Is Atheism the official stance of boards.ie on religion?

DeVore

snyper, I know where you are coming from but I'm afraid the points about religions not forcing themselves on others is simply not true.

If you get married in a catholic church canon law says you must vow to bring your kids up catholic, regardless of the religion of your partner.
Sharia law says that regardless of your religion or not, you must live by their laws.
Jehovah Witnesses must take a year out and travel to "spread the word" at peoples doorsteps.
Most religions have this strategy, one Microsoft used to adopt, of "embrace and extend".

We are getting a little off topic, if you want to respond ok, but then we have to get back on topic.



[PROPOSAL OF SORTS}

At the same time I accept that we cant say "if you are religious you arent allowed to explain yourself".
I've been thinking about this on and off all day (while battling a bathroom mirror and drill).
I think the key point here is going to be "is there any new information being introduced by a thread to crystalise discussion around".

So:

1. "Study shows atheists have higher IQ <link>" is introducing new information. OK

2. "Arent religious people stupid, why arent you all atheists. atheism rocks". No new information. NOT OK.

similarly

1. "Vatican contemplates ordanation of women <link>" ... New Information. OK

2. "You must all follow Jesus your personal saviour, PM me for details". No new information. NOT OK.


How would that sit with people? Can we pick holes in that approach?

It neither equates atheism and religion, nor oppresses either imho.

DeV.

Thumbs up from me.

What about "So what's the story with you guys believing *insert certain aspect of of belief* then?" I say should be NOT OK. If they're genuinely interested in answering the question, then there's forums with people who know the subject far better than AH posters in R&S. If they're just there to chortle and argue "I don't understand you folk you should become *insert poster's belief*" then, well, that's just trolling, and unwelcome in any case.

AckwelFoley

DeVore wrote: »

snyper, I know where you are coming from but I'm afraid the points about religions not forcing themselves on others is simply not true.

If you get married in a catholic church canon law says you must vow to bring your kids up catholic, regardless of the religion of your partner.
Sharia law says that regardless of your religion or not, you must live by their laws.
Jehovah Witnesses must take a year out and travel to "spread the word" at peoples doorsteps.
Most religions have this strategy, one Microsoft used to adopt, of "embrace and extend".
.

My points on religion were more aimed toward the faith of a god, not the specific religion, its in the name of that god that people make those laws.

Look, dont misunderstand me, i more than dislike organised religion, but i think its important that were respect peoples right to hold a belief, while treating both sides the believers and the non believers with equal rights -

DeVore wrote: »

[PROPOSAL OF SORTS}

So:

1. "Study shows atheists have higher IQ <link>" is introducing new information. OK

2. "Arent religious people stupid, why arent you all atheists. atheism rocks". No new information. NOT OK.

similarly

1. "Vatican contemplates ordanation of women <link>" ... New Information. OK

2. "You must all follow Jesus your personal saviour, PM me for details". No new information. NOT OK.


How would that sit with people? Can we pick holes in that approach?

It neither equates atheism and religion, nor oppresses either imho.

DeV.

The above is what would be considered the common sence approach.

And of course we can pick holes in that approach... but picking holes in it doesnt necessarly mean its not the best approach

looksee

Atheism could not exist without theism, if you declare yourself an atheist you are making a statement about theism. In effect it is not possible to discuss atheism without involving theism, so apparently belief in (a) god is the default state, and atheism is a protest.

Its a bit like saying you can only discuss the union view (the protest), not the employer's (whatever it is that you are protesting about). Not sure that is the best analogy but it is all I can come up with at the moment. (I would consider myself to have atheistic tendencies).

strobe

Dav wrote: »

Ultimately though, this once again annoys me because people are trying to use After Hours to discuss topics that we have a fairly substantial sub-section of the site for. If you want to inteligently and seriouly debate faith or religion and the rights and wrongs contained within, or indeed just shoot the breeze with like minded folk, we've already given you a place for that.

There are substantial subsections of the site where every single thread posted in after hours could go. Politics, sport, celebrity etc. But because they are AHish (jokey or whatever) they go in AH. Most of the religious themed threads posted in AH would get locked instantly in the Christianity or Islam or Spirituality sections. Probably only A&A would let any of them run their course but lots of them wouldn't fit in A&A either. "Do you believe that the communion bread is the actual body of christ?"......"well no, obviously" {/thread}. Doesn't really have a point. After Hours is the best place for them.

Where are these threads promoting atheism in anyway? Lot's of ones pop up asking people what their beliefs are etc but I don't think I've ever seen a thread in AH entitled "Atheism is great, here's why", it never happens.


Although I'd agree that moderators shouldn't act biased towards atheism or anything else. Never seen any examples of that happening though personally. In any religious thread in AH the religious seem to be able to express their beliefs perfectly fine and no moderators tell them not to, or ban them, or delete their comments.

Seems like people are complaining about an issue that doesn't even exist.

eamo12

biko wrote: »

Have you accepted Darwin?

NO.

Junco Partner

some forums like ah and cool vids are used as a way of posting fairly vicious anti religious stuff. which would be all well and good if the other side were doing the same but they keep it to themselves. i believe there should be a bit of control on this.


speaking as a non-militant atheist whos sick of seeing this stuff.

Dudess

Theists are free to attack atheists on AH - and have done so, usually with precious little to back themselves up other than "Richard Dawkins is smug - lots of atheists are smug". As an atheist it's my right to take the piss out of the silliness of religion, once I can back myself up, and it is also the right of a theist to take the piss out of atheism - once they can back themselves up.

While I agree people have the right to be spiritual and to have faith without being personally attacked, I find the "I'm not religious but I'm really tolerant of the belief systems of religious people - so much so that I'll start being intolerant of the belief systems of atheists" trend quite tiresome at this stage... Yes there are militant atheists whom I find very aggressive too, but there are militant theists who are just as bad.

philologos

Dudess wrote: »

Theists are free to attack atheists on AH - and have done so, usually with precious little to back themselves up other than "Richard Dawkins is smug - lots of atheists are smug". As an atheist it's my right to take the piss out of the silliness of religion, once I can back myself up, and it is also the right of a theist to take the piss out of atheism - once they can back themselves up.

While I agree people have the right to be spiritual and to have faith without being personally attacked, I find the "I'm not religious but I'm really tolerant of the belief systems of religious people - so much so that I'll start being intolerant of the belief systems of atheists" trend quite tiresome at this stage... Yes there are militant atheists whom I find very aggressive too, but there are militant theists who are just as bad.

This is a lie. You know, I know, and most of the people in After Hours know that Christians have defended their case numerous times in there according to the principle that Christians should give a defence for the hope that is in them. I feel however, that this isn't really about arguments. Its about much more. People don't desire to follow Christ, therefore they won't. This is always something that underlies it.

A lot of people know that I became an evangelical Christian about 4 years ago. My account had been up 2 years beforehand. Everything about my perspective on life changed. What is more upsetting for Christians isn't so much that people don't believe, but that people can be so wholly ignorant about the Gospel. I've been asked to defend pseudo-gospels (such as a literal belief that God is a man sat up in a cloud) over the last few years on AH. People are Biblically illiterate, and don't even know what they are supposed to be attacking. 95% of the discussion about any form of faith on Boards.ie is total ignorance. (5% being the discussion on the A&A and other faith based fora). Most people haven't read the Bible before attacking it. Most people also expect you to defend the Catholic church, and assume that all Christianity is Catholicism. It's just ridiculous.

Recently, I've decided that off-line means of serving are much better. Indeed, even in an on-line case one can use social networks more to ones advantage to share something of the truth in a faithless world that prefers the comforts of lies. It's a disgrace that biko, and DeVore would even consider favouring atheism to any other worldview on this board. It's to be expected though.

Even if boards.ie is dominated by faithlessness, at least I can trust that God is faithful and that He will continue to work.

I wonder would the solution be to open up the R&S lobby into a forum as of itself? Or put a "religion wars" Thunderdome-type forum in there?

My issue (which I consider solved with DeVore's suggestion) was there being a perceived difference where preaching atheism would be treated differently than preaching whatever religion you're having yourself. Anyone making a decision on this kind of stuff has to take a step back from, put in the cupboard, lock out what they believe themselves and any insight they believe they have into it, and decide based on "all opinions are equally bullsh*t".

Dudess, you have no "right" to do anything here. We are all here as guests of the benevolent and mighty boards.ie, creator of all forums, seen and unseen (ALL HAIL! ALL HAIL! *prostrates self*)

Edit: Just read Jakkass's contribution. Hmm, didn't expect any evangenicals to be on boards. Very much disagree with his assertion the issue goes deeper on this thread. I started it because a mod said "atheism is different, it goes under different rules" and I disputed that. Nothing more. Solved by DeVore's suggestion that "religius/antireligious threads should have new information in it." Works for me.

Morag

The spirituality forum is meant to be the general forum for that subcat and inter discussions have happened there before.

It was a thread aimed at the biggest forum with the most amount of posters in a country were more people claim to be catholic then are, cos they dont know the dogma they are subscribing too. That type of person doesn't post in the Xianity forum.

There are many types of evangelicals on here and tbh no one like being preached at.
Also AH does not equal the whole site.

Sharrow

Sharrow wrote: »

It was a thread aimed at the biggest forum with the most amount of posters

Just to point out, that's not a good reason to post in AH.

From the Charter:

Do not post here to reach a larger audience.

Posting on After Hours to reach a larger audience is not allowed. If there is a more suitable forum for your thread, post it there. Threads to solicit votes for reality TV shows etc. are not allowed. Do not ask us to complete any surveys either. If you are unsure of the correct place to post you're probably not going to like the answers you might get here. You can query where the best place might be in the Newbies and FAQ forum. If you are unsure please private message any After Hours moderator for confirmation.

Morag

It is the general discussion forum, where else should a thread questioning the general knowledge of posters be put?

twinQuins

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a lie. You know, I know, and most of the people in After Hours know that Christians have defended their case numerous times in there according to the principle that Christians should give a defence for the hope that is in them. I feel however, that this isn't really about arguments. Its about much more. People don't desire to follow Christ, therefore they won't. This is always something that underlies it.

If people wanted to debate Christianity from a Christian perspective, it would best be done within the Christianity forum. I notice you often say to others you'd gladly discuss whatever issue it is in that forum.

That's great except it sort of leaves the other poster at a disadvantage. Discussions or points that would be considered trolling within that forum might not outside it.
There will always be threads in AH that would be better suited to other forums but people post in AH because they want to discuss them in a less serious manner. That doesn't mean you can't have serious threads but, IME, it does mean you're not beholden to certain points of view when doing so.

DeVore

It's a disgrace that biko, and DeVore would even consider favouring atheism to any other worldview on this board. It's to be expected though.

I'm not at all sure how you come to this conclusion. Please explain because I didnt see anything in my proposal to suggest I was favouring either side, in fact I thought it was quite neutral.


DeV.

Asiaprod

ISAW wrote: »

Bhuddism can be atheistic.
Some insist it must be.
Buddhism however is a religion.

I have had this one with you before:)
Not to every Buddhist.
Buddhist Atheist. (I'm one, no Gods...anywhere in sight, no super power...just me, and the now.)
Buddhist Agnostic
Buddhist I don't care
Buddhist (about any flavor you want)

ShooterSF

Deleted User wrote: »

You're confusing agnostic with atheist there seamus, otherwise thank you.

I think you might be confusing them. (A-)theism is looking at the issues from a belief standpoint.

(A-)Gnosticism is looking from a knowledge pov.

They are two seperate entities and you can be (and most atheists are) an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

It's a disgrace that biko, and DeVore would even consider favouring atheism to any other worldview on this board. It's to be expected though.

I seem to have missed those posts. You wouldn't mind giving the actual quotes and links....?

Wibbs

In all my years here I can recall only one example of a somewhat top down religious bias that did at times flavour a (non spiritual) forum. I and others noted and questioned it and things changed. It wasn't dramatically biased either though enough of an issue as it concerned a mod and we should have higher standards on that score. I've stuck my head in a fair few forums and that's the only example I can honestly think of.

Maybe much of the answer to this is, kinda yes. Not in the sense of anything official, but that the majority of the user demographic would be at most a la carte in their spiritual outlets, through the "meh" agnostics to atheistic in outlook. This would be more the case in After Hours as the general subject posting place on the site. The posting there is gonna reflect that.

EDIT I think non believers don't get or have forgotten how deeply held religious belief can be. It would be the spiritual equivalent of having the man/woman you love slagged off constantly for being a minger.

DeVore

DeVore wrote: »

I didnt see anything in my proposal to suggest I was favouring either side, in fact I thought it was quite neutral.
DeV.

It needs a bit of fleshing out, but the fundamental principle is fair to all. It should be designed to filter out misguided hatred and allow for reasonable criticism that the faith-oriented forums dont allow. Once a system like that is up and running, it's hard to argue prejudicial treatment from either point of view. 'Tis a fine compromise.

I dunno, leaving the door open for criticism, no matter how well meaning it might start off as, I think is just asking for trolling. I'd sooner put religious & atheist disputes in a neutral forum in R&S than have to wade through another giant rant-fest where neither side is going to give ground.

None of the billions of people over thousands of years have answered conclusively the Big Questions. I don't think After Hours will change that.

However, as long as everyone is treated equally, and being a dick is frowned upon equally, then I'll accept whatever outcome happens.

Marcus.Aurelius

I think DeVore's proposals are adequately fair for both sides.

For the record, an atheist does not believe there are no Gods, he lacks belief in Gods. To believe there is a God or to believe there is no God are positive and negative statements about the frankly unknowable. An atheist takes neither a positive or negative position. There is no evidence for God. We don't have people here saying that not believing in Leprechauns is in itself a belief-system or otherwise displaying similarly incoherent mental dribbling.

MA

philologos

Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »

There is no evidence for God.

Highly highly questionable assumption, and one which shouldn't inspire the moderation of any forum.

Personally, I don't see why the mods can't just let people have it out within reason. People advocate positions all over this board, that's what discussion is about.

biko wrote:

It's not ok to start a thread to promote any religion.
It might be ok to start a thread to promote atheism.

biko wrote:

Besides, people slag religion every day in AH - that's what we do. Boards have special forums for religious discussion where the religious people can get away from that.

This would make me question biko's credentials as a moderator. Indeed, he doesn't seem to have thought about the fact that there is also a forum for Atheism & Agnosticism.

DeVore wrote:

Mentally chewing this and kicking it about with a few people. No decision but i do see a difference between atheism and religion in that religion seeks to foist itself alarmingly on others (children being baptised christian, islamic fundamentalism and sharia law, scientology... the whole thing, Intelligent Design instead of real science etc etc).

Pretty much ever since the new-atheist polemicists have arisen there has been a lot of proselytism in respect to new-atheism. Personally I wouldn't see an argument about the merits of atheism or Christianity to be "foisting" anything on anyone.

But hey, its your site and it runs on your rules / assumptions / etc.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

This would make me question biko's credentials as a moderator. Indeed, he doesn't seem to have thought about the fact that there is also a forum for Atheism & Agnosticism.

Thats entirely your right, and I'm sure you'd find one or two to agree with you.

By the way, did you manage to find the posts and quotes to back up this statement of yours?

It's a disgrace that biko, and DeVore would even consider favouring atheism to any other worldview on this board. It's to be expected though.

Overheal

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, I don't see why the mods can't just let people have it out within reason. People advocate positions all over this board, that's what discussion is about.

Thats more or less what we're trying to establish here

'Within reason' was discussed in DeV's proposal. Flame Wars are not reasonable.

Marcus wrote:

For the record, an atheist does not believe there...

Getting a bit off topic, aren't we? This is a thread about those threads, not a thread that is to become one of those threads. Or so I'm lead to believe.

Beruthiel

Deleted User wrote: »

I dunno, leaving the door open for criticism, no matter how well meaning it might start off as, I think is just asking for trolling.

We can question and criticise a political view over in the Politics Forum but religions are sacred and cannot be questioned?
Those days are over and the status that it once held on this planet no longer exists.
You only have to look back through history to see what not being allowed to question resulted in.
Suppressing the right to question never bodes well.

Jakkass wrote:

This would make me question biko's credentials as a moderator.

You're entitled to question biko's credentials if you wish.
From an admin point of view, he's an exemplary Mod and does a cracking job.

Beruthiel

Beruthiel wrote: »

We can question and criticise a political view over in the Politics Forum but religions are sacred and cannot be questioned?

That's why I advocated a seperate neutral forum where nothing is sacred, disbelievers of all sides can ask any manner of questions about faiths, and preachers of all faiths and none can fight it out for the minds and souls of boards.ie for all eternity!

Beruthiel wrote: »

Suppressing the right to question never bodes well.

Remember there are no rights on boards.ie, we're all guests etc etc...

Beruthiel wrote: »

You're entitled to question biko's credentials if you wish.
From an admin point of view, he's an exemplary Mod and does a cracking job.

Agreed.

Morag

Deleted User wrote: »

That's why I advocated a seperate neutral forum where nothing is sacred, disbelievers of all sides can ask any manner of questions about faiths, and preachers of all faiths and none can fight it out for the minds and souls of boards.ie for all eternity!

AH? :pac:

AH isn't for serious or malicious discussion. It's supposed to be a place where things get taken the piss out of, but it can't be a place that excludes people either. It has to be there for everyone, even the religious. Malicious comments about people are frowned upon in there, why not a similar attitude to what they believe?

Now I make a very large distinction between what a person decides to believe themself, and the organisation that promotes belief.

Religious organisations, I say fire at will. But a person's opinion that only can be formed by his/her own experience in life? An idea that might have stopped them from taking their own life, brought them to good friends or started them giving their time to others (atheism does the above too!)? Give the "Meh I don't care STFU trying to convert me" folk a break. Bring it to the Religion Thunderdome.

twinQuins

Deleted User wrote: »

AH isn't for serious or malicious discussion. It's supposed to be a place where things get taken the piss out of, but it can't be a place that excludes people either. It has to be there for everyone, even the religious. Malicious comments about people are frowned upon in there, why not a similar attitude to what they believe?

Because people choose their beliefs knowing that those beliefs may be ridiculed.
If you don't allow people to criticise beliefs and belief systems then you may as well shut the forum down as any discussion goes out the window.

Really, I don't see why religious beliefs should be any more protected from criticism than any other belief. It will either stand or fall to scrutiny on its own merits.

Now I make a very large distinction between what a person decides to believe themself, and the organisation that promotes belief.

Religious organisations, I say fire at will. But a person's opinion that only can be formed by his/her own experience in life? An idea that might have stopped them from taking their own life, brought them to good friends or started them giving their time to others (atheism does the above too!)?

So, essentially, you want peoples opinions protected from criticism? Again, what would be the point of a discussion forum in that case?

Give the "Meh I don't care STFU trying to convert me" folk a break. Bring it to the Religion Thunderdome.

I don't like the Thunderdome and I wouldn't want to have to go to a similar forum just to discuss these things.