|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisements has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
I'm stymied and mystified by the moderators deleting my question:
"Calling all atheists and agnostics - do any of you hate Christians?" which was an opposite question as a rebuttal to:
"Calling all Christians. Do any of you hate atheists?"
I reported the "Christian" question first (and a second time) several days before posting my rebuttal question which used the exact same type of language and asked the exact same type of question.
Why was my later question deleted by HP moderators, yet the first question is still up and running?
It is totally mystifying to say the least. Your questions are very intelligent & thought provoking. They aren't the usual questions asked here. Yes, it is totally unfair for some questions to be deleted while others.....AREN'T.....
The way I see it (and happy to receive disagreement), if the moderator or moderators have unreasonable bias in filtering out certain hubs/questions/answers/opinions, then that would not be at all acceptable.
However, if they are only concerned with excluding gutter-like utterances that don't inform, respect, enlighten us hubbers in a friendly way, then I would be supporting them.
Even some of the apparently worst postings can at least inform us about the character of the poster.
I remember both of those questions, the one you wrote and the other one. I did not see anything wrong with them and there was no reasons for anybody to report either one.
Thank you, Lois. I appreciate you saying this.
It's a dead parrot. Right?
Any suggestion that atheist moderators have acted improperly is a serious matter. My best suggestion is you leave HP altogether and visit divisive sites perhaps? Otherwise humbly learn by mistakes here.
Was that directed at me? I did not make any such suggestions
It was for both of you for trying to convince each other it's not a dead parrot and failing to understand the obvious: Dawkins style divisive stereotypes are in fact a dead parrot.
I agree that the Religion Q/A answer should be eliminated altogether. Would be a lot less headaches. There is not so much drama on the Forums at Blog Job. I myself have been avoiding this section. But once in a while the temptation is there
I don't agree that any QandA should be eliminated except for the ones that break Hub rules.
This invariably falls into the category divisive hate speech or obsessional negative questions repeatedly asked by the same people. It's wrong and needs to stop.
I gave up on Q&A a long time ago. For whatever reason, HP is determined to not let anyone make any money there.
It's still pennies and every once in a while I get a new follower or find a person worth following. Kind of a random thing, but one is better than zero, right?
If all a person does is continually pose anti religious hubs etc they are being unethical. My theory is that modern new atheism is dulling or eradicating the moral sense of the said practitioners. Case in point: the current question being asked here which shows no remorse or any sense of ethics and seems to exhibit genuine total moral blindness.
Oztinhato - I have 276 featured hubs, 16 of them are probably what you call "anti-religous". So what are you talking about?
This question is a rebuttal question to one that was asked by a "Christian" seeking religious folks that "hate" atheists. Perhaps you should copy and paste your unethical answer onto his question.
The moderators have acted ethically against certain people who clearly spend all their time (a huge majority of the time)constantly injecting anti religious venom into HPs. No other group engages in such wholesale never ending hate speech as do a certain group of atheists who seem to cluster together united by bitterness and hatred. Of course we can't name names but how on earth can anyone be so utterly blind to the good ethics in getting rid of such continual gross anti religious behaviour? My theory which this very discussion proves, is that modern new atheist thought is removing atheist's ability to perceive right vs wrong. Independent observers themselves atheists and experienced moderators have seen fit to remove hatred: this is the act of an actual ethical atheist as opposed to the bastardized new atheism promoted by such hypocrites as Dawkins and co.
There might well be a group somewhere in the United States that is atheist and "... is dulling or eradicating the moral sense ..." to whoever. But they would not in any way be representative of all persons who have an a-theist point of view. I am a-theist, but don't consider myself immoral, but unless my moral status affects the life or lives others, it's no anyone else's business.
I try to keep open-minded and considerate of individuals who have a theist disposition. I have friends who are Christian, (2 or 3 at this point in time), Buddhist, (also 2 or 3), Hindu, (5 or 6), Muslim, (variable), Pagan (1 or 2).
But I will not stand for BS that insists I must follow any one of those other paths. I make my own choices and fear no god. There is no such thing as "original sin" in reality. It's the human practitioners that worry me sometimes.
Good question, Austinstar.
I have drawn the same distinction as you. There are in fact ethical atheists. Unfortunately you may be one of the only ones on HPs.
I have responded to Austins question with this same theme of actual atheism versus the usual barrage of hatred proposed by the usual crew.
Once again: if an alleged atheist can't see why ugly hate speech should be banned then a very important piece of their ethics has been removed like a lobotomy by the unsightly new atheist trend.
Hence this discussion is not based on a "good" question but it is ironically shedding light on the very poor state of ethical standards exhibited by the same old crew.
If you were to give equal criticism of un-ethical theists, I would give you equal credibility.
Is it ethical for theists to presume all or most a-theists are lacking morality?without a shred of evidence apart from bigotry?
I didn't say that I said the exact opposite. Yes it is possible to be an ethical atheist. There's just not too many on HPs just mainly (but not exclusively dear Jon) only the lobotomised type.
I really don't see anyone else trying to use HPs as a platform for hate speech other than "the same old crew".
This question has been reinstated by the moderators, but it is still closed to new answers for some reason. Very strange.
Thank you, Johnny! You always have the best comments. I appreciate your support.
The goings on in The Vatican right now show the tip of an iceberg that represents hypocritical religiosity. An organisation that says we must repent; that we risk eternal damnation if we don't; or we don't accept/believe in a set of controlling, superstitious excreta; that supports the idea men who commit to chastity can understandably have a taste for little boys and girls .... and then be protected by the said organisation!!!
And, before any one of another religious organisation decides The Vatican alone stands condemned, just examine your own beliefs and your leaders.
There will be just as many hypocrites among believers as non-believers.
Morality? In the same ball-park as Relativity ... it depends on your point of view.
Sorry, gone off topic here.
Yes, you went very much off topic, Johnny. Your assumptions about Catholicism are only that---mere assumptions....and assumptions do not replace facts. As for your assertion that "priests are understandably fond of little boys and girls due to their celibacy" (I am paraphrasing your words) that statement is categorically false. Do you think the Dalai Lama has that problem? What about Buddhist monks? What about nuns? What about 68 year old women who are tired of sex?
Being gay and being a pedophile are two different things--and it has nothing to do with whether one is celibate. It would be well for you to do some research on those subjects before you talk about them.
Savvy, thankyou for giving me your opinions. They don't change my mind, yet. You may wish to try harder.
If what I describe of the Roman Catholic Church is untrue, please take each point in turn and explain clearly.
I can only see that church as a Convenient, Hierarchical Use of Religion for the Control of Humanity. So much superstition, theatrical dressing up, ceremony and promotion of dogma - aided and abetted by ordinary people who kneel down and worship without question.
At least this is how it appears to me - a gay lapsed christian who is grateful for having learned to think for himself.
If you can indeed refute my perception, please do so, but it better be good.
Johnny....It is not my goal to convert you. I understand that you are committed to New Age beliefs, and explaining Catholicism would be a waste of my time. What I am saying is that you were wrong in stating that celibate priests naturally have sexual desires towards little boys and girls. That assertion is untrue. Pedophiles are pedophiles. This has nothing to do with celibacy. As for gay priests who are bad men, they have an interest in teenagers, not children. That is the point I was trying to clarify. If that is not what you meant, then feel free to let me know. It is possible I misread your statement.
Here is an excerpt from Google Scholar: "Studies that are based on empirical research dispute the existence of a direct link between sexual abuse of minors and homosexuality.
Plante (2006) posits that an incorrect interpretation of the 2004 John Jay College report may have contributed to the scapegoating of homosexual priests. Plante (2006) reports that many pedophile priests, when evaluated, self report as heterosexual.
The majority of the pedophile priests claim to target boys for reasons
that include “easier access to boys” in an all-male or majority-male environment, “pregnancy
fears with female victims,” and “more easily established trust and access with boys (and
perhaps with their parents)” (p. 236).
He also states that research has recognized that men
with a homosexual orientation are not any more likely to abuse a child sexually than are
heterosexual men (e.g., Groth and Birnbaum 1978; Groth and Gary 1982; Herek 2009).
Rossetti (1994), who utilized data from hundreds of clinically evaluated and treated clergy
sexual offenders, concludes that “homosexuality and child abuse are two different realities
that spring from two different psychodynamic sets of factors” (p. 14)."
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Th … c44322.pdf
My point is that pedophiles are not created as a result of celibacy. These men already had this propensity. Furthermore, most priests who are pedophiles identify as heterosexuals. Also, many priests are gay men, but they are also committed to celibacy and a spiritual life, for the most part.
And she replies by defending and making excuses for sexual deviancy in Catholic men. The response requested was about the "control" that the Catholic church has on ALL its members.
Austin, that is not what I said. You have a penchant for twisting the truth. Read the the comments and entry so that you can make an intelligent, rational answer. At this juncture, you are merely spewing hate speech. Anyway, Johnny can answer for himself.
I would imagine the reason your question was deleted, by the way, is because the moderators have figured out that you are not interested in the answers to your questions. Rather, they apparently see that many of your questions are an opportunity to invite hate speech.
The selective focussing on the Christian religion by atheists has now become an established phenomena. This usually focuses on either extreme right wing Christian groups or solely bad examples. Recently the main atheist leader Dawkins was ejected from the organised skeptics society for such behaviour as it is divisive and hate filled even to a hard core atheist.
You see, it leads to and is in fact only bigotry to constantly stereotype a group. Good atheists find Dawkins and his ilk here on HP as totally repugnant. So why keep indulging in repugnant activity against a religious stereotype? It is just a deluded obsession and a repetive "broken record"
I implore you to take a wider view and to stop taking an extremely narrow minded view.
How many times are you going to repeat yourself?
Austin, given your innate passion, you could be a force for good and truth....simply by being more open minded, and less defensive.
That is the message some of us are communicating. That's all. You needn't be offended. That is not the intent.
I'm not repeating myself you are with obsessions about christianity. I've asked you to look at all religions including indigenous but you keep focused on a stereoptype.
I don't see all religions pushing the precepts of their religion onto others. Jewish people don't insist that we all become Jews. Buddhists don't insist we all become Buddhist. Indigenous people don't insist we all "believe in" the Dreamland.
How often have you seen myself respectfully allow for a Christian to have his/her faith and beliefs, provided he/she does not insist it's the only way for me? Yet how often have you seen a Christian, particularly a "right-wing" fundamentalist Christian allow me the same respect in my un-belief? Very, very rarely, if ever.
So you see, I (speaking only for my own point of view here) cannot withdraw from confronting "right-wing" Christians, because I can only be on the defensive as far as they are concerned. They should not expect me to just sit back and let them get on, taking over the world of political obligations and bullying. When fundamentalism is put up as the standard, then the battle line is drawn.
Those gentlefolk who are applying their faith in good works, kind, thoughtful, addressing the problems of this world and using their talents for the common good, rest easy. I have no quarrel with you.
Alan, I think he may be referring to me as he believes I pick on Christians exclusively. I do not, and I try to make it a point to diss ANY religion because I see them all as thought/mind control. But Oz is hell bent on copy/pasting his drivel over and over again for some reason.
There are no attempts by atheists to address other religions and religious people who are doing good out there. Hence such one eyed behaviour has to be seen as narrow minded and divisive by honest atheist moderators and objective viewers. Are we still "stymied" about this??
You are obviously stymied, but my issue was resolved already. Your issues appear to be lifelong.
I'm the one who answered your question in this "discussion" here!!
You're wondering why you keep getting kicked off Q&A, remember? I've given you a clear logical and honest answer: the Dawkins style divisive hate speech isn't working anymore. It's even turning off atheist moderators. It's passe, finito, a "dead parrot", it's pushing up the daises, defunct, it is no more, gone with the wind !
Guess that makes me a "bad atheist." But certainly not delusional....
Please don't blame us, who can think beyond belief, for confronting christian argument so often...when those (who often do sound delusional) bring the rhetorical upon themselves.
It's about the persistent focusing on right wing Christians and mistakes as representative of all religion:how did you just jump tracks with such a basic point?
Case in point of a post that can easily be construed as divisive and bigoted.
Sorry, Live-to-Learn, not fully understanding your point here.
Do you feel I am being "divisive and bigoted" with this post? Or should I make my feelings known in a bit more politically correct way?
That is exactly what they seem to want jonnycomelately, for us to be silenced by calling any opinions we have against their beliefs as bigoted or bullying or divisive or arrogant or angry or some even wanting to label it "hate speech".
All it is is playing the victim card and the persecution card, you think that would be hard to do considering theists outnumber atheists so vastly. A tiny percentage of the global population identify as atheists, with the non-religious all put together totaling about 16% some of those are still theists of some variety or another.
Atheists are vastly outnumbered, in some parts of the world if they mock or criticize religion they can be arrested, tortured or killed.
Here on the internet atheists agnostics and other doubters are able to express themselves far more freely but some people will still try to silence us, or accusing us of hate simply for trying to point out why we think they are wrong. In a free society we must be free to criticize beliefs and ideas without fear of reprisal and that must include religious beliefs and ideas if free speech and freedom of religion are going to mean anything at all.
Exactly so. But none are so blind as the ones who will not, cannot, or refuse to see reason. It's all just blah blah blah hate speech blah blah persecution blah blah name calling. They don't even read a post before they blast out a memorized set of thought/speak.
It is interesting how we use the term 'politically correct' when we are unwilling to admit that our attitudes are less than civil.
Calling anyone delusional is less than civil. Claiming that you can 'think beyond belief' when we all have beliefs is hypocritical and could also be classified as delusional but, I doubt you will be accused of that in return.
I understand the frustration involved in speaking to a died in the wool creationist or someone who believes their beliefs trump others. However, one must admit (if they are being honest) that by confronting them one is being just as divisive and confrontational as the one you are confronting.
I have had atheists insist that their beliefs can't be labeled self-righteous because they aren't religious, but by the definition they do display that quality (or lack thereof) by accusing and attacking christians for their beliefs. One self righteous jack a** is just as bad as another.
That is fair comment, thank you. But I don't intentionally attack the beliefs of others merely to try changing those beliefs. It's only of importance to me when the holder of those beliefs seeks to impose them on others with the presumption the beliefs are superior and imperative for everyone else in the world to believe.
I can live alongside anyone with any faith, if I am respected for not wishing to take such beliefs on board. The majority of christian people are tolerant and thus respectful. The minority are, to a greater or lesser degree, bullying and presume their superiority over my atheism.
So, ultimately, it's good entertainment to confront in argument but, sooner or later it gets boring and leads to detachment. At this point I can still regard see the arguing neighbour as fellow human being. And often it's his/her feelings of hurt in not having been successful in converting me to their way of thinking which brings much light upon their character.
So, as well as being entertainment, it can also be an education.
I do get your frustration but if we engage with others because we believe they believe their beliefs are superior and everyone else should believe the same; what we are basically doing is insisting they are wrong and we are right. By doing that we make it clear by our actions that we believe our belief is superior. And, at some point, we display the same qualities they are displaying. We feel justified because we think we are presenting the kinder and gentler attitude. The more Christ like behavior, if you will. Unfortunately, it is still self righteous and counterproductive.
You can't convince that minority who believes they are God on earth to change their opinion and I doubt they are entertained as you are by the exchange. You say it brings light on their character. Do you think that brings light on your character?
I'm not attempting to be argumentative. It's simply that I don't see a lot of difference in the atheist who argues with the religious and the religious who argues with the atheist; personality wise.
Ok, get back to me when you are forced to watch a baby literally bleed to death because its Jehovah Witness parents will not allow you to do an exchange transfusion that would save the baby. Or watch the death of a child refused medical care because they believed that prayer would heal. Or watch the death of a child starved to death because his religious parents though fasting was the way to make the kid behave and pray harder.
I do not despise religion - I despise religious harm. I will continue to fight what little fight I have in me to try to get people to see the danger of religious though and illogical beliefs.
If you don't want to listen to me, then go away!
Sure. That's exactly what you are doing here. You know that isn't so, and I know it isn't so. But, if it makes you feel self righteous to claim it I couldn't convince you to do otherwise any more than I can convince the fundamentalist that there weren't dinosaurs on an ark.
Yes, for sure it can throw light on my character. No problem with that. I am as I am...and will change my opinion when it's needed.
I have a feeling that atheists just live in denial. No matter what evidence you give them about God their only aim seems to rubbish it away.
Shadrack2, there is no evidence of that judgmental god you seem so scared of, apart from the beliefs of humans like yourself, who use that judgment to their own ends.
Numerous times I have indicated a respect for anyone, even yourself, in that you exercise your choice whether to "believe" or not. I exercise my choice as well. Fair enough?
I am living in denial of such a "god" as yours, and will come to no harm because of my denial....unless an extremist human should take exception.
Perhaps the mods are just tired of the same old, same old. I know I am. Just how many 'atheist v true believer' threads can any one website be expected to bear?
Will Apse, a "quiet rural life" would surely be a good antidote.
Getting stuck in a loop is never fun and I sympathise. Sometimes though, other people deserve a break.
Maybe it's better if we sort of "allow" what is important for the individual...i.e., what each values in his or her life. The atheist allows the theist to choose, unconditionally. And vise versa. The theist allows the atheist to choose. After all, what's the problem? We have learned here of individuals having close friendships across cultures.
In a similar way I am just now reading of the Aboriginal view of life, the ancient stories and their meanings. It's mostly what we grow up with and should not be pushed onto others for whom it does not fit.
Live and let live.
Some kind of automated filter made it impossible to read that post.
lol. But first of all we would we would need human decency.
My theory is that in order to program ethics into AI we necessarily need to analyse the history of ethics and how it evolved in order to ascertain what are the best ethics. My beef with such lunatics as Richard Dawkins and co is that they are trying to trash all ethics and start all over again without any references to religion or philosophy thus removing their own cherished Principle of Evolution from the equation. For a zoologist like Dawkins to do this is crank stupity on a scale seldom seen in the recent history of intellectualism.
This also relates to this current discussion as the said individual has revealed they don't have a clue about ethics anymore due to the odd non evolutionary developments in "new atheism". The new atheism is giving followers a rapid ethical lobotomy.
You might disagree with Richard Dawkins, you are entitled to do that. But to then declare him a "lunatic" just shows how shallow your own mind must be. Sometimes here, Oztinato, you do write some sensible things. But this latest post of yours is very unintelligent and insulting towards a man who is at least able to think beyond the mundane mind of conformity.
Have you even, ever, read his books? Or do you just take a few extracts from journalist and religious fanatics in order to make your judgments? For if they tend to be biased, then your own views are going to be equally biased.
I have predicted that Dawkins will suffer very early and serious mental issues solely due to his attempt to disassociate from ethical evolution. This is a man who a few years back had a casual conversation with Peter Singer about the validity of eating human road kill as long as they weren't relatives: this is in fact an insane conversation between two men who desperately want to be famous first and foremost. The most recent health news about Dawkins is not good and couched in terms of " normal physical illness" of the brain but I suspect the mental deterioration has taken a firm hold. We are dealing with a zoologist who believes he is capable of leading society into an atheist revolution characterised by total religious intolerance which as the English say is "barmy". Psychologists would describe it as megalomania. Hence my derogatory term "insane" is applied to someone in a state of unethical mental illness particularly related to delusions of grandeur, cannibalistic fantasy and dissociation from actual reality.
There are of course garden variety mentally ill people who remain in touch with morality and ethics and such people don't deserve the tag "insane" unless they are "legally insane" by law re a tragic act of say hallucinatory murder etc.
Dawkins on the other hand is akin to "hitler mad" as he has a huge social agenda to attend to marked by megalomania. This separates him from the normal compassion one may have for a truly mentally ill basically innocent unfortunate person.
Hence my argument that Dawkins is truly insane in the very worst possible way.
It is almost important to wax on further about such outstanding and awful hitlerian insanity. What an absolute nut and bad example this zoologist is! How like an evil mullah doth he lead on the young into moral turpitude and stupity in the name of science! What colossal damage to the minds and hearts of the youth of today with just a base greed for fame and money. He has always been suited to characterization as a Mr Hyde or a eternally unrepentant Mr Scrooge without a heart and may one day become such a character but not of fiction but of biography. Such is Mr Dawkins. Spooky and scary like a Hyde.
You would be better writing science fiction. Quite good at the spelling, grammar and punctuation, but such imaginary B/S that fortunately we don't have to believe it.
read the news about Dawkins. There are clear signs of something seriously going wrong. He has only just been rejected by his own kind for continual hate speech and divisiveness. Such trends were started by him and his ilk and we have seen it on HPs for too long.
I'm not making it up as it's being reported in the news by other atheists!!
The "problem" is that the constant baiting between people on each side who will never change their point of view even one iota is tedious.
Look, logically pointing out serious ethical flaws can't be dismissed as baiting. Take a step by step look at the question of this discussion and the totally obvious and correct way HPs has acted to the absolutely relentless anti religious hate practiced by certain unamed individuals. It's as plain as day but apparently can't be understood by certain unamed individuals.
This is a very important issue to very basic ethics; it's a real worry that otherwise intelligent people have such vacancy when it comes to understanding really normal standards. It's actually scary.
Sure it is baiting. Because the hate is going in both directions all the time. Taking part in it in any way is just a vote in favor of pointless hostility
Maybe HP is growing tired of constant divisiveness among its children , I know every time I visit forums I am disappointed in "the usual " buttonholing , biased , nit-picking , I mean what question seriously hasn't been beaten to death by all sides in bias and even outright hatred ? If you enter these forums , questions - eventually , you're apt to get your ego stepped on .
In other words are we promoting a bringing together of our community or a division and why ?
I have asked the moderators to delete or close this forum because of you and your ilk that constantly come around to my content for the express purpose of creating animosity. Please go away.
I do hope you realize that I wasn't talking about you, Alan.
Sorry to take so long replying. A thunderstorm knocked out the local transmitter and we have been without internet for 12 hours.
No problems Austinstar. But I agree that this sort of discussion does tend to bring out irrational discourse sometimes.
Patience is a virtue but some patients ain't virtuous...
I suspect HP Q&A is not long for this world and it would be a good idea to start weaning yourself. Besides, there are virtually no earnings from Q&A, whereas posting the questions in a hub and encouraging flame wars in the comments will still produce a few bucks.
Strangely enough, I make more from the Q&A than I do from my 200+ hubs. So, that is why I hang around there. Traffic to hubs is going down the tubes.
Of course, traffic from hubs are abysmal. That is nothing new at all.
You're riding your gravy train so hard it's in danger of derailing.
So, you are suggesting that i not ask questions? Why don't you just ignore them if they bother you?
Aren't you the Q&A hound who got cyberstalked by another Q&A hound?
I do tend to attract many trolls. My burden to bear, i suppose.
That could explain why your question was moderated, too much naughtiness in the comments and answers.
Nope, the comment was moderated because the original questioner told the moderators that I was "copying" him, which was true, but I asked the same question in reverse. My puzzlement was because they decided to delete my question based on TOU, but they didn't delete his question which would have "violated" the same TOU. Please read the first post in this forum for more information.
You're wondering why you keep getting kicked off Q&A, remember? I've given you a clear logical and honest answer: the Dawkins style divisive hate speech isn't working anymore. It's even turning off atheist moderators. It's passe, finito, a "dead parrot", it's pushing up the daises, defunct, it is no more!
OZ - I WAS NOT KICKED OFF OF Q&A! I'm still there and still kicking. How about yourself?
You are on record saying you often get kicked off Q&A ( or pulled up or frequently moderated etc). It's due to divisive hate speech. Just as Dawkins has been repeatedly reprimanded by other atheists likewise you get reprimanded. It's easy to understand. Still stymied? Whatever?
This is a very revealing discussion and you're stuck with it!
Everyone can see the problem you've created for yourself. It's like watching a person stuck in a tar pit saying "whatever"! )
Not responding to your own discussion can only be seen as self incriminating.
Seen by whom? Nobody cares about the forums. And i certainly don't give a flip about your opinions., oztinHato.
I don't hate you at all. I'm answering your questions to unstymie you and get you to stop doing what you're doing: focussing on a stereotype of religion and being divisive. It's over. The old Dawkins approach is finito.
I'm on record on HP as defender of ethical atheism.
I think anyone who feels the vitriol is only one-sided is displaying their own bias right there. I have seem massively insulting things said here quite frequently to both theists (Christian and sometimes Muslim) and atheists. The answer is not just to try and add more bickering to try and balance it out according your estimate of a fair balance-of-petty-nastiness. The answer is to not post stuff that denigrates what other people may/may not beleive in faith-wise, even if you go through the pretense of phrasing it rhetorically.
by M. T. Dremer3 years ago
Theists/Atheists: Can you compliment the opposite belief system?If you're a theist, what's something positive you could say about atheists? If you're an atheist, what's something positive you could say about theists?...
by Thomas M D Hemsley4 weeks ago
This forum is for anyone here who wishes to debate on the subject of religion and religious beliefs. Outline your position, whether it be theist or atheist, explain why you hold that position, and then people can debate...
by Dwight Phoenix2 years ago
What are the most annoying responses Christians give to questions atheists ask?I'm a christian and I think that it would be helpful in ministry, if Christians new a bit more about how atheists felt about a Christian's...
by Joan King5 years ago
Are all Hub pages related questions moderated before they are posted?Just asked a question related to a HP question and got a message that the question will be moderated before being posted. Is this new? And why?
by Cagsil6 years ago
Hey Staff,I'm sorry, but this is a bit sad. The inconsistency with moderation and flagging of hubs is getting ridiculous.Please teach your moderators what is actually provocative. It is unacceptable that a picture that...
by Bill Russo6 years ago
Have the moderators ever wrongly flagged one of your hubs?They keep picking on one of my hubs and they took away the advertising. I do not even participate in their ad program. I am not writing for money. I...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.