Why point out that 2 + 2 is not equal to 7? Because that is a false statement and I have the freedom to point out a false statement.

Do we need to stop clarifying that 2 + 2 isn't equal to 7 because of the possible emotional attachment that people may have for that number?

First, people change their minds and some don't, you don't know until you try. You can try to convince flat-earthers that the Earth is not flat and you sure as hell don't allow the public space be dominated by their claims simply because of the attachment that they have to the idea of a flat earth.

Second, the public space won't be yielded by default to the idea of a god. People have the freedom to claim that this being they call god exists, and I have the freedom to point out that there is zero anything to falsify for that claim.

Even if you don't change the mind of someone, there are still people reading that can be confronted with what is being discussed and help them form an opinion.

I have heard the testimony of people who say that accepting a reason and evidenced based outlook of life and reality was a process that took time, is not something that you can expect to happen overnight.

But this is a discussion about what in specific is offensive in those picture according to the Mod Team and taking in consideration that Atheist have the freedom to express that the idea of a god is a false premise (unless the Mod Team tells me that isn't the case and then it will be made clear) I can speak my mind about it.

Even if no one changes their mind that is beside the point, I am just expressing myself about religion and I am here asking mods to let me know and clarify the stance of the Mod Team regarding the discussion of religion and the idea of a god.

That which is not based on testable and falsifiable contents of reality belongs to the creativity of the mind and is an idea.

I am interested in getting a clarification by the Mod Team, you know, those that issue warnings and make policies because those are the ones that shape the discussions and set precedents of what can be discussed and posted here.

Without commenting on anything in particular, I feel like it's a good time to remind people that most of the rule set can be condensed into a simple term - "Don't be a dick."

Now carl i dont wanna be a dick, but actually being a dick or being percieved as a dick are two different stories

And that's a tricky thing, I concede.

And it is specially tricky when it comes to religion.

The way that I have seen this being tackled in other places is by separating the religion from the believers. You can criticize the claims of a religion, the contents of scriptures but not refer to believers and call them names.

But of course, the Mod Team decides the policies here and I don't pretend to come here to change policies, I am just trying to find a clarification.

Also, the religion thing is specially tricky given the fact that religion finds a wide array of things as offensive, and so that's a bottomless hole that the protection of religious sentiments leads everything down to.

What intellectual discussion were you trying to have on the merits and history of religion? What in-depth critique of the content of scripture were you trying to convey?

"Mr. Imaginary" is mockery. What was with the necessity of being edgy and hostile?

The thread was about Easter and there I wrote a reminder of the history of Easter and how is a pagan holiday.

Among the question that I asked the Mod Team was whether an Athesit here can start a conversation about the vercaity of the claims of religious scripture or whether it will be deemed "inflammatory". They may answer and I will know their stance.

All ideas come from creative imagination and then turn into emerging truths when they survive evidence based research and falsification. Some ideas, as is the idea of a god, remain in imagination.

But still I don't know what in specific I should be avoiding when I discuss religion and criticize religion in order to avoid a warning. It feels like there is a blasphemy law here were I have to treat the idea of a god and normalize this being as real and as if I must be careful not to insult his sentiments, which goes directly against the worldview of Atheist.

My take away from those pictures is that pictures kind of reverberate what would otherwise be accepted in written form.

Or perhaps I cannot use comedy when I criticize religion?

Or perhaps I cannot start a conversation about how the idea of a god is divorced from reality? And can only "react" if someone starts a conversation about religion?

Which picture are you referring to? Maybe if you tell me which picture is the one that landed me the warning I could have an idea of what will get me a warning here in VGChartz.

I am afraid that if I ask some of the people here and their possible stance of what is acceptable they will even say: "Don't even say that god is not real because that will offend people." I would like how much Atheist expressing in this forum is at odds with the policy of not offending religion.

If I get a straight answer of what in those pictures will land me a warning I can know for sure what is not acceptable and then avoid it or perhaps come to the realization that I can't function and post here with these rules and should maybe leave for both my sake and the vision and direction of the website.

1) I am not pretending to be a victim, I am asking how much discussion I can start and how I can I approach them without getting a warning. I don't doubt that there are Atheist here, what I doubt is how much you can talk and discuss about it without getting a warning.

2) What is baiting? Saying that a god is not real? Is that baiting? Saying that Christian holiday has a pagan origin? Is that baiting? Seems like any comment, content and post made against the idea of a god or criticizing religion is bait.

Silence is what you propose? That Atheist cannot talk about religion or the idea of god from an Atheist perspective?

3) From what I gather and what call "bait", any discussion of religion from the Atheist perspective will be regarded as inflammatory.

4) People are free to believe in what they want and so are they free to criticize those beliefs back.

The burden of proof is on the side that makes the claim that something is true and the claim that this idea of a god is true is out there and is being normalized.

As long as there is zero anything to falsify for the existence of a god, the idea of a god, as the same level of relevancy, is taken with equal seriousness and belongs in the same place to any other unproven idea that has no place in the descriptive nature of reality. As soon as believers bring something that can be replicated and falsified then this idea of a god will be part of the testable contents of reality. You went off-track and so I followed. I wasn't going to let that slide.

Religion can be wrong and a lot of religious claims and practices are not only wrong but are way more offensive than anything I will ever post about believers.

5) If my post was off-topic, even though it was about Easter and those pictures are about Easter, I would understand, but the warning would then be about "Don't go off-topic".

1) I recognize that there are Atheist here and that they can exist. But I don't know to what extent we can talk about religion and the idea of a god without getting a warning.

Atheist are not victims here, honest discussions about religion, god, and the nature of reality from the perspective of Atheists may be, I don't know yet, I am here trying to figure this out.

The picture says: This holiday has a pagan origin.

The second picture says: The crucifixion is clearly not a bout a bunny laying eggs.

I disagree, I think that pictures can start a discussion, the problem is that not all arguments allow for a rebuttal. As is pointing out the pagan origin of Easter which a lot of people don't know.

2) Something tells me there is more space open for discussion with CGI regarding your second paragraph.

3) Erm, I know that the website will be fine without me. It has been for all those months of inaction I've had since I logged here. I guess I can read those instances I've written that I would leave this website depending on the policies regarding tackling religion and god from the Atheist perspective as dramatic, but my intention was not to appear a drama queen lol but to let you guys know how important is for me to be free to talk about the existence of the alleged being god when discussion about religion pop up.

Nope, I honestly don't know what part of those pictures is unacceptable for the Mod Team and tat is why I am here. Thankfully CGI is lending a hand. Whatever the Mod Team says goes, goes, I accept and don't pretend to be making any policies here. I just want to know what I must evade or know what I can't evade and know if I either can put myself in line with the vision of the website or realize that VGChartz isn't for me.

Thanks CGI, this is exactly what I have been asking for. Thanks for trying to break those pictures down so that we can discuss their meaning.

I know that it is ok to be Atheist in here, I know there are other Atheist here, but I don't know the extent and the manner in which we can talk about it and tackle claims about god and religion from the perspective of Atheists.

- First picture:

1) The thread was talking about Easter so I inserted the reminder that Easter has a pagan origin. I celebrate Xmas, so origins are no problem for me or should for anyone or would I claim there is a problem with Easter, beyond those who refuse to see it's pagan origin. I was doing a drop of information as I found that inserting this fact would let people who don't know about the pagan origin of Easter know about it. Specially when there is a refusal in some to recognize the influence from other cultures and traditions in this case in Christianity.

I could understand if the picture is borderline off-topic, and pretty much know that what you mods say goes, but I would make a case it belongs to a thread about Easter. lol

Is calling a deity Mr. Imaginary offensive? How can I say "god is not real but the product of creative imagination" without being offensive? It's like a lose lose situation when you discuss religion and god from an Atheist perspective. I understand that the Atheist position is confrontational, but how can there be no confrontation in competing ideas?

If you tell me that I can't call god "Mr. Imaginary" then I think that would be something concrete I can remind myself not to do. But I really don't know how I can say that the idea of a god has no place in reality and is the invention of human imagination without sounding offensive.

-  Second picture:

1) There is absolutely no such quote in the bible about Jesus talking about a bunny laying eggs. lol That meme is to accentuate how the Easter tradition came from something else and makes kind of makes it obvious there is something that doesn't fit lol and to tie with the pagan origin of Eostre and her bunny fellow.

Edited to delete surplus quote boxes.