Experiences On Atheism Forums On The Www

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

Okay, so I wasn't sure what category this fit, and it isn't really a rant, just an observation that I could really use some clarification on.

 

I have been to many, many, many atheistic/ex-religious sites over the years, and I noticed that for the most part, the forums were consistent in the following ways:

 

1. You had to be specific about parameters when asking questions

2. The OP could manipulate the parameters if they were not specified. And only the OP.

3. There were all types of people there (religious and non)

4. Using the term "Newb" or "Noob" was an insult

5. You had to be engaging. Making simple statements like,"Well, that's an interesting assertion." and not bothering to go further since you are obviously asking for more was considered rude, and would have your comment possibly removed.

 

I've found a place that is the opposite. And it's the mods that are the root of it. Now, I don't know if it is good or bad the way they have things set up. It is so foreign to me, I have a hard time dealing with some of it because I am so literal. Still, I am willing to admit I am missing something and it is me, not them. Though my gut screams differently.

 

Example:

 

An OP asks:

Do you believe Jesus existed? Opinions please.

 

Well, for me, no. I state I do not believe he existed persay. I might consider the combination of multiple cult leaders being condensed into a single person, but even the supposed un biblical evidence is not trustworthy or even really should be considered evidence. Bottom line for me is that miracles do not exist, and Jesus did miracles. So, he ain't real. Just my OPINION.

 

I am then informed by the moderator, NOT the OP, that it is foolish to ignore a historical Jesus that Ehrman has pretty much nailed down as existing. Further than that, he says my assertions are interesting.

 

I counter we can't be sure which Joshua they are referring to in Ehrman's books, and frankly there were an awful lot of Joshua's running around Israel. It was a common name. We could pick any Mary in the phone book near where a woman named Mary was crucified and claim it was here. Just not good practice to do what many have done. BUT, it's just my opinion, this is just a light discussion.

 

Mod comes back again, saying it is an interesting ASSUMPTION about the name of Joshua. What's my source?

 

I reply the Bible, just look it up. It's all there. And of course, the MOD deadpans he doesn't really care about whether Jesus was historical or not or the question in general.  He then goes further to say that I cannot even consider the miracle working Jesus as part of the discussion since the OP is talking about the regular NON miracle Jesus.

 

???

 

Okay, I ask him where it says that in the OP. It doesn't. And the mod then says that because it is an atheist forum and there are not any closet theists in the group, it is obvious we are talking about non  magic Jesus.

 

Dammit. What the hell am I missing here????  Seriously, what memo did I miss? I countered technically the OP covers both VERSIONS of Jesus and that the mod has no right to move the goal posts around. And that he had said he doesn't really care anyway, so why bother me about my opinions? He again said because it's an atheist forum, non magic Jesus does not apply. And I feel it does because if you strip away the magic, you aren't talking about Christianity's Jesus anymore at all. And that is not what the OP is about.

 

Of course, then the mod made a post letting all of "Newbs" know that we do not use the magic version of Jesus since we are atheists and do not believe in the supernatural. This is not stated anywhere in the flippin rule books. I had no idea that this is how atheists are supposed to think. Forget the fact he referred to us as Newbs then said that it wasn't being rude AND that because my name wasn't tagged in the statement, it had no inference to me.

 

I like the board, but this mod always seems to go out of his way to rile up arguments, shut them down to his level and parameters under a supposed excuse. Christ, he even had a little rant about how all he saw was a purity test attitude amongst posters in the thread??? Hypocrite much? I don't see any litmus test for atheism being put out there except by him.

 

Still, I wondered if this is really a true line of thought.

 

If you are an atheist, should you automatically not acknowledge any of the magic in the religious doctrine when debating? I don't see the sense in that. Acknowledging is not the same as believing. The magical woo of the Bible seems a major ingredient for Christianity and you cannot just strip it away in your considerations in debate I would think. Further than that, by taking out the miracle workings of Christ, aren't you essentially cherry picking?

[LivingLife]

Full on atheist boards are no different to full on xian boards. The mods tend to set the tone of the board.

 

This is the only place where variations are allowed and folk free to be whatever they are wherever the path they may be on.

 

What my experience was these atheist boards tend to attract dumb and angry atheists.

[florduh]

You're just spoiled by Ex-C!

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

You're just spoiled by Ex-C!

I think you may be right, Florduh! <3

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

Full on atheist boards are no different to full on xian boards. The mods tend to set the tone of the board.

 

This is the only place where variations are allowed and folk free to be whatever they are wherever the path they may be on.

 

What my experience was these atheist boards tend to attract dumb and angry atheists.

 

Man, I was really trying to avoid that conclusion about this board, but I held out hope I was missing something.

 

Let me ask you in regards to my question. Do you think if it is an atheist board and someone asks "Did Jesus Christ ever exist? Opinions." that means automatically because it is an atheist board that the only Jesus to be discussed is the one without miracles?

[LivingLife]

Let me ask you in regards to my question. Do you think if it is an atheist board and someone asks "Did Jesus Christ ever exist? Opinions." that means automatically because it is an atheist board that the only Jesus to be discussed is the one without miracles?

It is a weird topic for an atheist to start.

 

If I wanted to initiate a discussion, I would present two sides of the argument and ask for opinions. The idea that he holds to a Bart Ehrman conclusion of existence means he is not too bright. Bart Ehrman is agnostic but still teaches the bible as that is all he knows. If you have read his stuff, his argument for a historical jesus is left wanting and if he came right out and concluded there was no jesus, no job. You have to connect the dots and pick up the bread crumbs. Atheists are not necessarily going to buy his books. Seekers are.

 

By the time I read his stuff, I had already concluded that jesus probably did not exist and is an invention of man. When so much he did as reported is missed by some of the renowned historians of the time, all of it does not sound right.

 

If you look I have a thread on the 4 pillars of christianity and the Jesus fella is refuted on simple logic as his ancestry is based on fables and myths.

 

The only evidence we have for jesus are the gospels and they do not even harmonise. They had not invented proof readers back then as most folk were illiterate.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

I think I might grab some popcorn.....

 

Okay okay.

 

I think depending on a scholar's methods of research and his sources, and the context for which he puts that information into a conclusion might be what my friend was leaning on in his statement against Ehrman. Personally, I am on the fence with his findings, but that is mostly because, the way I understood it, a lot of his sources from outside the Bible are rather shaky to. Of course, Ehrman admits he can't say for sure, and I admire that a lot. He lends more credibility to the works of Tacitus than I think he should, especially considering a lot of those outside accounts from him and others are no longer existent in original form. We had the same thing with the Bible and look at all the translations and purposeful underhanded rewritings that have occurred. Top that off with the fact the sources he mentions that were made by these guys were fragments. Fragments. Not long works whatsoever. Ehrman would most certainly have a deeper understanding than I in how these outside sources lived, thought, and formed their beliefs, so he might have insight, but concrete evidence one way or the other, he does not have, and he admits as much.

 

Honestly, I still don't understand the reasoning behind discussing the existence of Jesus of the Bible and removing his work and miracles. Just because we don't believe in these things doesn't mean we should cut it from the actual doctrine that the religious love to hit us over the head with.  It is our ammo!

[midniterider]

Okay, so I wasn't sure what category this fit, and it isn't really a rant, just an observation that I could really use some clarification on.

 

I have been to many, many, many atheistic/ex-religious sites over the years, and I noticed that for the most part, the forums were consistent in the following ways:

 

1. You had to be specific about parameters when asking questions

2. The OP could manipulate the parameters if they were not specified. And only the OP.

3. There were all types of people there (religious and non)

4. Using the term "Newb" or "Noob" was an insult

5. You had to be engaging. Making simple statements like,"Well, that's an interesting assertion." and not bothering to go further since you are obviously asking for more was considered rude, and would have your comment possibly removed.

 

I've found a place that is the opposite. And it's the mods that are the root of it. Now, I don't know if it is good or bad the way they have things set up. It is so foreign to me, I have a hard time dealing with some of it because I am so literal. Still, I am willing to admit I am missing something and it is me, not them. Though my gut screams differently.

 

Example:

 

An OP asks:

Do you believe Jesus existed? Opinions please.

 

Well, for me, no. I state I do not believe he existed persay. I might consider the combination of multiple cult leaders being condensed into a single person, but even the supposed un biblical evidence is not trustworthy or even really should be considered evidence. Bottom line for me is that miracles do not exist, and Jesus did miracles. So, he ain't real. Just my OPINION.

 

I am then informed by the moderator, NOT the OP, that it is foolish to ignore a historical Jesus that Ehrman has pretty much nailed down as existing. Further than that, he says my assertions are interesting.

 

I counter we can't be sure which Joshua they are referring to in Ehrman's books, and frankly there were an awful lot of Joshua's running around Israel. It was a common name. We could pick any Mary in the phone book near where a woman named Mary was crucified and claim it was here. Just not good practice to do what many have done. BUT, it's just my opinion, this is just a light discussion.

 

Mod comes back again, saying it is an interesting ASSUMPTION about the name of Joshua. What's my source?

 

I reply the Bible, just look it up. It's all there. And of course, the MOD deadpans he doesn't really care about whether Jesus was historical or not or the question in general.  He then goes further to say that I cannot even consider the miracle working Jesus as part of the discussion since the OP is talking about the regular NON miracle Jesus.

 

???

 

Okay, I ask him where it says that in the OP. It doesn't. And the mod then says that because it is an atheist forum and there are not any closet theists in the group, it is obvious we are talking about non  magic Jesus.

 

Dammit. What the hell am I missing here????  Seriously, what memo did I miss? I countered technically the OP covers both VERSIONS of Jesus and that the mod has no right to move the goal posts around. And that he had said he doesn't really care anyway, so why bother me about my opinions? He again said because it's an atheist forum, non magic Jesus does not apply. And I feel it does because if you strip away the magic, you aren't talking about Christianity's Jesus anymore at all. And that is not what the OP is about.

 

Of course, then the mod made a post letting all of "Newbs" know that we do not use the magic version of Jesus since we are atheists and do not believe in the supernatural. This is not stated anywhere in the flippin rule books. I had no idea that this is how atheists are supposed to think. Forget the fact he referred to us as Newbs then said that it wasn't being rude AND that because my name wasn't tagged in the statement, it had no inference to me.

 

I like the board, but this mod always seems to go out of his way to rile up arguments, shut them down to his level and parameters under a supposed excuse. Christ, he even had a little rant about how all he saw was a purity test attitude amongst posters in the thread??? Hypocrite much? I don't see any litmus test for atheism being put out there except by him.

 

Still, I wondered if this is really a true line of thought.

 

If you are an atheist, should you automatically not acknowledge any of the magic in the religious doctrine when debating? I don't see the sense in that. Acknowledging is not the same as believing. The magical woo of the Bible seems a major ingredient for Christianity and you cannot just strip it away in your considerations in debate I would think. Further than that, by taking out the miracle workings of Christ, aren't you essentially cherry picking?

 

The mod is a noob. Really does anyone under the age of 14 use noob? That's ridiculous. Everyone operates their boards differently. Some are nice , some are dicks.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

I hear you on some atheists feeling it is a defeat for a non divine jesus to have been running around. And I would whole heartedly agree there is a possibility there was a charismatic cult leader back in the day who had a huge fan club. It wasn't uncommon for these types to exist. Still, when discussing existence of Jesus with Christians, they are referring to the magical version, and that is why I kept banging a head on a wall in the conversation because I had never, up until that point, had it intimated that all discussions of Jesus were the non magical version. I really don't feel threatened by his existence. Buddha was based on several folks as I recall. 

 

Now, your comment about ancient history, I have a problem with that, but simply because this time frame of Yeshuhua running around was during a fairly well recorded era.

[kolaida]

I don't know. That mod seems to have a serious issue with life and it's probably not related to his personal beliefs on anything. Some places have people that go out of their way to try to one up you or people that try to sound like they are insanely smart (grammar nazis that belittle people whose spelling might be terrible even though they might have legit reasons for bad spelling- dated a guy with horrible spelling (couldn't even spell alcohol) but the guy could do numbers like a pro).  I don't know, people are just always trying to prove they are smartest and their beliefs are the correct one. That's why I like this site so much, they let you vent and decompress after de-conversions and still look into other beliefs and encourage you to study the facts, etc.  It's a good experience. 

[slave2six]

Hey zomberina - Why are you two timing us by visiting other boards? 

 

Personally, I find there are twits in every camp. When people use their theistic opinions to express themselves and they come across as complete asses, chances are that they are complete asses. Doesn't matter if they are pro or con on the god question.

 

I have pretty much always hung out here because you'll always get the straight dope, you won't be insulted for using your brain, when you make a mistake people don't jump all over your case, and people here are very generous with their time and comments when you are struggling with something. I have seen this community patiently bear with a tremendous amount of idiotic assault by theists and only end up asking people to leave after they have pushed way outside the bounds of propriety. I've also learned a great deal from some pretty smart people here.

 

I guess I'm just saying that if those other boards are harshing your buzz, just come and kick it with us. We love you and have a wonderful plan for your life. Or something like that.

[slave2six]

I hear you on some atheists feeling it is a defeat for a non divine jesus to have been running around. And I would wholeheartedly agree there is a possibility there was a charismatic cult leader back in the day who had a huge fan club. It wasn't uncommon for these types to exist. Still, when discussing existence of Jesus with Christians, they are referring to the magical version, and that is why I kept banging a head on a wall in the conversation because I had never, up until that point, had it intimated that all discussions of Jesus were the non magical version. I really don't feel threatened by his existence. 

 

I think you're right there. Who cares if there was a non-magical guy named Jesus? It's all the mythology surrounding him that makes him important. 

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

 

 

 

Now, your comment about ancient history, I have a problem with that, but simply because this time frame of Yeshuhua running around was during a fairly well recorded era.

 Even if well recorded, those records pose some of the same problems of the Biblical writings. No, or few, *original* documents exist. In fact some of them are have far fewer and less ancient copies than the scriptures. That is where historical scholarship comes in. The same methods that are used on these documents are used on bible texts. Do you know of any historical records from this time that exist in the original form? I've looked up a few and found nothing yet. But I'm not done. :-)

 

Sumerian beer recipes on clay tablets? I understand what you are saying but we didn't deal with fragments from George Washington's day. We even have original writings from the medieval times. There are plenty of cuneiform writings that have been found as well as graffiti from ancient Greece. They didn't always use paper. Pyramids much? My argument is that I think it is irresponsible to glean questionable meanings from documents that are fragmented and only have a couple sentences visible. Especially from sources who have admitted to fraudulently doctoring the gospels. Why not just say we don't know? I would think a negative agreement of his existence is more reasonable than manipulating a positive.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

Hey zomberina - Why are you two timing us by visiting other boards? 

 

Personally, I find there are twits in every camp. When people use their theistic opinions to express themselves and they come across as complete asses, chances are that they are complete asses. Doesn't matter if they are pro or con on the god question.

 

I have pretty much always hung out here because you'll always get the straight dope, you won't be insulted for using your brain, when you make a mistake people don't jump all over your case, and people here are very generous with their time and comments when you are struggling with something. I have seen this community patiently bear with a tremendous amount of idiotic assault by theists and only end up asking people to leave after they have pushed way outside the bounds of propriety. I've also learned a great deal from some pretty smart people here.

 

I guess I'm just saying that if those other boards are harshing your buzz, just come and kick it with us. We love you and have a wonderful plan for your life. Or something like that.

  Aw I love you guys too.  I try to branch out just a tad from here to help settle some folks down that I interact with via other media. Sometimes I notice a friend really picks a fight that doesn't need to be picked all in the name of atheistic showboating. I hate to see people intentionally look up someone and start emotionally assaulting their beliefs. There are many atheists out there who think they are being proactive and are misguided in thinking that if someone is religious they are then to be seen as negative. That behavior is a direct hypocritical move. This group in particular has a lot of issues with refusing to allow theists to join the group. It is so insulated, I don't see how anything positive can come from the isolation and unchallenged ideas and opinions. It results in them preying on one another as you can see in my opening statement.

 

There is a reason I only publish essays on here and wordpress. They would assault my essays just for shits and giggles, not out of a true desire for conversation .

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

 

I hear you on some atheists feeling it is a defeat for a non divine jesus to have been running around. And I would wholeheartedly agree there is a possibility there was a charismatic cult leader back in the day who had a huge fan club. It wasn't uncommon for these types to exist. Still, when discussing existence of Jesus with Christians, they are referring to the magical version, and that is why I kept banging a head on a wall in the conversation because I had never, up until that point, had it intimated that all discussions of Jesus were the non magical version. I really don't feel threatened by his existence. 

 

I think you're right there. Who cares if there was a non-magical guy named Jesus? It's all the mythology surrounding him that makes him important. 

 

That's my view. He IS the mythology that surrounds him. His very powers is what defeats his existence. I understand if they want a "man behind the story" kind of figure to trace it too, but sometimes, that just isn't really there.  Or the records are really lost and we will have to just go with what we definitely know and that is what the Christians go on about in their bibles. Magic and all.

[xliar]

Hey zomberina - Why are you two timing us by visiting other boards? 

 

Personally, I find there are twits in every camp. When people use their theistic opinions to express themselves and they come across as complete asses, chances are that they are complete asses. Doesn't matter if they are pro or con on the god question.

 

I have pretty much always hung out here because you'll always get the straight dope, you won't be insulted for using your brain, when you make a mistake people don't jump all over your case, and people here are very generous with their time and comments when you are struggling with something. I have seen this community patiently bear with a tremendous amount of idiotic assault by theists and only end up asking people to leave after they have pushed way outside the bounds of propriety. I've also learned a great deal from some pretty smart people here.

 

I guess I'm just saying that if those other boards are harshing your buzz, just come and kick it with us. We love you and have a wonderful plan for your life. Or something like that.

I like the way you put that Slave2six. It's only a matter of time before I post something only to wish a day or 2 later I had hit the edit key instead of "send". Ever had one of those  "Oh man, that's not what I meant" days? 

[LivingLife]

*I don't think it is at all a weird topic for atheists to discuss. The question of an " historic" Jesus is a valid one.

 

*I find your thoughts on Bart Ehrman and people who discuss him to be at best misinformed. "Not very bright?" That is insulting. I am familiar with the material on both sides of the question. In fact I have recently been studying this very topic. Bart Ehrman may be an agnostic, but he is not a Christian. The Bible is not "all he knows." He is a well respected historian and scholar. His books are sought out by people who want to know the facts of the history behind Christianity. Christian apologists do not like him. I have read his stuff and find it to be well thought out and balanced. It is also not true that "if there was no Jesus, no job." He started out as a Bible believing Christian and his was deconverted by his own studies. His books actually create atheists. It is obvious you have not read his most recent book on the question of the historic Jesus.

Read my post again. You are simply using more words to state what I did. I said Seekers would buy his books.

 

He is no guru to me and when his material was suggested, his stuff really was not an eye opener. People are idiots if he is their only source of reference and no better than woos that follow certain apologists.

 

If he had to conclude and state that there was no historical Jesus, the classes he teaches would be moot hence the no job reference. I have no idea if he still teaches but when I came across his stuff, it said he was still teaching at some renowned religious university. (That is another thing we do not really have here. Folk here that enter into religious studies do do at contemporary universities or diploma mills)

 

Perhaps this whole internet thing of the need for citations to back up opinion and posts is a framework within what you may operate. I don't. It is just another appeal to authority fallacy. The same goes for Dawkins, Hitchens and folk in the US may be impressed by. All of these characters and whatever they state were long past my deconversion phase. Ehrman was probably a toddler or unknown when others here deconverted.

 

Also, I have never seen their books for sale here as it is not the same as in the USA. Religion here is for the most part very private and personal, we do not have issues with employers regarding your beliefs, that is unique to the USA. We are very much like Europe in that regard and our woos are a small minority that have no influence in politics or education. We have NEVER had a creation vs evolution debate or stuff like your Roe vs. Wade. The dynamics are totally different. Hell even the Atheist SA FB page has very few members.

 

My research spans multiple areas, scholars, historians, commentators.

 

I do not write Wiki articles in my posts so if someone cannot accept what I share from the text presented, I am not going to change my writing style or conclusions to fit a Wiki standard. I use links where appropriate and most of them are links to searches that present all opinions. I expect folk to do further reading for themselves as this is how I did my research.

 

When you realise that Jesus lineage traces back through events/myths that never happened, references people that never existed then it is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach that Jesus is just another fabrication of men with an agenda. If you read the Greek words origins you see clearly what influences prevailed and how beliefs of other cultures influenced what was written. Not even the OT is based on anything original and that which they are based on we do in fact have artefacts that predate the entire bible.

 

I spoke to leading Rabbis and leading apologists via email before I got active on forums. These conversations sometimes spanned weeks and were full of suggestion sand links to their sources.

 

Speaking to Jews, I also came to the conclusion they believed in an rebel Rabbi and denounced as a messiah but all of it was hearsay. All of their assertions were based on current understanding and tradition, none of them really know what happened as what they know of Jesus comes mostly from the xian bible. They are not too bright with their own texts either and they for the most part are more intelligent than your average woo.

 

You name it, I have examined it.

[LivingLife]

You claim people who use appeals to authority are idiots, yet you also use appeals to authority. You seem to suggest others are close minded, yet you appear to be extremely close minded. You use ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with the issue. I don't see anything but personal opinion in what you have written. The culture of the US is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

You know nothing about me, including how old I am, and how many years or how many sources I've studied. I don't see any reason to bow to the power of your superior intellect.

Wow you do infer a lot and take offence at stuff not aimed at you personally, why is that?

 

I think you should actually read what I post. The idiot here was the moderator of the forum, not you. You chose to take offence where none is intended. It is the way I write.

 

You debate like so many theists that conclude stuff that was never written in a discussion or post. I hoped to clarify my position and yes what happens in SA does in fact make a difference to my world view. We do not have to deal with subterfuge like you folk do in the US where everything is blurred.

 

Perhaps you need to take a chill pill or go for a walk. I am not here to appease your sensibilities.

[LivingLife]

I replied to Zomberina's question, you initiated the discussion with me taking offence to my reply to her. Believe me, as special as you may think you are, prior to this engagement I was not even aware of your existence here on the board.

 

Who the fuck are you anyway? If I had replied to you initially, you may have a case but you do not.

 

You want to pursue this drivel be my guest, I give as good as I get.

 

Best find another outlet for your frustration as this is the last I have to say to you.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

I don't know. That mod seems to have a serious issue with life and it's probably not related to his personal beliefs on anything. Some places have people that go out of their way to try to one up you or people that try to sound like they are insanely smart (grammar nazis that belittle people whose spelling might be terrible even though they might have legit reasons for bad spelling- dated a guy with horrible spelling (couldn't even spell alcohol) but the guy could do numbers like a pro).  I don't know, people are just always trying to prove they are smartest and their beliefs are the correct one. That's why I like this site so much, they let you vent and decompress after de-conversions and still look into other beliefs and encourage you to study the facts, etc.  It's a good experience. 

I came under that impression as well. Honestly, his comment tones come across almost Reddit like. I think as others have said, it isn't my imagination, he was coming across as a hypocritical dick about the standards of their board and how he wields his mod hammer. You can just detect the personal bias on the page and while I understand folks have the right to run forums as they see fit, you can hardly claim it is open to all opinion when you blatantly twist every post that is opened to fit your argument as a mod. It borderlines cherry picking you know? An simple 6 worded scripture turns into 3 hours of meaning that isn't obviously there. This guy does the same thing with questions asked.  Ah well. I probably will not bother raising my voice there anymore. It's frustrating because there are others there who start to understand a calmer and more reasonable approach and he always takes over the conversation and distracts from an uninsulated view.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

I want to remind participants on this thread that we aren't really discussing the merits of Ehrman or other's work in favor or not for a historical Jesus. This is about mod manipulation of discussion boards and the perception that if on an atheist forum, and discussing deities, should it be understood that supernatural attributes are automatically left out of the conversation simply because it is an atheist forum.

 

**Not trying to be a kill joy here, but I know there are plenty of conversations on Ehrman and Jesus in the Lion's Den and such.**

 

--Well, that and I like to see everyone get along to some degree (though I'm not a good example for that either LOL!)--

[kolaida]

 

I don't know. That mod seems to have a serious issue with life and it's probably not related to his personal beliefs on anything. Some places have people that go out of their way to try to one up you or people that try to sound like they are insanely smart (grammar nazis that belittle people whose spelling might be terrible even though they might have legit reasons for bad spelling- dated a guy with horrible spelling (couldn't even spell alcohol) but the guy could do numbers like a pro).  I don't know, people are just always trying to prove they are smartest and their beliefs are the correct one. That's why I like this site so much, they let you vent and decompress after de-conversions and still look into other beliefs and encourage you to study the facts, etc.  It's a good experience. 

I came under that impression as well. Honestly, his comment tones come across almost Reddit like. I think as others have said, it isn't my imagination, he was coming across as a hypocritical dick about the standards of their board and how he wields his mod hammer. You can just detect the personal bias on the page and while I understand folks have the right to run forums as they see fit, you can hardly claim it is open to all opinion when you blatantly twist every post that is opened to fit your argument as a mod. It borderlines cherry picking you know? An simple 6 worded scripture turns into 3 hours of meaning that isn't obviously there. This guy does the same thing with questions asked.  Ah well. I probably will not bother raising my voice there anymore. It's frustrating because there are others there who start to understand a calmer and more reasonable approach and he always takes over the conversation and distracts from an uninsulated view.

 

 

He is coming across like a total dick. Sometimes I think "mod-power" goes to people's heads.  It's not a job I particularly want (least never thought on it, honestly), so I can respect that some people are into that but, at the same time, I believe there are some people who should just never be handed the mod-wand. And this guy sounds like one of them.  

 

 

 

I want to remind participants on this thread that we aren't really discussing the merits of Ehrman or other's work in favor or not for a historical Jesus. This is about mod manipulation of discussion boards and the perception that if on an atheist forum, and discussing deities, should it be understood that supernatural attributes are automatically left out of the conversation simply because it is an atheist forum.

 

**Not trying to be a kill joy here, but I know there are plenty of conversations on Ehrman and Jesus in the Lion's Den and such.**

 

--Well, that and I like to see everyone get along to some degree (though I'm not a good example for that either LOL!)--

 

This is confusing for me, too. So on atheists boards if Jesus is brought up, you are too assume it's the non-miracle Jesus when Jesus' historicity is still in question.  Plus what you said made sense, anyway, he did miracles and you don't believe in those so no. Maybe the word miracle is just a horrible trigger for some people? Or maybe he just flagged you a a hidden Christian since you used the word "miracle" (even though you blatantly denied Christ lol). Honestly, I just think he likes to look smarter and thought he had a good opportunity with you, he is just hung up on it (which I guess may or may not be better than being hung up on a guy or a girl, lol!). 

 

Hmm, but I guess on atheist forums, it'd be best to assume Jesus= non-miracle Jesus.  I guess it's good to know especially if you used to believe it, after all, miracles are pretty much the reason Jesus was considered who he was in the Bible. 

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

 

Hmm, but I guess on atheist forums, it'd be best to assume Jesus= non-miracle Jesus.  I guess it's good to know especially if you used to believe it, after all, miracles are pretty much the reason Jesus was considered who he was in the Bible. 

 

And that for me is the crux. I already think "Why bother" when discussing regular Magic Jesus (sounds like a fucked up barbie doll convo here ahhaha!), but if we are talking about him, by removing the "magic" we are not speaking on Christianity any longer. I just don't get it.