What is Digg?18 Comments
- rivalarrival, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18To expand a bit: The group was VERY young - not even a week old, I believe. The owner was a popular individual in the Atheist/Agnostic group. He was practically the last person to know about his new group: many of his friends joined immediately after it popped up on the radar.
When he showed up, he set up rules, set up mods (I was a mod) and we discussed how the group should operate. The group was NOT going to ban anyone, which was a common problem for Atheists trying to discuss Christianity in Christian forums. We were tasked with keeping the group accessible to Atheists and Christians alike.
Some of the earliest posts were actually quite offensive - as soon as we had our mod privileges, those posts were immediately hidden. We quickly made it known that we would NOT tolerate blatant assaults on Christianity or on Christians. The group quickly shaped up - the riffraff was weeded out, and we had just started recruiting Christians, when the group owner let us know about the pending deletion.
Our efforts to discuss the issue with an SU staff member lead nowhere. We attempted to discuss the issue in SU's core forums; the posts were IMMEDIATELY hidden, and the Stumblers were instructed to NOT bring them up again.
We shifted to various "private" groups (Atheist/Agnostic, Free-Speech) and did an end-run around Stumble here at Digg and TheJesusMyth.com.
To sum it up, Atheists are mad because we are apparently not even allowed to discuss Christianity with Christians. We're called ignorant - we're told that we just don't understand Christianity. We're called heathens for actively rejecting its tenets. We're called blasphemers for denying God's Existence, yet when Christians are given the opportunity to rationally discuss the issue with an Atheist, WE get banned from their groups. OUR groups are recommended for deletion. As long as we stay within our own little Atheist Bubble, our existence is tolerated.
I've been a member of the Atheist/Agnostic group at Stumble for over a year now. Many (Most?) of its "core" members have been banned, at least once, from a Christian group, for little more than questioning God's Existence. In that same time, I can't think of ANY Christians who were banned from Atheist/Agnostic. I believe one person was banned for spamming, and another was banned for repeated, abusive behavior. To my knowledge, nobody has been banned for stating and arguing their beliefs. - edgeoforever, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Oppressing poow wittle Christians again, huh?
http://i1.photoblog.com/photos/16929-1175115395-18-l.jpg - Slackerboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8This is typical of most Christian groups, they can't stand to listen to any other point of view. Other religions get treated much the same as we do.
The funny thing is the Christians I know all tell me that this kind of thing is the exception and not the rule. Just goes to show how blind they are. - OneHine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@polygone
Quite. Why is it OK to claim that scientists are all dishonest charlatans, homosexuals are horrible abominations, and that anyone who disagrees with them deserves to be tortured for the terrible crime of disagreeing but not OK to disagree or actually ask for evidence? Why is the former perfectly acceptable behavior demonstrating Christian love and the latter an "attack" from "militant atheists"? Why is it that the people making unsupported claims are given a free pass and the people who simply criticize these unsupported claims called unreasonable? Shouldn't it be the other way around, no matter what your own religious beliefs are? - polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3ohhh but they're 'always open for debate'.......maybe open to debating which cookie tastes better or the cuteness of kittens, but certainly not their faith. That is 'attacking' them.
- rivalarrival, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ecowarrier: The group WAS oriented around Christianity. Just because the Owner was an Atheist does NOT mean it was to be focused on Atheist Issues. I was a moderator, and I hid several posts that I personally found to be reasonable and just, but they would have been deemed quite offensive to Christians.
As I said before, the ONLY reason the group had a primarily Atheist contingent was its age - Word of Mouth had ONLY gotten out to the owner's immediate friends. It was intended to be a SAFE place for anyone (i.e. nobody would get banned or asked to leave just over a disagreement on how to believe). A group with a strong Christian focus that also encourages Atheist discussion is conspicuously lacking on SU. This was to be that group. - Sherman1970, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Last year the university I work at allowed an anti choice group to set up shop outside of the campus library. I went to their little "educational demonstration" to hear what they had to say and I can honestly report to all of you that I have never heard so many calls for jailing and executing abortion providers, not just the physicians but also anyone who worked at a woman's reproductive clinic. I got into a conversation with one of them and asked "Then by your logic you should jail and execute the woman who had the procedure done as well. Do you advocate this?" The response? "Of course! She is guilty of helping to murder a defenseless child!"
silverchyrsalis, I don't doubt that you or your friends and acquaintances are not this type of christian, but I do think that the thoughtful, reflective, respectful of others belief kind of Christian is in the minority. They are most definitely the exception, not the rule. In states like Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, etc. your credentials as a Christian would be put into question if you didn't openly advocate forced, violent conversion of those "not washed in the blood". I have heard too many people make a comment, well before Ann Coulter said it, that "we should go over there (where over there is to these people is usually anywhere outside of the continental U.S.), kill their leaders, and make em Christians!" I am afraid logical discussion and rational discourse with these religious zealots, who so far shout down any other kind of Christian, are in their ascendancy, not the opposite. - silverchrysalis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i don't know a single Christian who believes people deserve to be tortured for not having the same belief system. that's ridiculous.
on the internet i have run into basically two kinds of Christians: the diehard dumb ones who are self-righteous and refuse to think and tend to judge others very rapidly and smack people upside the head with Scripture, AND the intelligent, quiet ones who prefer to discuss things intellectually and calmly. guess which ones make all the trouble? i know many more who are loving and humble people, but they don't scream their faith from a rooftop so sometimes you guys don't even know who you're bashing.
if you want an insight into what Christianity should be, without any political or moral gobbledy gook, try c.s. lewis or ravi zacharias. - Ecowarrior, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So did anyone come out and ask why the hell an atheist group had a name like "Holy Trinity"?
believe me I'm no christian but when I see a group named "Holy Trinity" I'm expecting to find a christian oriented group.
Did anyone suggest renaming the group something a little more descriptive? “atheists & christians” perhaps? - Gaalsien, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Meh, plenty more religious discussions in the internet sea. Their attempts to cover it up by banning it's discussion is what gets me.
- RockSlice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Quoted from the image on the first page of the thread (discription of group):
"God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons. The Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit. Those who believe in The Trinity and those want to know more, are most welcome."
Quoted from second page (Vortexfugue):
"Nowhere in the rules, or even in the group synopsis was it mentioned that this group takes as premise the beliefs from Christianity about the Trinity. In fact, it takes as its premise that the Trinity is a religious topic of discussion from all angles and all beliefs or lack of."
How do you claim this? The synopsis clearly explains it is a group for people who a)believe in the Trinity, and b) want to learn more about it. By having this synopsis on a group intended to promote discussion between Atheists and Christians, you are misleading them completely.
My suggestion: if you really want civil discussion, make it clear in your group name and synopsis what the group is. - bomani2k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Christians don't have the sole claim or use of the concept of "Holy Trinity". The only thing deception would be self deception (xtains) thinking they have the only religion who had a savior born of a virgin, word was made flesh, Died for their sins, walked on water, has father...son...holy spirit, fed the multitude, walked on water, rose the dead, rose FROM the dead, ascended to heaven, tempted by "satan", healed the blind....
- RockSlice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not criticizing the content of the group (which I applaud), merely the description, which seems to be at odds with the content.
I'll admit that the description could be interpreted to be inviting non-believers as well.
However, I don't think that you can argue that the sentence "God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons. The Father, the Son, & the Holy Spirit" isn't phrased as a statement of fact.
When making any group designed for both Atheists and Christians, you have to be careful not to appear to be luring Christians (or Atheists) in on false pretenses.
I do think that action was needed, but I believe that the action taken was too severe. A request to have the group renamed and description changed would have been more in order.
BTW, is there a replacement group? - rivalarrival, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Rockslice:
We're mostly on the same page then...
I agree, the description could have been a little less specific. As far as the name, as soon as you attach "Atheist" or "Debate" to a group, you alienate the moderate people we were looking to include.
The Christian Fundamentalists and the Militant Atheists have created a paradoxical situation. Both agree that there is no middle ground between them. (wait a minute, we agree on something? I thought there was no common ground! My brain hurts)
Anyway, the only reasonable solution I can see is in the moderates. But the moderate position is both guarded and guided by the fundamental and militant positions. Christians are taught that Atheists are (at best) misguided people who need to be brought to Jesus, or (at worst) willing agents of Satan, sent to destroy and enslave humanity. Put "Atheist" into the title or description, and you might as well call the group "Club Baby Seals for Jesus" because you're not going to find Christian Moderates populating it.
Put "Debate" into the title, and we run into something referred to as SerialSinner's Hypothesis. Basically, it's a template that describes how a debate between a Theist and an Atheist is going to evolve, and it is surprisingly accurate. Both parties go for broke, and attempt to demonstrate beyond ANY doubt that their position is the ONLY correct position. The Theist invariably "loses" this debate, because the rules of the debate follow the rules of Logic, and "Faith" is contraindicated in a debate dominated by pure logic.
I don't know, maybe it's an impossible situation. We'll find out soon enough, I am sure. :)
Follow the discussion in the A/A group for the earliest updates, although they will propagate quickly. - girojupiter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0This is obviously a topic of discussion that invites people to discuss the holy trinity. It provides a definition for what is going to be discussed and even provides an invitation to those seeking to pursue their interest in the topic. I don't see why anything has to be specified other then a common interest in philosophical and religious discussion. Maybe you should get off your high horse and stop assuming that this group is out to get Christians. Not being able to defend ones own beliefs is one thing but then attempting to halt civilized discussion on the basis that it doesn't specify who it wants to incorporate into the group is simply barbaric. Not singling out people based on their beliefs is the basis for diversity and equality of opinion. Grow some testicles and accept your defeat at the hands of a person who doesn't even care about the Christian faith or the atheist struggle. i only wanted to show how stupid your position is and i think i have done that.
- polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"i don't know a single Christian who believes people deserve to be tortured for not having the same belief system. that's ridiculous."
Hell is eternal torture. The only unforgivable sin is denying the holy spirit. Most Christians I have witnessed believe in hell and damnation.
In short, if you don't believe you go to hell.
If you want a good insight into Christianity....read the bible. - Sherman1970, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Last year the university I work at allowed an anti choice group to set up shop outside of the campus library. I went to their little "educational demonstration" to hear what they had to say and I can honestly report to all of you that I have never heard so many calls for jailing and executing abortion providers, not just the physicians but also anyone who worked at a woman's reproductive clinic. I got into a conversation with one of them and asked "Then by your logic you should jail and execute the woman who had the procedure done as well. Do you advocate this?" The response? "Of course! She is guilty of helping to murder a defenseless child!"
silverchyrsalis, I don't doubt that you or your friends and acquaintances are not this type of christian, but I do think that the thoughtful, reflective, respectful of others belief kind of Christian is in the minority. They are most definitely the exception, not the rule. In states like Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, etc. your credentials as a Christian would be put into question if you didn't openly advocate forced, violent conversion of those "not washed in the blood". I have heard too many people make a comment, well before Ann Coulter said it, that "we should go over there (where over there is to these people is usually anywhere outside of the continental U.S.), kill their leaders, and make em Christians!" I am afraid logical discussion and rational discourse with these religious zealots, who so far shout down any other kind of Christian, is not possible. Unfortunately they are in their ascendancy, not the opposite. - rivalarrival, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0RockSlice:
The description invited two types of people
1. Believers
2. Non-believers who wanted to learn more.
It was VERY clear that discussion on Christianity was the issue. The "Misleading" part is that this group, unlike most other Christian groups, did not create a de facto prerequisite to posting. Belief in the Holy Trinity was NOT a requirement for membership.
Most of the posts (from the Atheists) were exceptionally positive in their support for Christianity. As I've mentioned before, the key issues under discussion were Love for Neighbors and Enemies and the Anti-Hypocrisy "Stone Casting" approach taught by Jesus.
This wasn't a situation where the group members all came together to ridicule believers. All of us came for the discussion that was sure to ensue, but the moderators were going WELL out of their way to promote certain Christian ideas as beneficial.
One of the major reasons why Atheists are shunned is our stance against the Bible. We don't have a problem with many of the TEACHINGS in the bible, we only have a problem with the source. We readily adopt many aspects attributed to Christianity, why can't we build a bridge with those commonalities?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 