PDA

View Full Version : The atheist syndicate



Spartacus
April 10th, 2010, 07:24 AM
In looking at the religion forum -- am I the only one to notice that the threads rated the highest are all anti-theist or appear to be critical of Christianity?

Yet atheists still wonder why Theists ignore many of their "highly rated" threads even when those threads achieve a high rating with perhaps only one or two replies from other atheists.:idiot2:

A bit like peeing on someone's back and telling them it's raining, eh?

Such an application of the rating system makes it meaningless.

SharmaK
April 10th, 2010, 07:41 AM
In looking at the religion forum -- am I the only one to notice that the threads rated the highest are all anti-theist or appear to be critical of Christianity?



This is a debate site so those threads that rate highly are going to be those that are compelling to read. It's not interesting to read an argument on the merits of punctuated vs gradual evolution. We wanted to be educated, challenged and want to see drama and blood.

The reason why atheists swarm around Christians is because it's rare to have a debate about religion so when someone sticks their neck out for religion we all want to try out our arguments. The reason why a majority of the debates are about Christianity is that there really isn't much representation from other religions.

Personally, I wish there were more religious groups here but i get the sense that debate isn't the highest priority there.

Spartacus
April 10th, 2010, 07:45 AM
[QUOTE=SharmaK;431004]

Is it a conscious scheme or is ODN's religion forum a substitute for religion for the atheists?

sonofnietzsche
April 10th, 2010, 07:51 AM
Yet atheists still wonder why Theists ignore many of their "highly rated" threads even when those threads achieve a high rating with perhaps only one or two replies from other atheists.:idiot2:

Well, that certainly isn't the norm...

Current stats for five-star threads on the first two pages:

206 Replies: If the Christian God actually exists, then why are there so many non-believers?

135 Replies: Has God Done Everything in His Power to Convince Unbelievers?

98 Replies: Assuming God exists, religious pluralism is the only logical option

66 Replies: Faith: Faith is Evil

60 Replies: The difference between questioning religion and attacking religion.

48 Replies: Christianity: Justification for Opposing Human Rights Abuse?

47 Replies: Christianity: The Easter Challenge

34 Replies: Religious exclusivism and cultural mixing

30 Replies: Telling Between God and Satan--Easy or Not-So-Easy?

23 Replies: DEAR JESUS: Please come back - so we can crucify you again.

9 Replies: Is religion entitled to special treatment?

7 Replies: If God tested you as he tested Abraham, how would you respond?

4 Replies: Christianity: The Ungodliness of Yahweh, as Proved by the Idea of a First Creation

Dionysus
April 10th, 2010, 08:09 AM
Wait...

Are you saying that it's absurd to take a rating system seriously when the only people who appear to give the positive ratings are the people who have a vested and biased interest in doing so???


:lol:

SharmaK
April 10th, 2010, 08:54 AM
None of that addresses how or why anti-theist threads seem to automatically get high marks from atheists.

Is it a conscious scheme or is ODN's religion forum a substitute for religion for the atheists?

I don't really vote so I don't know if it's reflexive or collusional or anything other than what it represents: there are more atheists here, they have stronger arguments and generally outlast religious folk in discussions.

I like religious arguments and debates because the world is still largely religious and I want to understand it. If it seems anti religious sometimes it's because when there are injustices whose roots are in religious texts from the medieval times and earlier, it must be challenged. When homosexuality is declared to be immoral, it doesn't make sense coming from a group who hides paedophiles or destroys condoms or who, only several decades ago, condemned pre-marital sex and divorce.

This kind of thinking is wrong and immoral and is not based in fact nor science. It needs to be challenged because unlike astrology or numerology, religion actually does a great deal of harm to other people. So it's not conspiracy you are seeing, it is the desire to change the world for the better.

The Great Khan
April 10th, 2010, 08:55 AM
In looking at the religion forum -- am I the only one to notice that the threads rated the highest are all anti-theist or appear to be critical of Christianity?

There's nothing stopping you from rating Christian threads highly, or rating atheist threads lowly if you so wish.


Yet atheists still wonder why Theists ignore many of their "highly rated" threads even when those threads achieve a high rating with perhaps only one or two replies from other atheists.:idiot2:

Simply because a thread is highly rated doesn't mean its good. Atheists don't rate threads highly because theists will read them, they rate them highly because they like them; that's why people rate things. It's this central concept that all rating based concepts are based.


Such an application of the rating system makes it meaningless.

On the contrary, rating threads highly or lowly because you like or dislike their content is precisely the purpose of rating.

Sigfried
April 10th, 2010, 09:48 AM
I gave this thread 5 stars for you :)

I've never rated a thread before, I forget there is such a thing. I just read whatever is new.

Its not surprising that non-Theists find non-Theist arguments to be stronger than Theist arguments is it?

That said I can think of perhaps 3 good Theist debaters (on the topic of religion) and quite a few more non-Theist debaters here. The theists are just badly out numbered on ODN in the religion forum. You and Apok are some of the only folks that make good theist OPs and often they are on topics that non-Theists are less likely to read since they are inter religious discussions.

Its just a stacked deck Spart.

Rogue Cardinal
April 10th, 2010, 10:40 AM
Let me get my fiddle out and start playing "Salt in My Tears".

Are you kidding Spart? I can't understand why you would give two scoops of poop about what a thread is rated. Much less whine about it.

I do not understand why you find it so shocking that Atheist would rep an Atheist spun thread. I wonder though if we can see if Theist have rated those threads also? I don't know it's not a system I do anything with.

Given that in the religion area MOST threads appear to be started by Atheists or nonChristians....it's no surprise that they get rated more often.

Perhaps theists should put more stuff out there. If it is honest and though provoking I'd gladly rate it. If it same old same old stuff that we usually get....I can't rate that stuff.

Allocutus
April 10th, 2010, 06:36 PM
None of that addresses how or why anti-theist threads seem to automatically get high marks from atheists.

Is it a conscious scheme or is ODN's religion forum a substitute for religion for the atheists?

Are you talking about thread rating or about reputation? If the former (and it seems like that's what you refer to) then how do you know it's atheists who give those posts high ranking? I didn't know there's a way to check who ranked a thread. Am I missing something?

Spartacus
April 10th, 2010, 10:23 PM
Are you talking about thread rating or about reputation? If the former (and it seems like that's what you refer to) then how do you know it's atheists who give those posts high ranking? I didn't know there's a way to check who ranked a thread. Am I missing something?

When a thread has only two, three or four posts -- all from atheists -- and already has a five star rating, it seems pretty obvious what is going on.

Can't we adopt a standard for rating threads? Many of the anti-theist threads here, IMO, are written from a very tainted and shallow understanding of Christian theology and beliefs.

I have argued, and still would like to see, the "Religion" forum broken out between "faith" and "religion". They are two separate but related things, and for the most part atheist generated OPs deal with matters of "faith" and not religion. I understand I hold the minority opinion on this issue and accept that.

It would be nice if we had some standards we used for rating threads. Under the current system as it is applied in the religion forum -- it's pretty useless, and serves only as yet another way atheists can re-enforce their belief in their own supposed intellectual superiority.

---------- Post added at 01:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 AM ----------




I do not understand why you find it so shocking that Atheist would rep an Atheist spun thread.

I'm not shocked.

I started this thread as a way of making people aware of it, in the hopes that atheists in the future might be more judicious and humble. Frankly, the current state is not good form.

Allocutus
April 10th, 2010, 11:15 PM
When a thread has only two, three or four posts -- all from atheists -- and already has a five star rating, it seems pretty obvious what is going on.


Ok, let's accept that as a reasonable basis for an inference......So what's the problem? Somebody starts an OP and a discussion begins. Somebody who has similar views to the OP and/or to those who take part in the discussion sees the discussion as worthy of praise; and gives the thread a positive ranking.


Can't we adopt a standard for rating threads? Many of the anti-theist threads here, IMO, are written from a very tainted and shallow understanding of Christian theology and beliefs.

Like, "one must not rank a thread if it happens to refect his own views"?


I have argued, and still would like to see, the "Religion" forum broken out between "faith" and "religion". They are two separate but related things, and for the most part atheist generated OPs deal with matters of "faith" and not religion. I understand I hold the minority opinion on this issue and accept that.

I don't think that would matter. It would only confuse a lot of people. People would still use the two interchangably (the two concepts are very very closely related indeed) and I can't really see mods working furiously to resolve whether a thread started in Religion should be move to Faith or vice-versa. I might be wrong on that.

All that said, at the moment there's only Religion; there's no forum called "Faith". Hence, those threads that would presumably under your proposal go into Faith, end up in Religion instead. What's the harm done?



It would be nice if we had some standards we used for rating threads. Under the current system as it is applied in the religion forum -- it's pretty useless, and serves only as yet another way atheists can re-enforce their belief in their own supposed intellectual superiority.

What beliefs? What superiority? The fact that an atheist (assuming your inference above is correct) happens to rank a thread started by an atheist has nothing to do with atheists allegedly believing that they are intellectually superior.

nb. I've never ever ranked a thread on ODN. I see the feature is not having much use at all and can't see for the life of me what the big deal is.

Rogue Cardinal
April 11th, 2010, 04:48 AM
I'm not shocked.

I started this thread as a way of making people aware of it, in the hopes that atheists in the future might be more judicious and humble. Frankly, the current state is not good form.
As I stated earlier....with the exception of you....there is not much being put up by theists. One cannot rate that which does not exist.

At the moment you are the SOLE candidate on my list of Christians to rate cause you appear to be the only guy putting stuff out there. I'm just waiting for something to rate that I think is worthy of a rating. Ratings=opinions. You can't get bent about opinions. We all have them.

Sometimes they line up and sometimes they don't. What do you expect?

Perhaps it's just me but this thread comes off as a bit whiny....I hope that wasn't your intent.

Spartacus
April 11th, 2010, 07:11 AM
Perhaps it's just me but this thread comes off as a bit whiny....I hope that wasn't your intent.

No my intention was to make others aware of it.

CliveStaples
April 11th, 2010, 08:31 AM
In looking at the religion forum -- am I the only one to notice that the threads rated the highest are all anti-theist or appear to be critical of Christianity?

Yet atheists still wonder why Theists ignore many of their "highly rated" threads even when those threads achieve a high rating with perhaps only one or two replies from other atheists.:idiot2:

A bit like peeing on someone's back and telling them it's raining, eh?

Such an application of the rating system makes it meaningless.

Atheists presumably wonder why atheists ignore "highly rated" threads not simply because the threads are highly rated, but because these atheists believe the threads raise important points about theism.



But, Christian to Christian, there's really no reason to care about it. All it shows is that the atheists disagree with the theists, and are more active about making threads and rating them.

I'm wondering whether you think that debate with atheists on ODN actually tends to be productive. In my experience, it isn't. I'm a fairly logically-minded person, and after proving Khan wrong in the strictest sense of "prove" and "wrong", he simply reiterated his argument.

Not that this is a knock on atheists. I assume that, were I an atheist, I would run into theists doing the same.

But most people don't come into a debate willing to be explicit about the assumptions they're making (if they're even able to identify them), or with any sort of humility about the various disciplines they invoke--whether exegetical, linguistic, scientific, mathematic, etc.

So debates tend to be an exercise in circular reasoning: By making assumptions friendly (hostile) toward Christianity, you can arrive at a conclusion friendly (hostile) toward Christianity. But that's just my $0.02.


Take the rating system for what it is: an expression about the quality of the thread from the people who have rated it. Don't confuse this rating with the actual quality of the thread.

Allocutus
April 11th, 2010, 08:34 AM
Atheists presumably wonder why atheists ignore "highly rated" threads not simply because the threads are highly rated, but because these atheists believe the threads raise important points about theism.



But, Christian to Christian, there's really no reason to care about it. All it shows is that the atheists disagree with the theists, and are more active about making threads and rating them.

I'm wondering whether you think that debate with atheists on ODN actually tends to be productive. In my experience, it isn't. I'm a fairly logically-minded person, and after proving Khan wrong in the strictest sense of "prove" and "wrong", he simply reiterated his argument.
Not that this is a knock on atheists. I assume that, were I an atheist, I would run into theists doing the same.

But most people don't come into a debate willing to be explicit about the assumptions they're making (if they're even able to identify them), or with any sort of humility about the various disciplines they invoke--whether exegetical, linguistic, scientific, mathematic, etc.

So debates tend to be an exercise in circular reasoning: By making assumptions friendly (hostile) toward Christianity, you can arrive at a conclusion friendly (hostile) toward Christianity. But that's just my $0.02.


Take the rating system for what it is: an expression about the quality of the thread from the people who have rated it. Don't confuse this rating with the actual quality of the thread.

Regarding the bolded portion of your above statement, please allow me to point out to you that Khan is not an atheist. He's very much a theist. Thus, if you insist on calling out a member, you might be well advised to choose a more appropriate example.

CliveStaples
April 11th, 2010, 08:40 AM
Regarding the bolded portion of your above statement, please allow me to point out to you that Khan is not an atheist. He's very much a theist. Thus, if you insist on calling out a member, you might be well advised to choose a more appropriate example.

Ah, that's a good point.

But my error was simply in designating Khan as an atheist. My point was about religious debates on ODN generally.

I could just as easily have pointed out a debate with you wherein I showed that you had knowingly made a false claim, which I describe as a lie, and you conceded the point, but refused to withdraw the claim.

The point is about how people approach debates on ODN.

Allocutus
April 11th, 2010, 09:44 AM
Ah, that's a good point.

But my error was simply in designating Khan as an atheist. My point was about religious debates on ODN generally.

I could just as easily have pointed out a debate with you wherein I showed that you had knowingly made a false claim, which I describe as a lie, and you conceded the point, but refused to withdraw the claim.

The point is about how people approach debates on ODN.

Please point me to whatever debate you're referring to.

Consider this a formal challenge.

Some help...you will need to demonstrate the following:

1. That I made a claim

2. That the claim was incorrect

3. That I knew the claim was incorrect at the time of it being made

4. That I conceded the point

5. That I continued to make the claim

I look forward to your reply.

littlestrides
April 12th, 2010, 06:45 PM
I don't really vote so I don't know if it's reflexive or collusional or anything other than what it represents: there are more atheists here, they have stronger arguments and generally outlast religious folk in discussions.

I like religious arguments and debates because the world is still largely religious and I want to understand it. If it seems anti religious sometimes it's because when there are injustices whose roots are in religious texts from the medieval times and earlier, it must be challenged. When homosexuality is declared to be immoral, it doesn't make sense coming from a group who hides paedophiles or destroys condoms or who, only several decades ago, condemned pre-marital sex and divorce.

This kind of thinking is wrong and immoral and is not based in fact nor science. It needs to be challenged because unlike astrology or numerology, religion actually does a great deal of harm to other people. So it's not conspiracy you are seeing, it is the desire to change the world for the better.


Many a Roman and Greek lost their heads over astrology and numerology. Not to mention dream interpretation.

MrFungus420
April 12th, 2010, 06:53 PM
In looking at the religion forum -- am I the only one to notice that the threads rated the highest are all anti-theist or appear to be critical of Christianity?

Threads are rated?

Aspoestertjie
April 21st, 2010, 04:20 AM
Warning: Everybody in this thread needs to cool down. Attack the argument and not the person.

CC
April 21st, 2010, 07:26 AM
I never rate threads.