Preaching: Thread Closed

[Leo Volont]

I used to post here a lot, and still drop by on occassion, but when I find a post I would like to add to, more than most of the time I find "Preaching: Thread Closed".

So much for Freedom of Speech.

And this Chris... what does he provide after he deprives the Page of any avenue for discussion.

The Administrators really should examine this Policy of turning this Page into an Intellectual Ghost Town.

And Chris should be fired.

 

[Ophiolite]

Dear Oriole Volauvent,
where in the terms and conditions of forum membership does it say anything about free speech? I'll give you a clue. Nowhere.
I recall you did post on a regular basis. I also recall a decided unwillingness on your part to enage in discussion or debate, but rather a commitment to brandishing your agenda with mindnumbing regularity and little regard for the thread topic. Sounds like preaching to me. Well worth putting down.

Finally, how do you intend to fire someone who is not employed?

 

[lightgigantic]

I guess his point is that there is an agenda for brandishing an agenda - I mean there are stacks of brazen statements and straight out namecalling that go down in the name of atheism on this site but if someone even gives even a hint of it in the name of theism they are immediately pounced upon and the thread is closed - it tends to reveal a type of bigotry - personally I would prefer to see an equal upholdment of dealings since there is nothing so useless to discussion, regardless on one's theological values or valuelessness, than low language sniping and over confident displays of opinions that do nothing but reveal one's own personal value system

 

[Adstar]

Free speech has never been part of this forum. This forum in moderated by anti-christs. The policy of this section of the forum is to promote anti Christian and anti- God thought.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[imaplanck.]

I dont think so!
If that was the case, why do so frigging many pro realigous threads dominate the forum?

 

[imaplanck.]

Further more, why are there so few members on line this fine morning. I hazard it's because they are attending church rather than talking of god on this supposedly anti-theist forum

 

[lightgigantic]

The question here is that why are persons who advocate an atheistic stance enabled to get away with more in the name of insult and brandishing one's values in the absence of thoughtful discussion.

 

[imaplanck.]

I dont know,........because you are a dick?

 

[KennyJC]

If people like Leo Volont and witnessjudgejury (and many others) were left unchecked this place would be a shit hole. sciforums is always about debate, and it would rapidly go downhill if the forum was littered with lengthy preachy posts that didn't invoke any response or discussion. That doesn't just go for the religious posters, but then again I don't see too many atheists spamming the forum with threads that have no basis in anything, then abandoning the thread because there is no intent for discussion.

 

[Ophiolite]

I guess his point is that there is an agenda for brandishing an agenda -

True, but what made him expect that it would be different. Your point is more pertinent and merits an answer. The manner in which he phrased his merited, in my opinion, the response I gave. (And his own diatribes are interminably boring. ).
The difficulty is, in my view, that many theists adhere to fundamentalist positions and largely reject the requirement to approach topics with at least a nod to the demands of science for evidence, or an acknowledgement that followers of the many 'one true faiths' cannot all be correct.
If, instead, there was a focus on the value of the spiritual, rather than a bleating of dogma, then a more balanced handling of these debates might emerge.

 

[Cris]

Leo,

more than most of the time I find "Preaching: Thread Closed

Very curious since there have been very few of those.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I do not see that any of your threads have ever been closed on those grounds, despite requests from other members for that action.

And out of the nearly 5000 threads here only a small fraction have been closed for these reasons, and note that some have also been closed because of belligerent non-believer content.

There are countless religious sites where adherents are free to preach, sermonize, evangelize, etc, but my intent here is not to allow the promotion of religion but to encourage objective debate in as close to a scientific approach as possible as befits a “science forums” character.

If there is a recent thread that I closed that you feel should not have been closed and you have some appropriate debate style content you feel is relevant then please let me know either in this thread or via PM and I will gladly consider re-opening.

As yet we have not adopted draconian measures of censorship for content as is typical on many religious sites where even a hint of atheism is immediately deleted and/or such members banned.

Please note that while I find your opening posts very eloquent and very readable, you are very much on the borderline of promoting your religious position rather than offering it for debate. You may disagree and in my doubt I have elected to leave your content alone and will continue to do so unless there is significant dissent from other members.

I will freely admit my decisions may not always be correct and I am very open to suggestions. But in general I take very few actions here where others have requested I do more.

Please note also that there is no H in Cris. Cris is my real name and I would kinda appreciate it being spelt correctly.

 

[Ophiolite]

Further more, why are there so few members on line this fine morning. I hazzard it's because they are attending church rather than talking of god on this supposidly anti-theist forum

I have to take very strong exception to this statement. What the fuck makes you feel this is a 'supposedly anti-theist forum'. Are you so brain dead you are unable to understand that religion and science are not antithetical, but are in fact two sides of the same coin. Are you so wrapped in the dogma of what you mistakenly believe to be science that you are unable to appreciate its true nature, or to go out and smell the roses. Get a fucking grip, why don't you.

Note: Please be aware imaplanck that I generally adopt a more violent persona on this forum than on others where you may be familiar with my posts. Please do not take this ill mannered, abusive, obscene personal attack as an ill mannered, abusive, obscene, personal attack. Thank you.

 

[Cris]

Adstar,

Free speech has never been part of this forum. This forum in moderated by anti-christs. The policy of this section of the forum is to promote anti Christian and anti- God thought.

Well no. There is no such intent or policy. The content and attitudes here is entirely due to the members that post here. There are very few rules and there is very little intervention by the moderators.

The forum is certainly not pro-religious as many assume a "religion" forum should be. But there is certainly no intent to make it anti-religious.

 

[imaplanck.]

I have to take very strong exception to this statement. What the fuck makes you feel this is a 'supposedly anti-theist forum'. Are you so brain dead you are unable to understand that religion and science are not antithetical, but are in fact two sides of the same coin. Are you so wrapped in the dogma of what you mistakenly believe to be science that you are unable to appreciate its true nature, or to go out and smell the roses. Get a fucking grip, why don't you.

Note: Please be aware imaplanck that I generally adopt a more violent persona on this forum than on others where you may be familiar with my posts. Please do not take this ill mannered, abusive, obscene personal attack as an ill mannered, abusive, obscene, personal attack. Thank you.

Respect.

 

[imaplanck.]

......Although you are so retarded that you didn't see that I actually implied that this forum is more pro-religous than anti-religous, not the other way around . Also science and religion ARE indeed antithetical, hence the former depends on evidence and logic while the latter depends on fuckwit faith. Otherwise Respect!

Apologies for my slowness im on my 10th beer.

 

[(Q)]

Leo Volont

If I could take a moment and direct you to the site linked below, which has an agenda of absolutely NO free speech, unless you are a theist and agree with the group think. Any discussions of an atheist nature will get you banned. You'll notice that theists on Sciforums are allowed to post anything they want, except for preaching, which does not serve as discussion.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/index.php

 

[Adstar]

Adstar,

Well no. There is no such intent or policy. The content and attitudes here is entirely due to the members that post here. There are very few rules and there is very little intervention by the moderators.

The forum is certainly not pro-religious as many assume a "religion" forum should be. But there is certainly no intent to make it anti-religious.

Cris Cris Cris save it for the mushrooms. Remember i have been coming here for years, i know exactly what the spirit behind this forum is.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

Leo Volont

If I could take a moment and direct you to the site linked below, which has an agenda of absolutely NO free speech, unless you are a theist and agree with the group think. Any discussions of an atheist nature will get you banned. You'll notice that theists on Sciforums are allowed to post anything they want, except for preaching, which does not serve as discussion.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/index.php

Anything can be deemed as "preaching" whenever it suits the Moderators on this forum. When a Christian responds with an explanation to a seekers question they are preaching. The Mods can and do intervene in discussions when they think the Christian is "winning over" a seeker. This place is all about moving believers into unbelief. To save us poor theists from our delusions LOL


All Praise The Ancient Of Days <=== see preaching

 

[Cris]

Adstar,

Cris Cris Cris save it for the mushrooms. Remember i have been coming here for years, i know exactly what the spirit behind this forum is.

Apparently you don't. What you see is how this community has evolved, there was no intent or policy. That I am anti-religious may well have encouraged those with similar perspectives but otherwise the result you see is entirely due to member content. There is no conspiracy.

 

[Cris]

Adstar,

Anything can be deemed as "preaching" whenever it suits the Moderators on this forum.

And of the 170,000 posts here how many have been censored, altered, or adjusted because of pro-religious content. I don't believe you will find any that weren't obviosuly justified because of nuisance issues or genuine complaints. You should find far more that were altered because of flaming, ad-hominen, by either camp, or just outright religious nutters, which I am sure you recognize equally well as me.

When a Christian responds with an explanation to a seekers question they are preaching. The Mods can and do intervene in discussions when they think the Christian is "winning over" a seeker.

Like most religionists claims there is an absence of referenced evidence. Show an example to support your claim and we can discuss it. Please be sure to understand the difference between moderator action to impose the rules and a moderator simply joining in the debate.

This place is all about moving believers into unbelief.

If scientific attitudes and critical thinking is encouraged as befits a science forum then a move to a more rational perspective is most likely inevitable. But such a paradigm will be primarily due to the nature of members and their contributions rather than any directed moderator actions. I do very little here from a moderator management perspective; rather I usually debate as a regular contributor. I hope you see the distinction between my two roles.

To save us poor theists from our delusions LOL

Definitely sounds like something that should be seriously considered, you poor thing.