The Religion Forum and You

[Kittamaru]

Fair enough. But that's you. This thread is admittedly a question posed by the moderation team, suggesting that more than one mod might be vested in the outcome, and the potentia. Candidates are, to varying degrees, rotten. Which brings me back to my original proposition: Leave us be. We'll sort ourselves out. Well-armed militia, and all that.

Actually... the thread was my idea alone As far as I'm aware, nobody else has been elevated to moderate Religion - it's sorta being handed over as my own little simulacrum in the aether. That's why I'm so interested in the input - if I'm going to be adjusting the parameters by which the rules actually apply herein, I want to make sure I do so in a way that best promotes a healthy atmosphere for the kind of discussion going on

 

[Balerion]

Actually... the thread was my idea alone As far as I'm aware, nobody else has been elevated to moderate Religion - it's sorta being handed over as my own little simulacrum in the aether. That's why I'm so interested in the input - if I'm going to be adjusting the parameters by which the rules actually apply herein, I want to make sure I do so in a way that best promotes a healthy atmosphere for the kind of discussion going on

I have no idea what a silmacram is, or why Esther would want one, but I'll trust you to do the right thing.

 

[Kittamaru]

hehe, it was an attempt at some WH40K humor

 

[Aqueous Id]

First, as one of the few sincerely religious members of these fora, I appreciate the moderators considering the issues and problems of the Religion sub-forum.

Thank you very much!

The reason I joined SciForum was to seriously discuss religious topics in a scientific way

That sounds fine, but below you add limitations to this which alter the picture.

and vice versa.

Does this mean you want to discuss science in a religious way?

One way I want this forum to be is for non-believers to butt out of religious and spiritual discussions.

Sounds like you actually joined to change the site.

Universal netiquette, which seems to go largely unheeded on Sci Forum , dictates that if one does not accept the premise to not participate in a discussion.

Yet you decided to join.

Every time anyone at all, even a new member with his first post starts a religious discussion anywhere on these fora about half a dozen of the most active members jump on him and tell him that his god is nonsense

As I recall, in one of the first posts I engaged you, you represented other gods--Quetzalcoatl . . . perhaps Thor--as nonsense. You seem to having trouble saying exactly what you mean here. You seem to be saying active members jump on him and tell him that the true God is nonsense, or words to that effect.

and that there is no point even discussing whatever religious or spiritually based topic he has brought up because he is in self-righteous and superstitious and has no place here.

Since one of the scientific treatments of religion is that it's rooted in ancient superstition, I'm surprised you didn't expect this kind of remark from the beginning.

The other change I want to see is the end of Christian and Muslim baiting. Topics such as, 'What will we replace religion with?', 'What religious people do to each other', 'Alternatives to the Crucifixion story' and even 'Bid to boost feminism among Muslim women' are all bald provocation and pathetic cries for attention.

That's your opinion. But the people who opened those threads are making statements about religiosity (the pretense of religion) leading to pathological behaviors (e.g. abridging the rights of vulnerable victims) which is an example of scientific treatment of religion you said you were seeking. In any case, if you look at the history of threads immediately preceding your join date, you will see even more threads like these that were being opened daily. So this statement does not comport with your earlier statement, that you picked the site as one conducive to talking about religion scientifically.

How are such topics even allowed?

Because they inquire into religious thoughts, behaviors and actions which are part of the scientific treatment of religion you said you were looking forward to.

Can no one see that the posters have no interest in serious discussion,

No I don't think anyone can see that. I think they see serious people adding facts and evidence to the discussion which is emblematic of that scientific treatment you wanted.

and are just trying to get a rise out of believers?

That's your opinion. I can only speak for myself: when I see posts I disagree with, or which are controverted by evidence I have knowledge of, then no matter what thread I'm in, if I feel like it, I will post those facts. If a poster denies facts I know to be true, or offers bogus rebuttal, or acts dishonestly, etc. then I will narrow my scope to those points and follow up. So the answer for me is no, I'm not trying to get a rise out of believers. I'm trying to have a reasonably scientific discussion of issues controverted by facts. As far as I'm concerned, and as far as other posters seem to me to be concerned, the purpose of what you called serious conversation is to arrive at the truth. If a person states something contrary to the truth of a matter, then you should expect the other members to introduce the substantive facts which expose the false claim. That's just standard fare for discussion boards.

 

[leopold]

Good morning everyone! In light of recent changes, I figured a good place to start on figuring out how to best help out around this forum would be to find out what you, the members, want this forum to be.

i assume you mean the religion sub forum.
the discussions here should be in relation to philosophy.
the discussions in comparative religion should be in relation to history, or to take a literal context, comparing 2 or more religions.

We (the moderation staff) don't want to see it devolve into a mosh-pit of 'my God can punch your God in the face' style pandemonium...

my god carries a hammer.
your god died nailed to a tree.
any questions?

but at the same time we have been lacking a distinct idea of why this subforum exists.

the original intent had to be in relation to philosophy.

 

[Magical Realist]

"Obviously there are some basics I would like to try and bring back into play, not the least of which includes simple respect for opposing ideas (note, you CAN respect the idea even if you don't AGREE with it, and you can argue for or against an idea even if you do not actually prescribe to its ideals... being able to do so is simply good debating), but beyond that, well, let me know!"

I don't know that I CAN respect a lot of ideas of religion. Homophobia, the idea of original sin, the inferiority and subjugation women, the morality of eternally tormenting humans in hell, the welcome ending of the world in a fiery apocalypse, the idea of demons and the Devil, killing an innocent person or animal to atone for guilt, corporeal punishment, an eye for an eye, the elevation of blind faith as a virtue, the sinfulness of contraception, the infallibility of the pope/Bible/Koran, jihad, faithhealing, snakehandling, book burning, the immorality of idol worship, blue laws, school prayer, censorship, unclean meats, the immorality of out-of-marriage sexual desire/fantasies, mandatory sonograms, teaching of creationism, the idea of a promised land, mutilating a baby's penis as a sign of God's favor, witchburning, unquestioning submission to authority, the uncleanness of menstruating women, the immorality of disbelief, the immorality of masturbation, the immorality of pride, etc and etc. Religion, at least that of the monotheistic variety, is like the Super Walmart of really bad ideas. Now that doesn't mean I have to flame or insult a religious person for believing in and arguing for these ideas. But surely I don't have to pretend to like or respect these ideas as if they were true and virtuous. Can't we still critique religion here for what we see are its major fallacies and flaws? Or is the ability of speak out against religion to be censored here just as it has been in ages past?

 

[Magical Realist]

delete

 

[Kittamaru]

That's the beauty of it - you can critique all you want! Just have a modicum of respect for the other people in the debate... that's the wonderful thing about being of a species with a functional higher intellect - the ability to disagree with an idea and be able to argue its virtues, or to agree with an idea and argue against it.

 

[Magical Realist]

That's the beauty of it - you can critique all you want! Just have a modicum of respect for the other people in the debate... that's the wonderful thing about being of a species with a functional higher intellect - the ability to disagree with an idea and be able to argue its virtues, or to agree with an idea and argue against it.

Good! Tks! Although I don't think I'll be arguing much for ideas I don't agree with. That seems to me abit cognitively dissonant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

[Kittamaru]

Good! Tks! Although I don't think I'll be arguing much for ideas I don't agree with. That seems to me abit cognitively dissonant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

It is and it isn't - the idea is that learning to debate in favor of the side of an issue opposite the side you support helps you learn to look at things more rationally and logically without letting emotion cloud your judgement. It's something I learned about in my time on a few debate teams and its served me well

 

[cluelusshusbund]

We (the moderation staff) don't want to see it devolve into a mosh-pit of 'my God can punch your God in the face' style pandemonium... but at the same time we have been lacking a distinct idea of why this subforum exists.

What do you want to see happen in/with this sub forum? What can we do to make it a place you enjoy participating in? What goals should we set?

Obviously there are some basics I would like to try and bring back into play, not the least of which includes simple respect for opposing ideas (note, you CAN respect the idea even if you don't AGREE with it, and you can argue for or against an idea even if you do not actually prescribe to its ideals... being able to do so is simply good debating)

Some wish this forum to be virtually un-moderated, to leave members to their own devices. Others want to see a reduction in personal attacks and general uncivilness.

It is apparent that tensions/opinions/tempers run heavy here...

Ther will always be general uncivilness if moderation allows it to occur... so how about a religion sub forum (safe area) whare everbody is welcome to discuss religious beleifs... wit a Zero tolerance for "uncivilness";;; it will be like a little piece of Heaven for the many religious belevers here.???

 

[Cris]

There should be only a single rule in this forum - respect other posters and debate with civility towards each other at all times.

Beyond that, any and all ideas and concepts for or against religion are fair game for support or contempt. This is not a solely PRO-religion forum, nor a solely ANTI-religion forum, and no one should expect a thread to remain in one style without opposing contributions. There should be no reason to respect the ideas of either camp if you feel they are in your view contemptuous. Feelings and emotions regarding religious concepts run very high and often extreme making it unreasonable to expect most people to respect opposing ideas.

The only moderation required is to remind a poster when he/she has confused an attack on an idea with an attack on a person. It should be perfectly acceptable here to call a concept or idea stupid and explain why, but it is never acceptable to target any poster with abuse. The two attack styles can be easily confused and can easily lead to flame wars.

And religion cannot be debated in a scientific manner, it isn't possible since each side uses different rules. Science is all about evidence while religion is all about faith (the absence of evidence). The typical frustration most feel about most threads and their inability to conclude meaningfully is that it is like playing a game where one side is using the rules for baseball and the other using the rules for soccer. There is no middle ground where agreement can occur, at least not on the fundamental aspects. And that is the determining characteristic of religious debates and we should not expect anything different here.

There should also be no restriction on the creativity of posters when they start a new topic, whether very pro or anti. The clearly stupid threads die off quickly, but some of the more bizarre topics do indeed stimulate new ideas and aspects that can develop into interesting debates.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

There should be only a single rule in this forum - respect other posters and debate with civility towards each other at all times.

Beyond that, any and all ideas and concepts for or against religion are fair game for support or contempt. This is not a solely PRO-religion forum, nor a solely ANTI-religion forum, and no one should expect a thread to remain in one style without opposing contributions. There should be no reason to respect the ideas of either camp if you feel they are in your view contemptuous. Feelings and emotions regarding religious concepts run very high and often extreme making it unreasonable to expect most people to respect opposing ideas.

The only moderation required is to remind a poster when he/she has confused an attack on an idea with an attack on a person. It should be perfectly acceptable here to call a concept or idea stupid and explain why, but it is never acceptable to target any poster with abuse. The two attack styles can be easily confused and can easily lead to flame wars.

Sounds good... an clear enuff/simple enuff that mods coud achieve a higher level of consistency in ther moderation... which will make Sciforums a beter experience for mods an posters.!!!

 

[Kittamaru]

Cris, I would object to one point - you may find an idea contemptuous, but you should still respect it/the person in so much as you hold a civil conversation.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I would object to one point - you may find an idea contemptuous, but you should still respect it/the person in so much as you hold a civil conversation.

I have only 1 objection to that:::

Respect for the person or ther ideas is not required... just a civil conversation is required.!!!

 

[Kittamaru]

I have only 1 objection to that:::

Respect for the person or ther ideas is not required... just a civil conversation is required.!!!

That is a part of respect cluelesshusband; as is refraining from name calling, lying, etc. I'm not saying you have to LIKE or AGREE with it, but basic respect goes a long way

 

[cluelusshusbund]

That is a part of respect cluelesshusband; as is refraining from name calling, lying, etc. I'm not saying you have to LIKE or AGREE with it, but basic respect goes a long way

What you just said sounds muddled... what i said is clear.!!!

As long as the conversation is civil... respect for the person or ther ideas is irrelevent.!!!

 

[Kittamaru]

How do you figure mate? I'm asking for basic respect; no lies, no name calling, no misrepresentation, no intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Cris]

Kitt,

Cris, I would object to one point - you may find an idea contemptuous, but you should still respect it/the person in so much as you hold a civil conversation.

No - and this is the key point. You must be able to separate the idea from the person voicing the idea, and then treat each independently. It makes no sense to pretend to be respectful of an idea when you really hold it in contempt, just who would be lying to who?

Civility towards the person comes first and has priority and is an absolute requirement. The way you then express your contempt for the idea becomes the challenge, and likely the basis of your post. The lazy approach would be to be abusive towards the idea and that also tends to stray into a lack of civility towards the person as well. I would argue that it is always possible to portray contempt for an idea in a polite manner, especially when you will be expected to justify your position, as should always be expected in civilized debate. It is always possible to use powerful and forceful arguments to express your perspective without resorting to abuse.