Justice and freedom of speech?

This is about my thread that I think is moved to The Rant House unjustly.

So, as some may already know, recently I made a thread expressing my religious views and through careful deduction I’ve concluded why is it that only males can be priests and I suggested that it may be due to the fact that their penises serve as antennas, receiving God Almighty’s signals and improving man’s relationship and communication with God. However, I only suggested it might be a reason and it probably is, I was completely open to criticism and further discussion, however some mean members found my views offensive and my thread was moved to The Rant House. I find this extremely unfair, I went over the rules and I don’t see how I broke any of them. I simply posted my own theory and what we know so far supports my theory.

I only want to know one thing… on basis of WHAT exactly were my threads put in The Rant House. How is my theory any more improbable or how does it make any less sense than talking snakes, walking on water, an omnibenevolent being causing suffering and deaths of billions etc. Why are we free to discuss talking snakes and Noah’s ark but not free to discuss antenna penises?

Is there a better reason to remove my thread from the religious section other than ‘Well, it appears ridiculous’ ? Because if that’s all you have against my antenna penises theory then I find it unjustified, as something seeming ridiculous to us doesn’t have anything to do with whether it’s actually true. In middle ages the idea of a round earth would seem ridiculous, but it doesn’t make it any less true, it doesn’t make the earth suddenly flat just because people believe in the flat earth, it doesn’t make it any less round.

I just sincerely ask you to reconsider or at least provide some reasons as to why my thread “Why only males can be priests.” has been put into The Rant House because, as it is, I feel injustice has been done to me.

I didn’t move them, although taking a quick look at the male priests one, it’s clear to any functioning adult with basic reading skills you were arguing in bad faith, and in an inflammatory style. I’d have moved that if I’d seen it. What’s more, I would consider the wounded pride of this OP to be an exercise in fatuous legalism.

I don’t see any threads in R&S discussing talking snakes. If you want to bait biblical literalists as part of a noble atheist crusade, there are sites that cater to that. This isn’t one of them, but we do offer the Rant House for that sort of thing.

Just to be clear: this isn’t a theist conspiracy to pick on atheists and stifle discussion. I’m an atheist, but threads like that (and the associated online “atheist activists” generally make me feel more, rather than less, embarrassed to identify myself as so.

But again, that’s EXACTLY what I have a problem with. How can you know if I believe in something or not? Just because it appears ridiculous doesn’t mean it’s untrue and unworthy of discussion by default… does it? People in middle ages were sure that the earth is flat just as much as you now are sure that I’m wrong about what I wrote in that thread.

So you’re saying that if somebody made a thread about f.e. there really being a talking snake or trying to prove Jesus walked on water or that Noah’s ark really happened, you’d instantly move those threads to The Rant House? Besides, it’s not just the literalists, afaik a condition of being a Christian is to believe that Jesus was the son of god and was crucified, died and resurrected. Is that not at least as absurd as what I wrote in that thread? Would a thread about Jesus’s resurrection be moved to The Rant House too?

If yes, I agree that my thread truly belongs to The Rant House (at least according to those rules).

Thanks for the reply, though I notice you didn’t give me a reason for the Problem of Evil thread…

As an aside. So you don’t keep repeating this and embarrassing yourself.

Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth in 240BC. In the middle ages, both science and religion taught that the Earth is spherical.

lolnope

I’m a human who speaks British English as my native language, and I can tell if you’re taking the piss. And you were. And you are now. Do you think I’m an idiot? Do you think I’m unaware of the “point” you were trying to make, unaware of your posting history? It’s fatuous to claim that you were making a serious point you believed in and wanted to discuss, and it’s disrespectful to those you are trying to convince.

No, I’m saying that if someone argued that in bad faith (or argued the opposite in bad faith, for that matter) or put something inflammatory up to bait people with a different viewpoint, then their threads would be moved to Rant. I don’t think it’s a difficult distinction.

I haven’t read it. I’m not inclined to, now.

Are you talking about China or Africa or something?

You can read up on it here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_earth

Generally, people believed in flat earth, with minor exceptions, that’s my point. I’m very well aware of the fact that the idea of spherical earth dates back to ancient Greece, but it wasn’t exactly widely accepted back then, nor in the middle ages.

Hey, I call it the “trinity of my belief system”. I am an atheist, a Pastafarian and a Christian at the same time. Some would say it’s logically impossible, blah, blah, but I have faith in it and it’s all really a great big mystery :wink:

So yeah, I do believe in what I wrote. And at the same time I don’t. What can I say, I work in mysterious ways.

Yes, but how do you judge what’s bad faith and what’s not? I assume you think something like this: ‘this seems ridiculous so he can’t be serious’, so how is it that somebody can claim that a woman gave virgin birth to a god who got crucified and resurrected is taken seriously while penis antennas aren’t? Don’t they both seem about equally absurd to you? How can you call one the mockery of other when they’re both absurd?

Oh ok, it’s pretty long, so I understand

I guess you think this is arch satire. It’s more… tedious. Because I’m pointing out that you’re being disrespectful, and you’re making a puerile joke about it.

I think something like “here’s a poster who’s demonstrated in the past a tendency towards assertive atheism, and - like most posters here - no tendency towards psychotic episodes or heavy substance abuse. I wonder if he’s serious about priests having magical penises? No, I don’t think he is - because I’m not a complete fucking tool.”

Then I see that you complain that you’re not taken seriously, and I conclude that you think that the moderators here are complete fucking tools, and that you picture yourself dancing around them with your superior intellect. The other conclusions I draw are not really relevant to the discussion, but aren’t flattering.

I find many religious beliefs disrespectful and, moreover, harmful. But I don’t try to inhibit people’s freedom to express those beliefs. I’ve had religious people here threaten me with death, and I didn’t report anybody. Maybe that’s where I went wrong…

So if I showed a tendency towards controversial beliefs in my past posts and then posted that thread you would have taken it for serious? And I never said the penises are magical and I find it offensive how you added that silly word. If anything, I’d say they possess supernatural properties.

Yep, I’m bothered when there are 2 about equally absurd ideas and one is taken for serious while other is dismissed without even contemplating it.

And no, I don’t think that the moderators here are complete fucking tools, I’m not that naive, though I do think 2 of them are immoral (and I think that with good reasons).

So your standard for knowledge is those who have not been educated. I see.

I think you are saying that O_H is uneducated and unable to distinguish a real OP from a mocking OP:

Arguing in bad faith and trolling will get your threads moved and you warned. I don’t have the slightest inclination or need to explain further.

I thought it’s the idea that matters, not the person…

It’s also the presentation of the idea, and the respect for other posters and their ideas. If the person presenting the idea can’t act like an adult or accord others the respect due adults despite disagreements, they won’t be accorded the respect due an adult.

That can be used as an excuse to shut down any criticism, even if it’s valid. Anybody can get offended by anything.

I think that religion is just too used to being treated as sacred, holy and unquestionable and as science and human knowledge overall progresses it’s being exposed for the bullshit fraud it is…

I respect people and people’s right to ascribe to a religion, I don’t respect religion, at least not the religions which have done and still do despicable, immoral things that make my skin crawl.

But I guess you and I will end up disagreeing and I’ll end up getting ass-fucked and obeying orders because I’m powerless to do otherwise… well, I guess I better convince myself that having a huge dick up my ass isn’t that bad after all…

This short 2 min video sums it up: youtube.com/watch?v=mmXpJuEnNnw

I didn’t realise that polite discourse was as traumatic to you as anal rape. My sympathies, life must be very difficult for you.

Nope, it’s the hypocrisy and the lack of freedom of speech that hurts.

You have freedom of speech in Rant. They didn’t delete your thread, they didn’t beat you up, they didn’t kill you.

You actually have it pretty good.

I don’t have freedom of speech, since apparently my religious views are worth less than other people’s religious views.

In fact, they’re deemed so unworthy that I’m not allowed to post them in religious/spiritual section.