dead obvious isn't a great discussion starter. I mean, after your OP title, what the fuck is anyone (including you) supposed to say? If there is bias, it's about threads for which there are no discussion possibilities. Perhaps you might consider framing your OP's in such a way that there are positions to be taken or questions to be answered. You aren't being picked because your OP is 'non-religious', it's because it was a non-starter in the first place.

[felix dakat]

Bodimalik--

Moreno and tentative have already explained what I was doing better than I can. I wasn't asking you to prove your claim, just to try to support it with at least one argument. I ask the same of people who start threads making pro-religion claims. Some moderators may have a bias against anti-religion posts. I don't. It's all grist for the mill as far as I'm concerned.

[Bodhimalik]

Define what you mean when you say "God" and I will take that challenge.

God is consciousness. Hell, make any definition you like and see if you can still do it.

Oh, I can do it for many definitions.

In your case, given your definition that God == Consciousness, all I have to prove is that consciousness exists.
And to prove that consciousness exists only requires a single incident.

1) Are you conscious?
2) Is anyone conscious?

No logic in your "proof"? No "thus" and therefore "this"? You use obvious incidents to prove that those same obvious incidences exist? I warned you that you can't prove what is obvious. I warned you.

[Bodhimalik]

messed up

[Bodhimalik]

Sorry, mistake

[Bodhimalik]

Sorry, Mistake.

[James S Saint]

In your case, given your definition that God == Consciousness, all I have to prove is that consciousness exists.
And to prove that consciousness exists only requires a single incident.

1) Are you conscious?
2) Is anyone conscious?

No logic in your "proof"? No "thus" and therefore "this"? You use obvious incidents to prove that those same obvious incidences exist? I warned you that you can't prove what is obvious. I warned you.

Actually I didn't figure that any more logic was necessary. But I did figure that you were going to argue. Anyone can argue anything, especially if pride is involved. The question of proof is one of whether any actual doubt was left, not whether anyone argued.

But think about that retort of yours;
"You use obvious incidents to prove that those same obvious incidences exist?"
What could be more convincing that something exists than the something in question? Especially if it is something obvious.
Are you saying that in order to prove that a ball exists, it would be invalid to simply show you a ball?
The fact that you stated it to be obvious means that you have no doubt. And thus it has been proven.

[Typist]

If you're still confused, this equation should make it clear that Jame's point is quite obviously correct.

[barcelonic]

Im sorry i've not read all these posts but skimmed through.

To me it seems the OP was being very specific about this encounter. And from what I gathered from the info he put out (trying not to make any assumptions on my part), he's absolutely right.

Firstly, someone demanding that the comment "Nobody can prove God exists and nobody can prove he doesn't" require proof is incorrect, irrespective of whether or not they are religious. It is a factual statement and is neither for, nor against, religion.

Secondly, I would hope a moderator on here would know better.

Thirdly, I would not expect said moderator to use his position to enforce this impossible demand.


But to be clear - all of the above opinions are based on the info provided; the credibility of the OP's statements is a different issue altogether.
So if the OP is speaking the truth, as it were, then I can't help but wholeheartedly agree with the OP on this one.

[Moreno]

Im sorry i've not read all these posts but skimmed through.

To me it seems the OP was being very specific about this encounter. And from what I gathered from the info he put out (trying not to make any assumptions on my part), he's absolutely right.

Firstly, someone demanding that the comment "Nobody can prove God exists and nobody can prove he doesn't" require proof is incorrect, irrespective of whether or not they are religious. It is a factual statement and is neither for, nor against, religion.

How about being asked to support the assertion?
And when challenged responding that obvious truths cannot be proven or, it seems, supported.

Secondly, I would hope a moderator on here would know better.

Thirdly, I would not expect said moderator to use his position to enforce this impossible demand.

The OP writer later claims he did meet the demand by saying that no one had proven it either way here.

I did note your disclaimer, just me tossing off a few things you may have missed in this thread and the other.

[barcelonic]

Im sorry i've not read all these posts but skimmed through.

To me it seems the OP was being very specific about this encounter. And from what I gathered from the info he put out (trying not to make any assumptions on my part), he's absolutely right.

Firstly, someone demanding that the comment "Nobody can prove God exists and nobody can prove he doesn't" require proof is incorrect, irrespective of whether or not they are religious. It is a factual statement and is neither for, nor against, religion.

How about being asked to support the assertion?
And when challenged responding that obvious truths cannot be proven or, it seems, supported.

Secondly, I would hope a moderator on here would know better.

Thirdly, I would not expect said moderator to use his position to enforce this impossible demand.

The OP writer later claims he did meet the demand by saying that no one had proven it either way here.

I did note your disclaimer, just me tossing off a few things you may have missed in this thread and the other.

A) I think it is like saying "A chair with four legs has four legs", in that such a sentence does in fact not require support. Essentially the OP was remarking upon a lack of knowledge; rather than it being a statement it was more a concession of the limits of our knowledge.

If you take the OP more literally and require that absolute proof be required to support the claim that "Nobody can...[add any example here]" then you would be technically correct as it is impossible to check on 7 billion people. Furthermore if you could check them all, there are other factors such as deception, amnesia and so forth which would guarantee that no such claim could be supported.
But as I say this purely technical - if there existed a device called a Raneidan which soon became the only way to prove anything, and Raneidans were then all destroyed in some hypothetical event or series of events so that nothing could no longer meet the criteria for 'proof', must we then concede absolute ignorance and throw away our knowledge and ways of thinking? Would the equation which describes gravity suddenly change?

B) Aprreciated.
Few would have been so thoughtful

[tentative]

Im sorry i've not read all these posts but skimmed through.

To me it seems the OP was being very specific about this encounter. And from what I gathered from the info he put out (trying not to make any assumptions on my part), he's absolutely right.

Firstly, someone demanding that the comment "Nobody can prove God exists and nobody can prove he doesn't" require proof is incorrect, irrespective of whether or not they are religious. It is a factual statement and is neither for, nor against, religion.

Secondly, I would hope a moderator on here would know better.

Thirdly, I would not expect said moderator to use his position to enforce this impossible demand.


But to be clear - all of the above opinions are based on the info provided; the credibility of the OP's statements is a different issue altogether.
So if the OP is speaking the truth, as it were, then I can't help but wholeheartedly agree with the OP on this one.

The point is that the OP is not a question nor does it leave any room for discussion, which is the reason for a 'discussion' board. No one demanded proof of anything (in the OP) A few people wondered why the OP was ever posted.

Try this: "I'm me." Wow, what a profound statement. I'm not offering proof for or against, I'm just making a statement - a statement that no one can dispute or even discuss. what is the point? There is no point and THAT is the point. The moderator not only should have moved this inane senseless thread, he would have been abrogating his duty to keep the forum open to DISCUSSION had he not moved it. If someone wants to make a flat factual statement, that is what Mundane Babble is for. The idea that there is a bias toward non-religious threads is simply looking for an excuse to whine in the hopes that no one notices that the OP was a lame non-starter to begin with.

[barcelonic]

The point is that the OP is not a question nor does it leave any room for discussion, which is the reason for a 'discussion' board. No one demanded proof of anything (in the OP) A few people wondered why the OP was ever posted.

Try this: "I'm me." Wow, what a profound statement. I'm not offering proof for or against, I'm just making a statement - a statement that no one can dispute or even discuss. what is the point? There is no point and THAT is the point. The moderator not only should have moved this inane senseless thread, he would have been abrogating his duty to keep the forum open to DISCUSSION had he not moved it. If someone wants to make a flat factual statement, that is what Mundane Babble is for. The idea that there is a bias toward non-religious threads is simply looking for an excuse to whine in the hopes that no one notices that the OP was a lame non-starter to begin with.

Good point i hadn't thought of it like that.

However, reading the OP again it does seem as though he is announcing a grievance of some sort; almost as though he is simultaneously criticising the mod in question whilst also seeking validation from the community that he was in the right.
To me, that warrants a post even in a discussion forum as it pertains directly to our ability to freely discuss issues without being influenced by any potential bias on the part of the mods.

There may be a section here more suitable for this, i don't know I'm sorry, but I wouldn't suggest relegation to the 'Mundana Babble' section.

The OP may be wrong for all I know and completely falsified, but I'm just saying that if we are to take the OP at his word then I believe this deserves a little more of our attention than that required to merely adjudge the relevance of his post.

[tentative]

barcelonic,

There may be confusion here, The OP that generated this bogus thread is found here. Nobody can prove God exists, nobody can prove He doesn't . This is the OP that everyone is referring to. Read that OP and then perhaps the comments here will make a little more sense.