Hot Topics: Atheist Quotes

[DNS]

Initially, it was closed

The 'board' was never closed. This seems to be a common misconception.

I am reading this thread with some amusement at the amount of times this has been said.

This still doesn't make sense to me, though. If I want to start a thread telling jokes about how stupid Nevadans are, and I call it a hot topic, then anybody who wants to defend Nevadans has to do it on another, separate thread so as to not interfere with my Nevadan bashing? Doesn't really seem brilliant to me. Just to be cleaer, I have no actual desire to bash Nevadans. I lived in NV for a year.

Buckwheat,
Please see the terms of service: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Being disruptive, personal attacks, meta-discussion is not allowed)

[Cittasanto]

Hi Buckwheat,
IT WAS NEVER CLOSED

it is underlined (by me now) in the part you quote! I am highlighting it as it has been said a few times.

well have you read this thread yet?
The fact of not being able to argue against something doesn't make sense to me either but obviously the op is obviously seen as being quite specific so complaining about it and not posting within the OP & TOS, alternatives, (considering the amount of Atheists/secular quotes out their I am sure there are some,) is like saying I do not celebrate christmas but I will turn up and accept presents and the food, and basically be a mooch and party pooper at a family get together, pointless.

The 'board' was never closed. This seems to be a common misconception.

I am reading this thread with some amusement at the amount of times this has been said.
isn't their a notice shown upon posting a response telling people that the posts are moderated in the "hot topics" section due to the high possibility of it going off topic?

just one question about the Hot topics section can posters start new threads there or do they have to be moved?
sorry for the off topic Q

Initially, it was closed, and I never got the memo that it was moved because all my posts were off topic. So, I've been a little out of the loop because I haven't been reading these threads.

This still doesn't make sense to me, though. If I want to start a thread telling jokes about how stupid Nevadans are, and I call it a hot topic, then anybody who wants to defend Nevadans has to do it on another, separate thread so as to not interfere with my Nevadan bashing? Doesn't really seem brilliant to me. Just to be cleaer, I have no actual desire to bash Nevadans. I lived in NV for a year.

[Buckwheat]

I tried to post one day, and the thread was locked. Sorry, locked. Maybe that is different than "closed"? That does not matter, it is not my point. Only a statement that through it being temporarily locked I thought it was closed. Doesn't matter, close or not is totally beside the point.

The defense for this thread is to allow open discussion, yet open discussion is not allowed. Just because you say it is allowed does not mean it is allowed, as anybody who dissented had their posts removed. Even a pretty benign post by Kim was removed, while a response to it was allowed to remain. This falls under what I think of as "censorship", but apparently others don't care.

I am now going to ignore any thread with the word atheist in it. Sorry for any confusion or frustration I had a part in.

[Cittasanto]

The posts need approval first, at the end of the day if you want to argue against the quotes why not post quotes of a secular nature which show them as wrong, instead of trying to discuss in a meta-discussion?
I have Christian friends who on occasion say things which are rediculous to me, I don't try to prove them wrong by quoting the Dhammapada, I use the bible, or another christian source to show the error.
BTW I say secular nature as not all of the quotes are atheist quotes some are by non-atheists.

I tried to post one day, and the thread was locked. Sorry, locked. Maybe that is different than "closed"? That does not matter, it is not my point. Only a statement that through it being temporarily locked I thought it was closed. Doesn't matter, close or not is totally beside the point.

The defense for this thread is to allow open discussion, yet open discussion is not allowed. Just because you say it is allowed does not mean it is allowed, as anybody who dissented had their posts removed. Even a pretty benign post by Kim was removed, while a response to it was allowed to remain. This falls under what I think of as "censorship", but apparently others don't care.

I am now going to ignore any thread with the word atheist in it. Sorry for any confusion or frustration I had a part in.

[Polar Bear]

In hindsight I shouldn't have asked what happened to my quotes.

before typing anything on this thread watch this and relax...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gCU5uplB4A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Modus.Ponens]

I don't understand what all the comotion is. There is a topic created by Ñana criticizing atheism. Atheism can be criticized there. And there's a topic for atheist quotes (which is far from "stupid Nevadans" bashing). What is the option? Closing the topic and thus censuring atheist quotes? That doesn't make sense.

[Buckwheat]

I don't understand what all the comotion is. There is a topic created by Ñana criticizing atheism. Atheism can be criticized there. And there's a topic for atheist quotes (which is far from "stupid Nevadans" bashing). What is the option? Closing the topic and thus censuring atheist quotes? That doesn't make sense.

No, I do not want to close the topic. I am an atheist, and that's when I get bothered by other atheists giving my "kind" a bad name. When I attempted fair discussion I was removed by the moderators. I'm not complaining about that, I deserved it because I got angry.

But I would also like to add: Is it possible for someone to believe in God and still be a warm, caring person? Yes, it is. So should we continue making fun of them?

[DNS]

Is it possible for someone to believe in God and still be a warm, caring person? Yes, it is. So should we continue making fun of them?

No one suggested otherwise. Not a single poster suggested that a theist could not be a warm, caring person. The only person even raising the question at all is you.

Offensive posts against theists are not approved. It is a thread for quotes related to non-theism / atheism where some may be humorous, some that may be serious, but are directed at the issue, not a person. Interpretation like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[DNS]

I don't understand what all the comotion is. There is a topic created by Ñana criticizing atheism. Atheism can be criticized there. And there's a topic for atheist quotes (which is far from "stupid Nevadans" bashing). What is the option? Closing the topic and thus censuring atheist quotes? That doesn't make sense.

Thanks for that, I agree. The irony in this whole thing is that those opposed to the atheist quotes thread were claiming censorship, when in fact they want the rest of us censored from posting in that thread.

[Kim OHara]

... The irony in this whole thing is that those opposed to the atheist quotes thread were claiming censorship, when in fact they want the rest of us censored from posting in that thread.

Hi, David,
That's not quite true, IMHO. What I (and others) have objected to is that posts commenting on specific 'atheist quotes' cannot be posted within that same thread in direct response to the quotes. In every other thread on the board (AFAIK), any post can be replied to. If that thread can be permitted to stay open, then (again IMHO) the same should apply.
I replied - politely enough, I thought - to the OP of Atheist quotes and an (ahem) robust discussion ensued but was (as others have noted) closed down - by restricting posts in that thread strictly to quotes - and comments on quotes were removed.
It is a peculiar situation and one which clearly arouses strong feelings. I don't like it but won't let it affect my participation elsewhere on DW or my respect for the mods who do an excellent job and get little enough thanks for it.


Kim

[DNS]

The last sentence of paragraph 2 of the Terms of Service:

This includes the badmouthing of other Buddhist discussion forums, trolling, meta-discussion (i.e. discussion about discussion), unsubstantiated allegations against members, solicitation of funds and proselytizing.

Meta-discussion is not allowed, although it often occurs (as in this thread) and sometimes as necessary we have allowed some, but in general we try to avoid allowing meta-discussions as they seemingly never end (like this one). Sometimes meta-discussion doesn't get reported or it simply remains in some threads because no one has complained about it.

Some threads are meant to be very specific, but that doesn't necessarily negate any discussion as we have seen with this topic as there is this thread and several others discussing the issue of theism, etc.

For example, there is a thread in the lounge called word association game. A post on the significance of the Satipatthana Sutta would obviously be off-topic. That doesn't stop someone from posting on the Satipatthana Sutta elsewhere in another sub-forum.

[Ben]

Dear all,

No doubt the existence of the Atheist Quotes thread is provoking a lot of strong feelings. I ask those who object to the presence of the thread to 'step back' and please re-read David's posts. If the content of the post is not for you then I kindly request that you don't read or participate in it. As I said in a reply to Kim, if there are quotes you wish to respond to - feel free to create another thread that critiques the quotes you take issue with.

Have no doubt that we are listening to your concerns - even if from time to time our decisions may be contrary to your wishes. We (the mod/admin team) will continue to discuss the presence of the Atheist Quotes thread amongst ourselves.
All the best,

Ben

[Buckwheat]

The irony in this whole thing is that those opposed to the atheist quotes thread were claiming censorship, when in fact they want the rest of us censored from posting in that thread.

That is not true. I said several times that I want the thread to remain open. I just don't want to be silenced when commenting on certain quotes being taken out of context. I would also like to encourage those who post to be very careful about crossing lines into wrong speech, which was prevalent in the first run of the thread and still exists to some extent.

...feel free to create another thread that critiques the quotes you take issue with.

Excellent. I now see that this was mentioned before, but like I said, I got cut out of the loop on these threads due to the technicalities of how the thread got removed and edited. I felt like an important voice was shut out, but now I see another method is available. Is it allowable for one to add a post to the atheist quotes thread citing a questionable quote and point to the thread with discussion on the context/accuracy of that quote?

Have no doubt that we are listening to your concerns - even if from time to time our decisions may be contrary to your wishes. We (the mod/admin team) will continue to discuss the presence of the Atheist Quotes thread amongst ourselves.
All the best,

Ben

The moderators are awesome, and generally do a great job. Thanks!!

PS: the "Nevadans" example was not intended as a personal attack. I used to live in Nevada and love it the state. My point was that some of these anti-Christian quotes can seem just as personal and ugly. I don't want to silence anybody, I just want to be able to stand up and say, "Hey, that's kind of rude, dude."

[danieLion]

Why would a Buddhist care one way or another about theology?

[Buckwheat]

For example, there is a thread in the lounge called word association game. A post on the significance of the Satipatthana Sutta would obviously be off-topic. That doesn't stop someone from posting on the Satipatthana Sutta elsewhere in another sub-forum.

That does make sense. However, if one is in the Sattipatthana thread and makes the statement, "Buddha says mindfulness is really developed by drinking whiskey," then it would not be off-topic for another to stand up and call BS.