Throughout history, people have always found an "other" who, if they did not exist, would leave your life in a much better state.

To some this has been Jews...to others Blacks. Or Catholics. Or, more recently, immigrants.

In your case, its Christians.

Prejudice, by any other name...smells just as bad.

I hope this isn't an argument you actually try and support.

If you're going to draw comparisons, let's look at the validity of the examples...

How many White Supremacist do you know who grew up in a Black family?

How many atheist do you know who grew up in a Christian family?

Prejudice- Is to make a decision prior to fact analysis.

I understand that the moderators of this site keep a great deal of garbage from spamming otherwise interesting threads.  Furthermore, I appreciate their tireless, voluntary activities to safeguard the site from semiliterate theophiles who have little chance of recognizing a rational thought, much less having one.

I have asked previously and am to do so again that we not excoriate and remove the theists from the site too soon.  While many here have control over their animal passions and emotions, there are many others who are yet to learn.  In fact, the vast majority of Christians are raised to pay attention to passions rather than rationality.  We would be doing the greater world a disservice if we did not attempt to pull them from the quagmire of passionate feelings.

I will grant that abuse of the individual is unacceptable; however, a person stating that they feel in some way threatened by such an edict as this does not seem to me to be a troll.  We might rebuff that person for the manner in which it was done, but to ban that person for saying that the rule seems to grind upon one group more than another seems rather autocratic.

Now, I have expressed a view that does not conform with the leaders of this site and may be labeled "troll" for my efforts.  I, however, see that we, the atheists, are in the majority here and should provide an atmosphere that we would like to have when we are of the minority.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

You forgot Jediism.  

And THAT'S yet another reason why we  see 'Moderator' under jce's name.

She got the 'gist' of it from the hop. 

All of us are WANTED to be here, not NEEDED. Any 'troll' regardless of their ideology is scrutinized by mods. 

Have you had the opportunity to listen to some of the back shows?

Even the most obnoxious guests *ahem*CARM*ahem* have been given more than adequate dose of kindness in my personal opinion.

To feed your obvious skepticism, I would ask: Would a site solely out to be assholes have a forum named 'Killing them with Kindness' pandering to the more delicate sensitivities of some of our theistically-minded friends?

And one more: Would a site embracing an alleged dogma allow people to post even ONE question let alone respond to the question on as much of an individual basis as possible?

Just food for thought. Freethought that is.

I think that once you find the arguments against even something as relatively mundane as 'agnosticism' then you will see why reason is so highly valued as to warrant the banning of 'trolls'.

For an example of disagreements between sitemembers, one only need venture into the 'Politics' forum. lol.

Neither do I, but you have to remember that while we are here dealing with theists that have enough interest in religion to come here and post questions, the core team is trying to get heard by the larger theistic community that does not think about religion.  They (majority of theists) accept what they have been told and question it no further. 

Sometimes shaking things up and making noise is the only way to get noticed.   You know what they say - even bad publicity can be good publicity.

From my own standpoint, I try to ignore people and study the way that the religious belief affects people. Particularly by putting myself into the 'moccasins' of a theist reading, hearing, or seeing the belief in 'action'.

 Chris·tian (krĭs'chən)

n.

• One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

• One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
  

I'm sorry, but that pie chart you have doesn't make sense when you compare it to this...

 http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Now look at the wedge for Christians. It's way smaller than the pervious pie would assert. Okay, it gets goofier. The criteria on what makes a Christian breaks down even further...

"For statistical purposes: Groups which self-identify as part of Christianity include (but are not limited to): African Independent Churches (AICs), the Aglipayan Church, Amish, Anglicans, Armenian Apostolic, Assemblies of God; Baptists, Calvary Chapel, Catholics, Christadelphians, Christian Science, the Community of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "Mormons", Coptic Christians, Eastern Orthodox churches, Ethiopian Orthodox, Evangelicals, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Local Church, Lutherans, Methodists, Monophysites, Nestorians, the New Apostolic Church, Pentecostals, Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, the Salvation Army, Seventh-Day Adventists, Shakers, Stone-Campbell churches (Disciples of Christ; Churches of Christ; the "Christian Church and Churches of Christ"; the International Church of Christ); Uniate churches, United Church of Christ/Congregationalists, the Unity Church, Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, Vineyard churches and others. These groups exhibit varying degrees of similarity, cooporation, communion, etc. with other groups. None are known to consider all other Chrisian sub-groups to be equally valid. David Barrett, an Evangelical Christian who is the compiler of religion statistics for the Encyclopedia Britannica and the World Christian Encyclopedia, includes all of the groups listed above in the worldwide statistics for Christianity."

But maybe the original pie is true if you intend on disregarding all the stuff that wasn't mentioned in the pie.

Unlike homosexuality, Christianity is a lifestyle choice.  

Sort of off-topic: Gauche, your post made me smile. I enjoy your insights and posts. Your avatars--a parade of Star Trek actors--always make me smile.

Darth-Josh, was your post directed to me, and if so how am I trolling? Disagreeing was not listed in your original criteria for trolling. I'm not trying to be facetious, this is a sincere inquiry.

interesting that it shows us that "non-religious" doesn't necessarily mean atheist

No, DBoone. My post was directed at anyone not addressing the original post in this thread. 

The pie chart is in another thread.

Straying too far from the original post can be a form of trolling. Often, the mod team allows tangential subjects to continue in a thread in the hope that it will be resolved and the original issue will be addressed. 

My post was merely trying to recover the thread topic. There are many other threads already dealing with your objections concerning the RRS I'm sure.