So, it's official: Atheism is the After Hours stance on religion

How can this thread be allowed? it's blatant shilling.

Why is this tyhread not put into Atheism & Agnosticism? It addresses Atheists, it asks Atheists an Atheist question.

If it is an acceptable After Hours topic, why does boards.ie even bother with other forums?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73473808#post73473808

I'm extremely annoyed at boards.ie's blatant laissez faire attitude to topics in After Hours, purely because it allows vested interests to take advantage and push their own agenda.

Tom Dunne

I don't think it is shilling, proselytising perhaps?

As I am sure you know, AH allows all manner of threads on a wide range of topics. Yes, certain topics are probably suited to certain forums. In this case, one of the mods even asks the OP why this thread wasn't started in the A&A forum.

The thread (and I have not read most of it) seems to continue on into a long discussion, in true AH style.

Ultimately, it is a judgement call as to where a thread belongs. As the thread has not been moved, I take it the mods are ok with it staying there.

Is that official Boards.ie policy? Absolutely not. Is it Boards.ie policy to trust the mods to run forums to their best judgement (knowing that on occasion we don't always get it right or consistent), absolutely. Am I saying the mods got it wrong or were inconsistent? Absolutely not.

So I do not think that by leaving the thread there it is making a point that the official stance on religion in AH is Atheism.

I'm extremely annoyed at boards.ie's blatant laissez faire attitude to topics in After Hours, purely because it allows vested interests to take advantage and push their own agenda.

Humans, by their very nature, tend to disagree a lot. If the Cmods or Admins got involved in every single contentious thread on every single forum across the site, we would get very bogged down very quickly.

By adopting a hands-off, laissez faire attitude to AH, it has become probably the most popular forum on the site.

That didn't happen by accident.

Beruthiel

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm extremely annoyed at boards.ie's blatant laissez faire attitude to topics in After Hours, purely because it allows vested interests to take advantage and push their own agenda.

Paranoid much SeaSlacker?
After Hours discusses all manner of subjects, including various religions or the lack there off.
There is no pushing of agendas.
It is the posters of that forum who pick their subject matter.
It is the moderators of that forum who decide if the thread fits well with AH.
Boards.ie Admins do not get involved with that unless it breaks the law in some way.

Tom Dunne

Firstly, the thread title is simply a throwaway comment of what things appear to look like. Thread titles that shock but have only minimal link to the topic at hand seem to be allowed anyway.

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I don't think it is shilling, proselytising perhaps?

Is proselytising allowed in After Hours?

Tom Dunne wrote: »

In this case, one of the mods even asks the OP why this thread wasn't started in the A&A forum.

Did the mod receive a reply, or was he simply ignored?

Tom Dunne wrote: »

The thread (and I have not read most of it) seems to continue on into a long discussion, in true AH style.

You mean it's turned into *another* merry-go-round pro vs anti religion threads?

So the AH style is round and round and round and round and round and round..........?

Charter says:

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.

There are a huge amount of forums on boards.ie. Often it can be difficult to locate the one you are looking for. If you need help please ask in newbies and FAQ.
If you post a thread in After Hours that is more suited to another forum it will either be locked or moved to the correct forum. If you are unsure if a topic is suitable for After Hours please send a private message to any of the moderators.

For example:
Dublin Forum for anything relating to Dublin.
Television Forum for TV related threads
Cool Vids & Pics & Links for all YouTube videos etc.
Ranting and raving for when you just need to vent and you don't want to argue. (PM me for access)
Politics forum for all serious political discussion
Irish economy forum for all issues relating to the Irish economy.
Celebs and showbiz for general celebrity gossip.

Should I just STFU and FO?

edit:

Tom Dunne wrote: »

By adopting a hands-off, laissez faire attitude to AH, it has become probably the most popular forum on the site.

The same could be said about Fox News: "What we do increases viewer numbers, so it's the right thing to do."

coffee_cake

Deleted User wrote: »

Should I just STFU and FO?

Yes

report the thread, if they decide not to move it, then that's that

edit: having read the thread - what on earth is your complaint? Asking atheists "if you're so great what about your families"? There've been far worse actual anti-church and anti-religion threads on AH

Tom Dunne

Deleted User wrote: »

Is proselytising allowed in After Hours?

Not that I am aware of.

Deleted User wrote: »

Did the mod receive a reply, or was he simply ignored?

No idea, I didn't read all of the thread.

Deleted User wrote: »

You mean it's turned into *another* merry-go-round pro vs anti religion threads?

So the AH style is round and round and round and round and round and round..........?

It appears to be. If the masses and the mods want it that way, then so be it. I think with all contentious threads, there is going to be an element of round-and-round. However, I do think the mods (across all forums) do their best to prevent this and steer debate away from that scenario.

Deleted User wrote: »

Should I just STFU and FO?

Absolutely not. Everybody has a contribution to make.

Deleted User wrote: »

The same could be said about Fox News: "What we do increases viewer numbers, so it's the right thing to do."

I don't think the mods (or users) consciously post provocative threads purely to increase readership/participation of the forum. However, I do believe that the forum facilitates the average person in putting his or her view on topical matters out there.

MitchKoobski

You don't like the threads and topics? Simple. Don't go to After Hours, and don't open and read the threads.

There is no official stance. The majority of people posting in a thread happen to be atheist, there ya go. If the majority of people posting in a thread where catholic, would that be the official stance?

You can't slam a forum because the majority of it's posters believe or don't believe in the same thing.

LoLth

Seaslacker: did you report the thread to bring it to the moderators attention?

looksee

I have only read the first part of the thread, but it seems to be a very laid back and reasonable discussion, with several people commenting that (since the argument seems to be about intelligence and religion) that many very intelligent people they know are in fact religious.

It is inevitable that the majority of people are going to say they are athiest/agnostic/nothing in particular given the fall away from the church and the mostly youngish profile of Boards. Why do you need to establish an 'official stance', its just the way it is.

The way the question is phrased it is challenging athiests rather than supporting them. As for laissez-faire - are you suggesting that there should be an 'official' pro-religion stance in AH?

Micky Dolenz

I feel you may have the wrong end of the stick.

Let's just say AH is a giant ship cruiser and the mods are the sailors. We just keep the ship in order and make sure she doesn't sink. Now let's say single posters are the passengers. Here's the important bit, all posters collectively are the captain. The captain decides where the ship is going.

The thread in question moved very quickly indicating an appetite for the subject matter. If the topic doesn't fit it gets thrown over board or moved to a sister ship. This one fitted.

What I'm trying to say is, most of the time the subject matter is unimportant, it either fits or doesn't and people want to discuss it or not.

I believe in God but that doesnt even come into my reasoning on any thread. My reasoning will always come back to what the Captain wants and what AH can do to accommodate that want.

Now I must return top side, those decks won't scrub themselves.


God bless AH and all who sail in her.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

Firstly, the thread title is simply a throwaway comment of what things appear to look like. Thread titles that shock but have only minimal link to the topic at hand seem to be allowed anyway.
"

A quick dismissal of a fact that interferes with your premise.

Deleted User wrote: »

Should I just STFU and FO?

"

Get a sense of proportion would be a third option.

Penn

Atheism isn't the After Hours stance on religion. Atheism is the stance of the majority of users in After Hours. And what's the problem with that? I mean, the majority had to belong to one group, whether they be Atheist, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish etc... One group was always going to be the majority. It just so happens to be Atheism.

So yes, sometimes threads are allowed to stay in AH which are discussing religion, and the majority of posters discuss things from an atheist point of view. It's not the point of view of Boards, the Admins, the CMods or the Mods, but the point of view of the majority of the posters.

To be perfectly honest, why should AH change to suit the minority? Perhaps the best solution would be either to accept that it is what it is, or just don't post in it.

Dudess

It appears your issue with it is it's something you disagree with, not that it's the official AH stance (which you know it isn't). You wouldn't have a problem with people discussing their beliefs on AH. I get that you dislike seeing religion being ridiculed, but that's people's opinion.

Certainly, it's completely unacceptable for individuals who are religious to be ridiculed (unless they force their beliefs on others) but it appears you just want the endorsement of atheism cut out completely on AH. The fact that it's a different point of view to yours isn't justification enough for that.

I see religion/religious people being defended quite a bit on AH too - including by atheists. And there's non stop cat-calls of "smug", "arrogant" "Derp you're just like Richard Dawkins" (could someone come up with someone more original? :pac:), "trendy" (groan) thrown at atheists, simply because they're atheists.

Tom Dunne

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Not that I am aware of.



No idea, I didn't read all of the thread.



It appears to be. If the masses and the mods want it that way, then so be it. I think with all contentious threads, there is going to be an element of round-and-round. However, I do think the mods (across all forums) do their best to prevent this and steer debate away from that scenario.



Absolutely not. Everybody has a contribution to make.



I don't think the mods (or users) consciously post provocative threads purely to increase readership/participation of the forum. However, I do believe that the forum facilitates the average person in putting his or her view on topical matters out there.

Cheers for that Tom, I'm also of the opinion the mods aren't in this to actively promote anything, but I think there's posters out there who don't want to see the attack/defend merry-go-round that usually goes with these kinds of topics.

looksee wrote: »

As for laissez-faire - are you suggesting that there should be an 'official' pro-religion stance in AH?

Not at all, on the contrary in fact. I would have hoped that merry-go-round threads, be it on the economy, religion, fianna fail, whatever, would be treated as "guilty until proven innocent" i.e. postings can't be all dry shyte or whinging unless there's a good reason for the topic coming up. A good example would be the Cloynes report- because it's in the news, threads started on how the Church acted above the law and giving them both barrells for doing so are welcomed (I welcome them myself).

Barrington, that argument is basically "we're the biggest, deal with it or STFU". To go into it would drag this thread way off topic.

Dudess wrote: »

It appears your issue with it is it's something you disagree with, not that it's the official AH stance (which you know it isn't). You wouldn't have a problem with people discussing their beliefs on AH. I get that you dislike seeing religion being ridiculed, but that's people's opinion.

Certainly, it's completely unacceptable for individuals who are religious to be ridiculed (unless they force their beliefs on others) but it appears you just want the endorsement of atheism cut out completely on AH. The fact that it's a different point of view to yours isn't justification enough for that.

I see religion/religious people being defended quite a bit on AH too - including by atheists. And there's non stop cat-calls of "smug", "arrogant" "Derp you're just like Richard Dawkins" (could someone come up with someone more original? :pac:), "trendy" (groan) thrown at atheists, simply because they're atheists.

Dudess, it's not that I'd hope atheism endorsement to be cut out from AH. It's religious discussion unconnected to world events that I'd like to see have to make a case for not being put into forums designed for it.

I think that there's trolls & nuts out there who'd love nothing more than to spend hour upon hour spamming AH with whatever rant & conspiracy theory they believe "the world must know!". And it's the mods keeping them at bay.

I also think the majority of readers want to see merry-go-round reduced. The only people who see any fun on them are the merry-go-round riders (the posting arguers) and reading it just makes you feel like you're watching a shouting match in the doorway of tescos. It's not what you came here for, you just want your pack of crisps, but you can't avoid the shouting, and you have to get past them to get to the counter. By some people's logic, I should keep quiet, turn heel and leave the Tescos crisps-less.

Overheal

I think there's posters out there who don't want to see the attack/defend merry-go-round that usually goes with these kinds of topics.

I'd be one of them - I think - but in most cases that involves me avoiding threads with buzzwords like Pope, Church, Catholic, God, Religion, Atheist, etc. but sometimes they do make for a read.

The Church and in many cases the Religion itself are going to get attacked. The line starts to get crossed when posters start going after the Parishoners, and goes far over the line when individual posters get attacked - and by attacked I don't mean criticized or challenged about their beliefs, I mean being the subject of outright bile for attending church or donating money.

Barrington, that argument is basically "we're the biggest, deal with it or STFU". To go into it would drag this thread way off topic.

His point is there are 8 Atheists and 2 Catholics. It's not the mods job to ensure that each catholic gets 4x as much defense as any one Atheist. As a minority view your problem is the views you convey are 4x more likely to be jumped upon and challenged, rather than +1'd and let slide quietly, because there's likely 4 other Atheists out there that would love to talk to you about it and wonder why you think as you do.

AH is Neutral Ground. Atheists and Christians have their own forums and that is where their viewpoints get a home-turf advantage of some remote semblance of protection. The short version is if you find the threads in AH offensive, don't contribute, don't read, and don't visit. Such threads fizzle out much sooner if there is nobody to debate with.

iPlop

AH is full of right wing atheism, most people who believe in GOD are "stupid" according to AH and "idiots" for believing in "fairy tails".

To me the boards.ie stance is that AH is an atheist forum, with multiple threads that start with "Non-catholic funeral? Where will my body go?"


And then decends into this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidchameleon
I just don't get Atheists. There the most uptight religious nuts out there. At least Catholics don't give a toss what you believe. Atheists have no respect.

And then decends into this:

Originally Posted by Emoi
I guess we just feel we are more intelligent, more deserving and can walk around with the smug belief that we are better than you so therefore you should be respecting us

All atheist threads go this way, sure it won't be long before some poster calls for a 9/11 on the Vatican.

Stark

Sink The Banana wrote: »

All atheist threads go this way, sure it won't be long before some poster calls for a 9/11 on the Vatican.

My money's on Enda.

strobe

Sink The Banana wrote: »

AH is full of right wing atheism[...]

AH is full of right wing everything. Not to mention left wing everything. Threads about the government tend to follow a pattern, same with threads about the USA or the Irish language or Vegetarianism or whathaveyou.

To me the boards.ie stance is that AH is an atheist forum

I really don't think that is the case anymore than it is the case that the 'boards.ie stance' is that AH is an omnivore forum or an anti-FF forum or a male forum. It just happens that the majority of posters are male or meat eating or atheist or anti-FFers. Boards.ie don't start any threads in AH, the normal posters like you and me do. There does tend to be periods where lots of threads relating to religion in some way get started but that's hardly surprising when, for example, the largest news story for several days in the national media was the Taoiseach addressing the Vatican. Just like whenever something to do with the Israel/Palestine conflict is big in the media you can be guaranteed threads about the middle east will become frequent. Or like when something major relating to the economy/IMF bailout happens you get a greater frequency of those type threads appearing.

Not every thread about the middle east is really a politics forum thread and not every thread about religion has to be moved from AH to one of the religion specific forums. (I actually think the thread linked to in the OP probably would have been better suited to the A&A forum though as it was exclusively asking the opinion of atheists, but not all threads do.) It's a general forum for general topics and religion is occasionally a general topic for people just like vegetarianism or politics or automobiles is.

Virtually every thread in AH could be moved to a different forum but that doesn't mean they should be.

Threads like http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056337810 do tend to be posted in the A&A forum too but it is not particularly an atheist thread, it's a thread to do with a topical subject, addressing the mish-mash of people with varying views that frequent the AH forum. It would not be especially welcome in Christianity so I really don't see where else it should be posted other than AH.

Sea Slacker would have people believe that religiously themed threads are given carte blanche in AH in a way that no other topic is. They are not. They are frequently locked, and/or moved. Just like political threads or music threads are. But sometimes they are simply better suited to the forum they are posted in by the OP that posts them. I notice Sea Slacker never once runs into a thread to backseat mod or declare to the world he has no interest in reading it when threads such as these are started http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72690760, in fact he 'thanks' it. His issue isn't with religious or atheistic threads in AH, it is with people in these threads saying something which doesn't conform to his own view.

If other people were to react the same in any threads with a political slant in AH they would be 60 pages long of nothing but people crying "stop talking about this, you're hurting my feelings!!!".

When I see a thread I either have no interest in or know the majority of people will disagree with me in and that it will just annoy me, then I just don't click on it. I really don't see why that is such an abstract, unacceptable, out there suggestion for people...

(all above imo)

Overheal

Sink The Banana wrote: »

AH is full of right wing atheism, most people who believe in GOD are "stupid" according to AH and "idiots" for believing in "fairy tails".

To me the boards.ie stance is that AH is an atheist forum, with multiple threads that start with "Non-catholic funeral? Where will my body go?"


And then decends into this:




And then decends into this:




All atheist threads go this way, sure it won't be long before some poster calls for a 9/11 on the Vatican.

I should point out that in the instance you just quoted between the 2 posters, a Moderator intervened.

strobe

Discussing me:

strobe wrote: »

His issue isn't with religious or atheistic threads in AH, it is with people in these threads saying something which doesn't conform to his own view....

(all above IMO)

Well, I've stated exactly on this thread what my issue is, and you seem to believe, despite what I've said, that I want my own view to override everyone else's re: religion. Basically trawling through my post, sorry, my thank history to spot posts and wave them in my face.

What's your issue with me thanking...

steddyeddy wrote: »

If history has taught us anything is intolerance of other people's beliefs has caused a huge amount of suffering in the past.

This here is a clear statement of my issue. It already has been counterd by posts before this one, so there's no need to make extra points about it.

Dudess, it's not that I'd hope atheism endorsement to be cut out from AH. It's religious discussion unconnected to world events that I'd like to see have to make a case for not being put into forums designed for it.

While I am disappointed that people don't see merry-go-round threads as unhelpful to the good standing of After Hours, I can do nothing about it.

I'm telling you guys, the lack of tight moderation in After Hours will hurt boards.ie one day. Not by my hand, but someone will post something, it will be missed by a mod, and next thing a solicitor's letter will land in the door of boards HQ.

dr.bollocko

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm telling you guys, the lack of tight moderation in After Hours will hurt boards.ie one day. Not by my hand, but someone will post something, it will be missed by a mod, and next thing a solicitor's letter will land in the door of boards HQ.

I somehow doubt the RCC are going to sue us because people are apparently shilling atheism.
So the doomsaying kinda comes across as very strange. Or at least not really pertinent to the conversation.

Bollocko, this isn't about the RCC. Heck, it isn't about Atheist Ireland, the mosque in south dublin or the Honourable Order of Jedi Knights (The RCC are in the news, and they deserve to be given both barrels for months to come as far as I'm concerned)

I'm saying that threads that on the face of it belong in other forums should be presumed "guilty until proven innocent" i.e. the OP needs to give a good reason for putting it in AH when there's other forums available for it.

There's times when the good reason is an obvious one (eg "church thinks its above the law" when the Taoiseach comes out and criticises the church for acting above the law) but if it's not obvious, OP should get 24 hours to explain "why here not there?" and if no reply, or a bad one (derzzz mor peepil ere dem odderz ar borrin arsoles) move it across.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

This here is a clear statement of my issue. It already has been counterd by posts before this one, so there's no need to make extra points about it.

Your issue is effectively that catholicism (or indeed religion in general) comes in for criticism unchecked on after hours.
"Intolerance" is a loaded word, not least a little bit wishy-washy because it both does and doesn't include connotations. "Intolerance" can be used to describe both Hitler's treatment of the Jews in WWII and equally describes a parent's refusal to get a child baptised in order to get into a school.

If you oppose any critical discussion on the basis that it's "intolerant", then you effectively ban all discussion on anything. Because for every opinion, you'll find someone who's intolerant of it.

I understand how for someone with a particular belief system it can seem painful and unwarranted to see criticism of their chosen beliefs on a regular basis, but no belief systems are without such criticism. Even those with no belief system (i.e. atheists) come in for criticism now and again, so there's no escape from it.

Religion is a current affair, a "world event" if you like. In this country we've had religious freedom for a long time, but only in the legal sense. Socially, there was no religous freedom - you did what your parents and peers did or you were ostracised. Over the last 15 years, social religious freedom has been growing, and Enda Kenny's attack on the church last week is a public declaration that it has now reached a critical mass.
It is suddenly socially acceptable to question religion, and people are now asking, "what now", "what next", and suddenly realising that the universe of religious belief isn't confined to a tiny box of possibilities that they were brought up to believe.

Religion is going to become a major social topic of the next decade as the older generation die off and those who begin to take political and social charge are the first to have the courage to question the primacy of any religion in society.

You can't oppose social change, social commentary and discussion on the basis that it offends you or tells you that you're wrong. I understand how it feels like your chosen belief system is constantly under attack, but unless you're personally being discriminated against, or the subject of personal attacks on the basis of your religion, then you have no real complaint. In a free society, nothing should be above criticism or metaphorical attack.

After Hours is the melting pot of social discussion, of the stuff that people are talking about on a daily basis in pubs and canteens and building sites. Most of it belongs somewhere else, certainly. But where there's a broad social desire to discuss it, then AH is the place to put it.

Not by my hand, but someone will post something, it will be missed by a mod, and next thing a solicitor's letter will land in the door of boards HQ.

Happens all the time. It's a concern of boards.ie's certainly, but thankfully recent legal developments have given websites more protection in this regard. If something is missed by a moderator, then boards.ie cannot be held liable, effectively.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm telling you guys, the lack of tight moderation in After Hours will hurt boards.ie one day. Not by my hand, but someone will post something, it will be missed by a mod, and next thing a solicitor's letter will land in the door of boards HQ.

Is your issue with lack of or insufficient moderation on AH, or with the number of anti-religion type threads? Both are very different issues. What does any 'lack of tight moderation' have to do with your issue of Atheism being the AH stance on religion, as per this thread title? What have you seen which is against the forum charter? Threads not being moved to the religion forum? As Micky Dolenz said earlier, enough people wanted to discuss these threads, so they were allowed to stay.

So what 'lack of tight moderation' was there?

coffee_cake

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm telling you guys, the lack of tight moderation in After Hours will hurt boards.ie one day. Not by my hand, but someone will post something, it will be missed by a mod, and next thing a solicitor's letter will land in the door of boards HQ.

So does that mean you didn't report the thread?

dr.bollocko

Deleted User wrote: »

Bollocko, this isn't about the RCC. Heck, it isn't about Atheist Ireland, the mosque in south dublin or the Honourable Order of Jedi Knights (The RCC are in the news, and they deserve to be given both barrels for months to come as far as I'm concerned)

I'm saying that threads that on the face of it belong in other forums should be presumed "guilty until proven innocent" i.e. the OP needs to give a good reason for putting it in AH when there's other forums available for it.

There's times when the good reason is an obvious one (eg "church thinks its above the law" when the Taoiseach comes out and criticises the church for acting above the law) but if it's not obvious, OP should get 24 hours to explain "why here not there?" and if no reply, or a bad one (derzzz mor peepil ere dem odderz ar borrin arsoles) move it across.

And your premise is if this is not done we're gonna get sued?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Bollocko, this isn't about the RCC. Heck, it isn't about Atheist Ireland, the mosque in south dublin or the Honourable Order of Jedi Knights (The RCC are in the news, and they deserve to be given both barrels for months to come as far as I'm concerned)

I'm saying that threads that on the face of it belong in other forums should be presumed "guilty until proven innocent" i.e. the OP needs to give a good reason for putting it in AH when there's other forums available for it.

There's times when the good reason is an obvious one (eg "church thinks its above the law" when the Taoiseach comes out and criticises the church for acting above the law) but if it's not obvious, OP should get 24 hours to explain "why here not there?" and if no reply, or a bad one (derzzz mor peepil ere dem odderz ar borrin arsoles) move it across.

seamus wrote: »

Your issue is effectively....

"Effectively"? "Effectively" nothing. I've stated my issue in black and white. Pretty much everything after that "effectively" (which is a long post) is tangental, inconsequential and nothing to do with what I've said above. I've said it before I will say it again. I am on about moderating standards. Yes, this time around it happened to be religion, but I'd say the same thing if it was, say, threads about voting No to Lisbon (the reason I've never returned to politics.ie, which moderator style After Hours was once a counterpoint to, but is now trying to emulate)

Barrington wrote: »

Is your issue with lack of or insufficient moderation on AH, or with the number of anti-religion type threads? Both are very different issues. What does any 'lack of tight moderation' have to do with your issue of Atheism being the AH stance on religion, as per this thread title? What have you seen which is against the forum charter? Threads not being moved to the religion forum? As Micky Dolenz said earlier, enough people wanted to discuss these threads, so they were allowed to stay.

So what 'lack of tight moderation' was there?

The fact is, religious threads are down in number on AH, I think I've seen 2 or 3 on the big stuff. Considering what's in the news, I've no problem with them. What sparked this off (and angered me enough to put in the angry man face and the sensationalist headline, one I now wish I'd taken a breath on & changed) was inconsistency. I first saw that thread the morning after it had been first posted in the afternoon previous, about 18 hours before. Yer man was an atheist asking atheists about an atheist topic. Why was the thread not moved across? A mod had acted in a previous case as if atheism was a "special case", as in he said he'd be ok with promoting atheism where he would not be ok with religious promotion, and in a fit of ,well, "indignation" I reported the post as "shilling", and came in here and started this.

bluewolf wrote: »

So does that mean you didn't report the thread?

Do you really think I'd come here and start posting like this if I hadn't?

---

A lot of people want to throw this off as "ohh he's just a Catholic trying to enforce catholicness as de reel troot". I'm categorically stating here. No. I don't care what you think about the big stuff. I hope you don't care what I think about the big stuff, even in the back of your mind. I hope what I think about the big stuff has absolutely no bearing on what decisions you make as moderators.

Anyways, I'm an hour behind in my day because of this discussion. Sun is gorgeous out there and I'm going to return to it. I might even leave the iPhone behind specifically so I don't check this thread and lose more valuable time.

Edit: The answer to my question above has been given by Micky Dolenz as "the discussion seemed civil enough, so I let it continue"

seamus

Gonna be frank here SeaSlacker;

You've wasted an awful lot of your time if your only issue actually was "why wasn't this moved to a different forum".

Morag

Deleted User wrote: »

Is proselytising allowed in After Hours?

hmm pretty sure it's one of those unwritten rules that it wasn't' allowed on the site, but there is a difference between dicussion and proselytising, however you seem to think any discussion of athiesism outside of the a&a forum is proselytising and it's not.

If you don't like the thread then don't click on them and don't read them.
Pretty sure you were told this the last time you were crusading on this topic here in feedback.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

Bollocko, this isn't about the RCC. Heck, it isn't about Atheist Ireland, the mosque in south dublin or the Honourable Order of Jedi Knights (The RCC are in the news, and they deserve to be given both barrels for months to come as far as I'm concerned)

I'm saying that threads that on the face of it belong in other forums should be presumed "guilty until proven innocent" i.e. the OP needs to give a good reason for putting it in AH when there's other forums available for it.

There's times when the good reason is an obvious one (eg "church thinks its above the law" when the Taoiseach comes out and criticises the church for acting above the law) but if it's not obvious, OP should get 24 hours to explain "why here not there?" and if no reply, or a bad one (derzzz mor peepil ere dem odderz ar borrin arsoles) move it across.

To answer your question why this doesn't belong in another forum is because these topics hardly belong in Christianity do they? Perhaps they belong in Politics because of the involvement between Church and State. Or perhaps it belongs in Atheism. Or Humanities.

It's a rather cross-platform subject, to be frank. Hence where better to place it than AH?

Ultimately though what does it matter where it's discussed? Do you want it sent to Christianity just so it can be locked up or stifled?

Overheal, why would I want a thread asking atheists about an atheist topic written by an atheist into Christianity? Did you even read my OP? Or anything I've posted apart from what you've quoted?