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

Beruthiel

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Let me change that sentence around a bit:

But a person's opinion that only can be formed by his/her own experience in life? An idea that might have brought them to taking a life (lives) through suicide bombing or some other crazy kind of jihad.

Tell me SeaSlacker, should we question that kind of belief or just let them go about their business?

I would put a person's religion in the same status as someone's sexual orientation, or their choice in life partner within that orientation, or a choice of lifestyle. Imagine if someone who was large and comfortable with their size came to AH and was subjected to "LAY OFF THE BIG MACS FATSO!" "Where's your breath gone now puffy?" or a gay/lesbian ridiculed for choosing to embrace it or change sides over or back?

We have to accept that religion is a sensitive case, one that arouses passion and people have difficulty being objective about because, well, people have differing standards of "objective" when it comes to religion.

That concept that one poster derises, criticises and ridicules with malicious ferocity, may have been the very idea which pulled the next poster away from the edge of a very long drop onto hard concrete.

Now, I would like to state *again*, that while I think After Hours would benefit from kicking religious/antireligious threads into a neutral forum in R&S (Where, as well, the Faith Forums can put their "blasphemer" threads too) I support DeVore's current proposal as a fair compromise.

Beruthiel

Beruthiel wrote: »

Let me change that sentence around a bit:

But a person's opinion that only can be formed by his/her own experience in life? An idea that might have brought them to taking a life (lives) through suicide bombing or some other crazy kind of jihad.

Tell me SeaSlacker, should we question that kind of belief or just let them go about their business?

That's a matter for law enforcement, not theology or advocating antireligion. Doesn't matter if they think God wants them to, or I shot their Pa, or we're lousy cheats. If they're trying to kill they must be stopped, with killing if necessary.

What's that got to do with putting religious debates on neutral ground in Religion & Spirituality?

Beruthiel

Deleted User wrote: »

I would put a person's religion in the same status as someone's sexual orientation

Sexual orientation isn't a choice or a belief system.

their choice in life partner within that orientation

Also not a belief system.

We have to accept that religion is a sensitive case, one that arouses passion and people have difficulty being objective about because, well, people have differing standards of "objective" when it comes to religion.

We have to accept that politics is a sensitive case, one that arouses passion and people have difficulty being objective about because, well, people have differing standards of "objective" when it comes to politics.

That concept that one poster derises, criticises and ridicules with malicious ferocity, may have been the very idea which pulled the next poster away from the edge of a very long drop onto hard concrete.

That concept that one poster derises, criticises and ridicules with malicious ferocity, may have been the very idea which lead the next poster to blowing up a bus/building.

Honestly, we could do this all day. So, I'll leave it at that.

Clearly, you believe that religion should never be criticised.
I believe that everything should be criticised.
As I said already, the days when the criticism of religion was out of bounds, no longer exist.
You will just have to live with that.

Morag

Deleted User wrote: »

We have to accept that religion is a sensitive case, one that arouses passion and people have difficulty being objective about because, well, people have differing standards of "objective" when it comes to religion.

The site does that, which is why the Religion and Spirituality Sub Cat was created.

.

Deleted User wrote: »

Now, I would like to state *again*, that while I think After Hours would benefit from kicking religious/antireligious threads into a neutral forum in R&S (Where, as well, the Faith Forums can put their "blasphemer" threads too) I support DeVore's current proposal as a fair compromise.

Look if you want a more 'civilised' discussion in a general forum which is not AH but is with out the special protection of the R&S sub Cat then I suggest you start them in Humanities.

twinQuins

Deleted User wrote: »

Imagine if someone who was large and comfortable with their size came to AH and was subjected to "LAY OFF THE BIG MACS FATSO!" "Where's your breath gone now puffy?" or a gay/lesbian ridiculed for choosing to embrace it or change sides over or back?

Didn't we recently have a thread in AH about fat people which ridiculed them?
Beruthial has addressed your other point.

We have to accept that religion is a sensitive case, one that arouses passion and people have difficulty being objective about because, well, people have differing standards of "objective" when it comes to religion.

There are any number of subjects which arouse the passion of various posters, why should religion be a special case?

TheZohanS

Two simple rules would clear up all of this:

1. No soap-boxing of any religion or belief/lack of belief in AH in Opening Posts. i.e. no "I'm Catholic and think it's the best religion in the world and I will pray for all of you who are not", and no "I'm atheist all can't understand why you waste your time with religion" type Opening Posts.
2. Attack the belief/lack of belief not the believer/non-believer. (i.e. no bashing Catholics but you can critique their beliefs, no bashing Atheists but you can critique their lack of belief etc.)

Beruthiel

Beruthiel wrote: »

Clearly, you believe that religion should never be criticised.

Absolutely disagree with that idea! I just respect that everyone is entitled to live without someone in their face trying to convince them that "their way is the One True way"

TheZohan, I like your rules. Rule 1 should definitely apply, but I still think that discussions about rule 2's subjects belong in a neutral forum in Rel&Spir.

I compare discussing religious organisations and discussing the theories of god's existence or not with the difference between discussing Politics and Political Theory.

Political Theory is the principles, the "isms" that people come to. Some subscribe to one "ism", some another, some to no "ism" at all.

Politics is the application of these theories in the world and the effects that has on the world.

We already had a situation where discussion of Politics & the Economy in AH got so bad, that a super-rant thread was created and everything was thrown into it and locked.

I am not against discussion of Religious/Antireligious Theory. I just beleive there needs to be a neutral ground for it in Religion and Spirituality.

Whether it gets discussed in AH or not is actually extra to that. Discussed in AH or not, this place needs to exist as an alternative to throwing a thread to one religious faction or the other.

What would people say to "OK, we'll let this stuff run, but if it gets nasty it gets put over to the Religion Battleground in R & S (trying to think of a catchy name? Best I have is "Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny" *sings* Good mods, bad gods and ag-noss-tics, as far as the eye can see.....)"

EDITT!!!

Everyone, read this.

strobe

Hmm, I disagree with most of what SS has said so far in this thread. I don't think religious discussion or criticism should be banned from AH, at least not unless we are going to ban criticism of every other belief system or view point from political to personal as well. In which case we can just wrap AH up, it would be a sterile and pointless ghost town. I can't think of any reason religious belief should be treated differently to every other belief.

Plus your "LAY OFF THE BIG MACS FATSO!" example doesn't really apply. That sentence is personal abuse, it's already banned in the charter and if reported the person making it would probably be warned/carded/banned like usually happens. So if someone says "STOP GOING TO CHURCH YOU FILTHY PROD" (not sure if you're protestant or what, just using that example) that would be personal abuse and if reported as such, would, I think, be responded to in the same way by a mod. {as happened here and elsewhere in that thread} http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70803467&postcount=466 It's the whole attack the post not the poster thing. One is allowed, one isn't. The extension of that in terms of religious or political or x view point would be attack the belief not the believer.

Deleted User wrote: »

What would people say to "OK, we'll let this stuff run, but if it gets nasty it gets put over to the Religion Battleground in R & S (trying to think of a catchy name? Best I have is "Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny" *sings* Good mods, bad gods and ag-noss-tics, as far as the eye can see.....)"
[/URL]

But.... I think the "Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny" , idea might not be too bad. I mean at the minute any thread criticising Christianity started in the Christianity section would probably be locked, although they are not too bad over there in terms of individual posts in already existing threads. Just completely forget about trying to post anything anywhere in Islam that might be considered to be critical of Islam in any way. Fair enough though, different forums have different rules.

But a sub forum of 'Religion and Spirituality' that still maintains the "attack the post, not the poster" and "don't be a dick" stuff (so not a thunderdome) but gets rid of the "No proselytising. Anyone trying to convert anyone to anything will be immediately banned. Ridiculing other religions or claiming one faith to be the only true faith is also against the rules" in 'Spirituality' and "should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack" in 'Christianity' and 'Islam' type stuff might be interesting.

Could maybe be tried on a temp basis to see if it would get the traffic to be worthwhile. Could be genuinely engaging.

Could also be an absolute bloody nightmare of course.....

Could also just encourage the already existing religious forums to getthoize themselves more and increase the already existing censorship of opposing views practiced in them though and dump anything even slightly critical into the new forum then sit around agreeing with each other behind their fences .....wouldn't like to see that either. It would be excruciatingly boring if nothing else.

I dunno.

Nodin

I don't see any need for specific rules governing debate of religion...its all covered under the usual trolling/flaming/abuse rules as far as I can see. Only making matters complicated by getting into minutiae.

biko

Indeed and if a particular thread isn't ok with someone they are welcome to report it and the moderators will discuss and act on it.

biko

biko wrote: »

Indeed and if a particular thread isn't ok with someone they are welcome to report it and the moderators will discuss and act on it.

...where they'll just say "ah, but it's atheism, it's different" and we're back to square one. (Inserted as a dig biko, nothing more!)

Look, my perfect scenario would be no one wanting to start threads in AH for atheism or religion bashing, or trying to get around being unable to directly attack it by asking a loaded question. But if people do, then if all ideas are treated equally in the eyes of the Almighty Mods then I can live with it, like the economy or bank run threads. Looking in there today there's nothing religious on 1st page, which is grand. If the place filled up like what happened with Economy rants in the run-up to the budget, then I'm sure everyone'd be sick of then and something'd be done anyways.

I like "Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny", even just as a forum name. Maybe we park that idea for when the new forums issue gets sorted?

Nodin

....but they are treated equally and the odds of AH being filled with theological debate are close to vanishing.......

Beruthiel

Deleted User wrote: »

Look, my perfect scenario would be no one wanting to start threads in AH for atheism or religion bashing, or trying to get around being unable to directly attack it by asking a loaded question. But if people do, then if all ideas are treated equally in the eyes of the Almighty Mods then I can live with it

As far as I'm aware, AH has always been run like that.

biko

Beruthriel, this started when I got by PM from AH mod biko "promoting atheism is fine by me in AH. Bring it to Feedback if you think the admins will agree with you." Seperate from the issue I was discussing with him, I saw this as a blatant bias in favour of one belief. I brought it up here and biko replied:

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.

I challenged this, and the only reason given by biko was an explanation of Atheist doctrine. That'd be like someone explaining a Christian bias using quotes from the Bible.

Anyways, after some more opinions, DeVore came up with:

DeVore wrote: »

[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.

And, in the absence of religious/antireligious threads being treated with the (deserved IMO) eye-rolling and derision, I support DeVore's suggestion as a solution.

biko

That PM was in a response to him reporting a post in AH and a subsequent PM conversation. You have to see things in context. It's not like I just sent a random PM to him saying that

However this particular thread was because I said "check in feedback".
If required and with SeaSlacker permission I can post the conversation, for background?

It seems it also went from my view as AH Mod to boards.ie official stance on this issue but I believe SeaSlacker has addressed that earlier in the thread.

I am happy to keep debating this but it kinda went from a report to a PM convo to suddenly become official boards policy on handling religion.
Tbh, I think it works well as is today and doesn't need any particular tuning/tweaking. Of course I will abide by any guidelines the admins lays down.

Since you're happy for it to go public biko, here's the PM conversation as I read it.

First I sent...

Communion thread

Saw you make a quip in the thread, any chance of an "adult in the room" "OK, I'll let this go on but play nice and no evangelising from anyone" type of post to go with it?

I've always liked how AH pushed the religious hamsterwheel threads to their respective faith forums. Is there a difference here?

Then I noticed there was a youtube video which didn't load the first time I saw biko's post...

wait! video didn't load on your "quip" post, my bad....
Still would like to see a boldtype "adult in the room" post

At this stage I read, in response to the first from biko...

Re: Communion thread
Promoting atheism isn't evangelism as atheism is not a religion, it's the absence of religion.
Anyway, if I put this in Christianity forum it'd be locked as saying god doesn't exist there isn't allowed.

and to the second one...

Re: wait! video didn't load on your "quip" post, my bad....
Maybe you can start a similar thread in Christianity forum? It's be interesting to see whether actual believers in Christ actually believe they eat his flesh and blood.

I ignored the second as it came in as I was typing this response to biko's first.

Re: Communion thread
Hmmm. I define "evangelism" as trying to convince other people to change what they believe to what you believe. If I believed Rancheros were awesome and everyone should eat them, and started shouting from the fooftops (misspelling, meant "rooftops" ), posting, putting up posters etc etc I'd call myself an "evangelist".

I hope you're not holding the promotion of atheism to lesser standards to the promotion of any other beleif. Such would be an overt statement that boards.ie itself promotes *insert beleif given preferential treatment*

To which biko replied...

Re: Communion thread
Atheism isn't a belief, it's the lack of belief (in supernatural beings).
Promoting atheism in AH is fine by me.
You can start a thread in Feedback if you think the admins will see it your way.

And here we are.

Edit: re: reporting of the thread, as an amount of time had passed between me sending the report and this PM I sent biko, I assumed that the mods didn't see my report as something to act on, and I had accepted their inaction as a final decision. Had I not accepted their inaction I would have queried the response of the report.

Ghost Estate

I always thought of After Hours as more of an extension or an overflow to the Atheist forum.

All the atheist crowd get tired of just babbling amongst themselves "I hate God", "Yes, me too, you are dead right!" that occasionally they feel the need to get onto a soap box and preach to a larger crowd. And AH fulfills that purpose for them

Nodin

Ghost Estate wrote: »

I always thought of After Hours as more of an extension or an overflow to the Atheist forum.

All the atheist crowd get tired of just babbling amongst themselves "I hate God", "........

A non-sequitur. You may have been on the Satanist or 80's Black Metal Revival forum.....

DeVore

Let me be clear, I think the current "rules" cover the situations that I have "clarified".
My proposal was a proposal of how we interpret those rules with as much "wisdom" as possible and still maintaining a logical coherence.

So, In the world at large we have the two extremes of the More-Than-My-Jobs-Worth approach which values written rule over all commonsense and logic (this can be seen in some of the shrieking PC evangelists and Health and Safety nonsense)...

... and at the other end we have the Irish Law approach which is "be so vague that we can work it all out after the fact". Its the old answer of "I cant tell you what Pornography is but I know it when I see it".

Somewhere in between those two we need a mix of rules, guidelines and freedom for the mods of the forums.

My proposal gives some logical basis for making the decision of whether a thread is "of value" or not, is blind to which side of the equation its dealing with and yet still leaves room for the mods to exercise their judgement.



I never want to get to a situation where mods are bound by "rules" against their better judgement. Its a shocking catastrophe that our society has simply abandoned personal responsibility in favour of unthinking rigid rules based systems.

DeV.

Ghost Buster

Ive just had a quick scan through this thread and have two requests.
(1) I want to know what this 'atheist belief' is.
(2) I want to know that the 'atheist doctrine ' is.
(3) I want to know how atheism is a religion




3 requests in the 2 . Its mysterious. Maybe miraculous;)

Merci
GB

LoLth

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Ive just had a quick scan through this thread and have two requests.
(1) I want to know what this 'atheist belief' is.
(2) I want to know that the 'atheist doctrine ' is.
(3) I want to know how atheism is a religion




3 requests in the 2 . Its mysterious. Maybe miraculous;)

Merci
GB

I would suggest that you ask these questions on teh A&A forum. This is feedback for issues concerning boards.ie (eg: I think the A&A forum is great because.... or "I think X forum is over moderated because...").

thanks

LoLth

gbee

DeVore wrote: »

Let me be clear, DeV.

I think it's just another form of censorship but dressed up nicely.

If I disagree with your view, you can now have my post or even me removed, not now because I disagreed with you, but because I failed to add anything of value.

Ghost Buster

LoLth wrote: »

I would suggest that you ask these questions on teh A&A forum. This is feedback for issues concerning boards.ie (eg: I think the A&A forum is great because.... or "I think X forum is over moderated because...").

thanks

LoLth

Thanks but I think it belongs here as these questions / requests are in direct response to statements to the effect that atheism is a belief/ doctrine/religion.
So
Statements here = request for clarification here.
Thanks
GB

ps
Besides The AA dont make these statements and so have nothing to clarify

Ghost Buster

Deleted User wrote: »

Biko, this is how the discussion started, when you wrote in a PM:



And here I am.

Every answer to the question "Do you think there is a God or anything similar?" is an opinion, is a belief.

I believe all beliefs *must* be treated equally in moderatorship, theist, non or unsure, otherwise there is a bias towards one belief.

I thought I made myself crystal clear in my first post.

Even if the answer is the obviously honest "I dont know and neither does anyone else"?

philologos

It is a philosophical position. Personally, I don't mind if philosophical positions are presented in AH in a reasonable manner. Even if I find a lot of the critiques of Christianity on AH absurd, and ill-informed let them at it as far as I see it.

Jazzy

aethism is a religion?

Overheal

Jazzy wrote: »

aethism is a religion?

Atheism is a religious viewpoint. Aside from that it's neither here nor there in relevance to this discussion.

gbee

Atheism is just common sense.

If no one was brought up in a religion, individuals would pause to give thanks naturally, just like that, thanks for everything and look around again in wonder.

It's being forced to say thanks to 'HIM' that's the problem really.

All this atheist argument is grand, but it's not for here. I asked a question, and it got answered.

Still, I noticed these got started up in the past few days....

Fairy tales -vs- The Bible

Did You Eat Meat?

Alive magazine

What are you giving up for length ?

Dirty Forehead Day

Haunted house for sale or rent, virgin Mary included at no extra cost.

is Et JC

Ash Wednesday

What are you giving up for lent??

Some of the above are shrug-shoulder acceptable, some of them are funny enough, and some are just not funny or new.