FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Religion/Faith forum





Bondings
After the unlock moderator topic I've been debating with the staff on what actions to take.

Anyway, we came to the conclusion that it might be best to split the Religion and Philosophy forum into 2 parts, namely a Philosophy forum and a Religion/Faith/Spirituality forum (or similar forum names). Something like this has already been suggested a lot, including by Bluedoll recently. I wasn't in favour of it previously, but like Bluedoll mentioned, this could create a fresh approach.

However, next to splitting the forum, the suggestion is to add some extra restrictions to the Religion (or whatever it is named) forum. In the Religion forum, the discussion in a topic is limited to the views of the first post of the topic, meaning that no heavy discussions and arguments are allowed. Of course questions, similar views and some remarks are allowed, otherwise there would be no discussion left.

So in the Religion forum, if you post (in a new topic) that you are a devout Christian and believe in the bible, a reply saying that the bible is a fiction book, god doesn't exist and similar things won't be allowed. On the other hand, if someone creates a topic that states that he/she doesn't believe in god, a response that god does exist and you should pray and read the bible, is not allowed.

In the Philosophy forum, the heavy discussion would remain. Basically the choice would be given to either choose for less discussion and post in the Religion forum or choose for heavy discussion in the Philosophy forum.

However, despite the heavy discussion in the Philosophy forum, I suggest the discussion is restricted in the sense that personal and cross-topic posts aren't allowed. A reply should focus on the content of the posts in the same topic solely and not on the person who posted them and not on what was said in different topics or private messages. This is a rather drastic measure and I'm not sure if it is realistic, but we could at least try it, in my opinion.

And at last, about the moderation. I think it would be best if someone who isn't actively involved in the heavy discussions moderates these 2 forums. I suggest that in the short term it is moderated by the current staff, apart from Bikerman (who is actively involved in the discussions). In the long run, I will try to find a new global staff member who might also be suited for most moderation in those forums. We discussed about letting an active member be a special moderator of those forums only, but that would cause the same problem of having someone who is actively involved moderate the forums.

Now of course this is a proposal and can be changed. Please share your opinions about it, what you do and what you don't like about it.
truespeed
Bondings wrote:

So in the Religion forum, if you post (in a new topic) that you are a devout Christian and believe in the bible, a reply saying that the bible is a fiction book, god doesn't exist and similar things won't be allowed. On the other hand, if someone creates a topic that states that he/she doesn't believe in god, a response that god does exist and you should pray and read the bible, is not allowed





I think having a sub forum where believers can share stories about their belief without fear of having to defend their faith all the time is a good idea,but there should still be a seperate religion forum where religion can be debated openly.

The philosophy & religion forums are probably the most active of all the forums on frihost,it could back fire in terms of posts and activity to remove the ability to debate the subject with those of an opposite view point.
Bondings
truespeed wrote:
Bondings wrote:

So in the Religion forum, if you post (in a new topic) that you are a devout Christian and believe in the bible, a reply saying that the bible is a fiction book, god doesn't exist and similar things won't be allowed. On the other hand, if someone creates a topic that states that he/she doesn't believe in god, a response that god does exist and you should pray and read the bible, is not allowed





I think having a sub forum where believers can share stories about their belief without fear of having to defend their faith all the time is a good idea,but there should still be a seperate religion forum where religion can be debated openly.

The philosophy & religion forums are probably the most active of all the forums on frihost,it could back fire in terms of posts and activity to remove the ability to debate the subject with those of an opposite view point.

You would still be able to debate religion openly in the Philosophy forum.
LittleBlackKitten
Thank you, Bondings. This will stop the majority of the arguing going on and caused by having the two forums as one. I am glad you and the rest of the staff are listening to the few of us who are calling foul. If we wish to debate, we can head into philosophy to do so, and I really appreciate this new step. A million thanks!
deanhills
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to comment Bondings.
Bondings wrote:
Anyway, we came to the conclusion that it might be best to split the Religion and Philosophy forum into 2 parts, namely a Philosophy forum and a Religion/Faith/Spirituality forum (or similar forum names). Something like this has already been suggested a lot, including by Bluedoll recently. I wasn't in favour of it previously, but like Bluedoll mentioned, this could create a fresh approach.
I'm not in favour of splitting Philosophy and Religion, as I think the two topics are too close to one another and there are not enough Frihosters debating in that Forum to justify two separate Forums. The All Truth is Subject to Individual Perception thread is a good example of how close the two topics are. It may create extra work for moderation as quite often one may start with philosophy and then get into religion even with still being on topic.

With the exclusion of the personal argumentative debates, I have seen an improvement in the quality of some of the debates in the Phil&Rel Forum. I am almost certain that the reason for the improvement has been new posters in the Forum. If we can somehow get even more fresh blood especially of the quality of the All Truth is Subject to Individual Perception thread type, then it may automatically appeal to a different side of the more argumentative type posters with less of the postings that pull the characters of posters apart. Perhaps it may be boredom and lack of challenge of the quality type that provoke the more argumentative type posters into personal remarks and argumentative postings.
Bondings wrote:
However, next to splitting the forum, the suggestion is to add some extra restrictions to the Religion (or whatever it is named) forum. In the Religion forum, the discussion in a topic is limited to the views of the first post of the topic, meaning that no heavy discussions and arguments are allowed. Of course questions, similar views and some remarks are allowed, otherwise there would be no discussion left.
Philosophy and religion are heavy discussion topics. I don't see how this can really work. The discussion in the All Truth is Subject to Individual Perception thread for example is heavy, however it is really a quality discussion (in my view anyway).
Bondings wrote:
So in the Religion forum, if you post (in a new topic) that you are a devout Christian and believe in the bible, a reply saying that the bible is a fiction book, god doesn't exist and similar things won't be allowed. On the other hand, if someone creates a topic that states that he/she doesn't believe in god, a response that god does exist and you should pray and read the bible, is not allowed.
As I have mentioned before, I am not in favour of splitting Religion and Philosophy, and I think one of the reasons that we have problems like we have are really dumb topics like the ones you have just mentioned, that always end up in a very predictable low quality debate. With the God is Good thread for example, perhaps it should have been locked right at the point when the Moderator felt that something was wrong with the opening post of the thread. One could have written the script for the whole of that thread right at the time when it was opened. It was a thread that should never have existed (in my opinion). So what I am trying to say is that perhaps the topics of threads should be vetted as it is quite obvious which topics will turn into your typical repetitive Christian vs. Atheist or the other way round debates. They seem to be the ones that usually turn into personal and nasty discussions as well.
Bondings wrote:
In the Philosophy forum, the heavy discussion would remain[/b]. Basically the choice would be given to either choose for less discussion and post in the Religion forum or choose for heavy discussion in the Philosophy forum.
That is perfect, except of course I wonder how one can really split philosophy and religion from one another successfully as the one may turn into a discussion of the other or the other way round.
Bondings wrote:
However, despite the heavy discussion in the Philosophy forum, I suggest the discussion is restricted in the sense that personal and cross-topic posts aren't allowed. A reply should focus on the content of the posts in the same topic solely and not on the person who posted them and not on what was said in different topics or private messages. This is a rather drastic measure and I'm not sure if it is realistic, but we could at least try it, in my opinion.
I feel the same as you Bondings. I don't like drastic measures or too many rules as they will stifle discussion and make life difficult for moderators. Again, I am almost certain if we can get new quality posters posting in that Forum, as we have been getting in the last two months, that the quality of the discussion will spontaneously focus on substance rather than sarcasm and personal remarks.
Bondings wrote:
I will try to find a new global staff member who might also be suited for most moderation in those forums. We discussed about letting an active member be a special moderator of those forums only, but that would cause the same problem of having someone who is actively involved moderate the forums.
This is spot on for me. I really like this idea. I think this, together with new blood will make a radical difference. Smile
watersoul
Very sensible move Bondings. I can understand the passion in evidence from both strong atheists and theists on the forums, but if "philosophy" becomes the place for the "thrashing out of beliefs", with a new forum where believers of any sort can openly share their own "truth" without having to defend it, that will surely help forum harmony.

In the new section, if someone posts "I don't believe in God for whatever reason", or someone posts "I do believe in God for whatever reason", I agree that this new place should be a forum where any replies should be interested in those reasons and focus on " why" the OP thinks it, how they came to that faith/scientific view, or how that faith/scientific view influences their lives etc. Not a place where the particular belief or not is picked to bits, either through science or religious texts - thats for the current forum.

If this new forum is a place where believers (of any faith) and non believers can express whats personal to their lives without the fear cross-examination, that will definitely provide a platform for interesting reading, where anyone looking at the particular posts can make their own mind - or query it politely.

Don't get me wrong, I love reading some of the heated discussions whilst effectively doing this:
...but with passions so high in both the faith & science camps, I think this new "safe" place to express individual opinions is a very good move.

*edit* I would also offer my thoughts that a guideline/rule of the new forum could be helpful with something like: "Posts/replies should clearly be about what "you believe" as truth." Statements such as "this is the truth" are not allowed as long as other people in the world have different "truths". Equally no user should post "this is not the truth" for the same reasons...the place for those discussions is in "Philosophy/whatever." ...not here.

...just a thought Smile
Bluedoll
I want to compliment Bondings on his fairness, willingness to listen and interest in this. I am impressed also with the work of the staff and the thought that goes into the board and the fact that decisions are open for suggestion and discussion is superub.


Of course, all topics do cross pollinate and separation of topics is key to organizing topics. I wish I understood more about board dynamics to offer good suggestions.
I am for anything that works and side with community adherence more than with stricter rules and restrictions. Maybe people really need to agree to disagree civilly but that too may need regular reminders. Shame on you
I think I’ve read concerns from a lot of members about not wanting to being restricted in posts. As a writer, I can appreciate this as well, freedom of expression is something I think everyone wants without abusiveness.
truespeed
Bondings wrote:

You would still be able to debate religion openly in the Philosophy forum.


Then i think the split is a good idea.
ocalhoun
Bondings wrote:
In the Religion forum, the discussion in a topic is limited to the views of the first post of the topic, meaning that no heavy discussions and arguments are allowed.

^.^
Good, now the easily-offended types have an offense-free sandbox to play in.

(Though it is good to have a place to discuss religion -- that is, any aspect of religion other than is true/isn't true. Just imagine how aggravating it would be to discuss novels or movies if every thread was invaded by people reminding you that it is fictional...)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Bondings wrote:
In the Religion forum, the discussion in a topic is limited to the views of the first post of the topic, meaning that no heavy discussions and arguments are allowed.

^.^
Good, now the easily-offended types have an offense-free sandbox to play in.
Not a very flattering description Ocalhoun .... But it did occur to me too that some kind of "safe zone" is being created. Not sure that will work however as that is going to put quite a big load on support that will be needed to keep it safe, OR no one will post in it. Probably better to keep things simple and as they are. And rather bring in new blood (new posters) and get an external moderator along the lines that Bondings suggested.
watersoul
ocalhoun wrote:

Good, now the easily-offended types have an offense-free sandbox to play in.


That really made me laugh! Laughing
The "sandbox" is already there though to be fair, anyone can start a Frihost Blog and just turn the comments off - declaring whatever "truths" they like as long as it harms no others/hateful/etc.
I've always thought that is a much better option for easily offended types to share their beliefs, if they want to avoid opposing views being able to pick them to bits.
Bluedoll
watersoul wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

Good, now the easily-offended types have an offense-free sandbox to play in.


That really made me laugh! Laughing
The "sandbox" is already there though to be fair, anyone can start a Frihost Blog and just turn the comments off - declaring whatever "truths" they like as long as it harms no others/hateful/etc.
I've always thought that is a much better option for easily offended types to share their beliefs, if they want to avoid opposing views being able to pick them to bits.
ok, just as a note: Yes, blogging, is a good idea and an option but I am not for anyone (not nameing here) Boo hoo! to continue to remind a member to go that route or go to another forum all together.




_________________________________







As an experiment, adopt an agreement, on a trial basis to see how it works?
Is this a good suggestion? (not to be confused with backseating, backbenching mod or whatever it is called?)

“the discussion in a topic is limited to the views of the first post of the topic” -Bondings

As a rule, if a member (only the member that made the first post) wants to follow the post and put in notes. Such as ‘off topicShame on you or “personal insult not relating to the topic” or whatever, in bold/using emotion.

At least if a moderator is called in, they can easily see at first glance what has been going on in order to make a decision?
deanhills
Bluedoll wrote:
watersoul wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

Good, now the easily-offended types have an offense-free sandbox to play in.


That really made me laugh! Laughing
The "sandbox" is already there though to be fair, anyone can start a Frihost Blog and just turn the comments off - declaring whatever "truths" they like as long as it harms no others/hateful/etc.
I've always thought that is a much better option for easily offended types to share their beliefs, if they want to avoid opposing views being able to pick them to bits.
ok, just as a note: Yes, blogging, is a good idea and an option but I am not for anyone (not nameing here) Boo hoo! to continue to remind a member to go that route or go to another forum all together.
Well said Bluedoll and a very valid point. Almost the equivalent of one set of rules for one Forum and a different set of rules for another Forum. Going to be very confusing as well as difficult to monitor. What I can't understand is that there are perfectly good rules in place already. We're not supposed to flame, troll, mock and insult other Frihosters. Those rules don't seem to be enforced. So why not just maintain the status quo, and just make sure there is an impartial moderator in place who is monitoring the situation and enforcing the current rules. He does not have to be a police man, but if there is a discussion that gets out of hand or off topic, he can sort it out there and then.
watersoul
Hmm, I still think the "safe place" for people to express their views is probably the way forward in some form.
In P & R, the main issue I seem to see is theists claiming "truth" and being shot down by scientific argument. This in turn appears to usually offend the theist (as an attack on something deeply personal to them) and the debate changes into one often far removed from the original post.

I think Bondings idea could work with a new place where people can express their belief's (whilst avoiding statements such as "this is the truth", using lines such as "this is my truth" instead)
If critical shoot downs are banned in the new place, this will leave the P & R section open for the more heated debate, and anyone posting there will have to expect cross-examination.
Basically, if you want to express your views, inviting only general interest or agreement and polite questions, go to the new section - but if you wish to express "truths" or belief's as "fact" go to P & R but expect to be treated as "fair game" by anyone with opposing views.
Bluedoll
@Deanhills Well it was only a suggestion. Originally, to be honest, I thought philosophy and religion were not the same at all, topic wise! I do realize however that many would disagree. Not sure but like I said previously, whatever works the best for all members I am for.

Opinion: (I am not an expert on anything just learning) but I do think from a marketing perspective in general . . . power of attraction!

    If you maintain an area with freedom of expression without abusiveness you can get a lot of great discussions happening with a wide range of members attracting other free thinking members.

    If you have rules but do not enforced them can end up with a place full of bullies attracting other bullies.

    If you over regulate you end up with a controlled environment with boring posts.
Ankhanu
Personally, I disagree with splitting the two forums; they're intrinsically linked. With the two topics together there is opportunity for a more interesting, robust and multifaceted discussion of topics, particularly in the religion sub-category of philosophy.
Splitting the forum will have the greatest deleterious effect on religious discussion. I understand the desire to avoid personal attacks, and they should be curtailed, but a real discussion involves a range of opinions, which would be lost to a heavy degree with a split. While religion could still be discussed in the philosophy section, I believe the involvement of the opinionated religious would drop off.

I think the split would weaken Fri in general, really.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
Splitting the forum will have the greatest deleterious effect on religious discussion. I understand the desire to avoid personal attacks, and they should be curtailed, but a real discussion involves a range of opinions, which would be lost to a heavy degree with a split. While religion could still be discussed in the philosophy section, I believe the involvement of the opinionated religious would drop off.

I think the split would weaken Fri in general, really.
I totally agree Ankhanu. You just said it much better than I did in much less words! Smile
Bluedoll
Quote:
As an experiment, adopt an agreement, on a trial basis to see how it works?
Is this a good suggestion? (not to be confused with backseating, backbenching mod or whatever it is called?)
At least if a moderator is called in, they can easily see at first glance what has been going on in order to make a decision?
No it is not a good suggestion. It is a stupid idea bluedoll. I've never seen such an idiotic suggestion in my life! It is very arrogant of you to even make suggestions. You are troll thats what I think. What you post doesn't even makes sense. If you don't like the way things are done around here stop whinning about it. You make too many contractions. It is obvious you don't know what you are talking about and until you do, if you don't want to be challenged you should stop posting your obsurb beliefs. "See how it works" is only a crying victim. Of course don't take this personally.

You made a spelling mistake so therefore you are not a writer Laughing

http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-120323.html

Suggestion: Stop suggesting bluedoll! Shame on you
Well @ least she started a blog that's an alternative I guess! Cool
Rolling Eyes
tingkagol
Well, I am actually for the split. The problem would then be if new members would think all religious discussions are only limited to the "Religious Sandbox/Sanctuary" forum (whatever name it gets), possibly curtailing potential religious discussion/debates in the present forum. So it has to be perfectly clear that religion can still be debated/discussed in it.

Also, to answer people's sentiment that philosophy and religion are closely related, I stand by my suggestion for the new forum to be just a subforum of the main Philo & Religion forum: Smile
Quote:
Frihost Forum Index
--> Lifestyle and News (category)
------> Philosophy and Religion (forum. Debates allowed)
----------> Forum Thread 1
----------> Forum Thread 2
----------> Religion / Theist Sanctuary (subforum. Exclusive. No debates/questioning/critiquing)
--------------> Subforum thread 1
--------------> Subforum thread 1
deanhills
tingkagol wrote:
Well, I am actually for the split. The problem would then be if new members would think all religious discussions are only limited to the "Religious Sandbox/Sanctuary" forum (whatever name it gets), possibly curtailing potential religious discussion/debates in the present forum. So it has to be perfectly clear that religion can still be debated/discussed in it.

Also, to answer people's sentiment that philosophy and religion are closely related, I stand by my suggestion for the new forum to be just a subforum of the main Philo & Religion forum: Smile
Quote:
Frihost Forum Index
--> Lifestyle and News (category)
------> Philosophy and Religion (forum. Debates allowed)
----------> Forum Thread 1
----------> Forum Thread 2
----------> Religion / Theist Sanctuary (subforum. Exclusive. No debates/questioning/critiquing)
--------------> Subforum thread 1
--------------> Subforum thread 1
The two topics are too much interlinked for them to be successfully split. It will create a lot of hard work for the moderator as he/she will have to shift threads all the time from the one to the other and maybe even back and forth, as a discussion can easily change from religion to philosophy or the other way round.

I most certainly won't post in a "sandbox" forum. That sounds a bit insulting, doesn't it? We all can start our own blogs as well. I would also expect people to still follow the Frihost rules of conduct in the "robust" forum. So the danger of having a "sandbox" forum could be the misunderstanding that the other forum is a free for all. And no holds barred. One set of rules for one forum, and another set of rules (no rules?) for another forum, can also be very very confusing, especially for newbies.
Bikerman
I think you have misunderstood the proposal.
It was NOT to split the two. It was to create a religion forum in ADDITION to the existing p&r forum which would not be for heavy debate but which would, instead, allow the religious posters somewhere to discuss religion without fundamental challenges (such as I don't think God exists therefore this is all moot).
truespeed
tingkagol wrote:
Well, I am actually for the split. The problem would then be if new members would think all religious discussions are only limited to the "Religious Sandbox/Sanctuary" forum (whatever name it gets), possibly curtailing potential religious discussion/debates in the present forum. So it has to be perfectly clear that religion can still be debated/discussed in it.

Also, to answer people's sentiment that philosophy and religion are closely related, I stand by my suggestion for the new forum to be just a subforum of the main Philo & Religion forum: Smile
Quote:
Frihost Forum Index
--> Lifestyle and News (category)
------> Philosophy and Religion (forum. Debates allowed)
----------> Forum Thread 1
----------> Forum Thread 2
----------> Religion / Theist Sanctuary (subforum. Exclusive. No debates/questioning/critiquing)
--------------> Subforum thread 1
--------------> Subforum thread 1


I like Sanctuary as a name for the sub/forum,good suggestion.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I think you have misunderstood the proposal.
It was NOT to split the two. It was to create a religion forum in ADDITION to the existing p&r forum which would not be for heavy debate but which would, instead, allow the religious posters somewhere to discuss religion without fundamental challenges (such as I don't think God exists therefore this is all moot).
Exactly what is meant with "fundamental challenges"? How will you be differentiating between the two? And how will you be able to communicate those differences to posters. Or will it be a typical if someone protests your aggressive debating style in your "fundamental challenges" forum that you direct them to post in the "sand box" forum instead? Like you did me at one stage to post in the General Chat Forum?

If that is the direction you want to take, would it not be easier to have a separate "Religion for Atheists" forum and another "Religion for Christians" Forum? Instead of insulting Christians by implying they cannot handle your "fundamental challenges" and be directed to post in a sand box instead!
tingkagol
Smile You make it sound like it was Bikerman who campaigned heavily for the split. It was Bluedoll.

Anyway, I think all this new forum does is eliminate all the complaints about "atheists hijacking" supposedly religious discussion-only threads in a philosophy forum. At least the appropriate venue for debates and criticisms will be perfectly clear then- which would be the existing philo-religion forum. And hopefully serious discussions for religious dogma/beliefs/scriptures will blossom peacefully in the new forum. I don't think it's insulting at all. In fact, I'm pretty interested in participating in that forum without worrying about anyone posting "god doesn't exist" or "the bible contradicts itself" every other second.

As for the alleged 'insults', I don't think the new forum was proposed to remedy that. The 'insults' are more of a moderation thing.
truespeed
deanhills wrote:
Exactly what is meant with "fundamental challenges"? How will you be differentiating between the two? And how will you be able to communicate those differences to posters. Or will it be a typical if someone protests your aggressive debating style in your "fundamental challenges" forum that you direct them to post in the "sand box" forum instead? Like you did me at one stage to post in the General Chat Forum?

If that is the direction you want to take, would it not be easier to have a separate "Religion for Atheists" forum and another "Religion for Christians" Forum? Instead of insulting Christians by implying they cannot handle your "fundamental challenges" and be directed to post in a sand box instead!


Dean its just a place for people of faith to go and chat about their various faiths in the knowledge that they won't be challenged,anyone who wants to debate religion can do so in the philosphy forums,but those who just want to share and chat about their faiths with others can do so in the new forum.

Its not excluding them from the philosphy forums if they want to debate,its just giving them a safe haven to chat and share their faith with like minded people.
deanhills
tingkagol wrote:
Smile You make it sound like it was Bikerman who campaigned heavily for the split. It was Bluedoll.
That is completely misrepresenting what it was. I responded to the content of Bikerman's posting period. Maybe you should read his posting again?

tingkagol wrote:
Anyway, I think all this new forum does is eliminate all the complaints about "atheists hijacking" supposedly religious discussion-only threads in a philosophy forum. At least the appropriate venue for debates and criticisms will be perfectly clear then- which would be the existing philo-religion forum. And hopefully serious discussions for religious dogma/beliefs/scriptures will blossom peacefully in the new forum. I don't think it's insulting at all. In fact, I'm pretty interested in participating in that forum without worrying about anyone posting "god doesn't exist" or "the bible contradicts itself" every other second.

As for the alleged 'insults', I don't think the new forum was proposed to remedy that. The 'insults' are more of a moderation thing.
Right, and it seems as though the suggestion of a solution now is to get rid of those who complained by creating a sand box for them to play in, instead of dealing with the complaints themselves. Basically deporting them from a forum so that atheists will now have free license to hack away? I am not at favour of more than the one Forum we have right now, but if this ridiculous line of thinking is pursued, a much fairer deal would be to create two religion forums, one for Christians only, and the other for Atheists only. And then perhaps a third forum where they can debate one another. Instead of catering to atheist needs only in the current Forum, giving them license to hack away as they wish to, and banishing Christians with legitimate complaints to a sand box Forum. It is quite easy for me to visualize that if any Christian should object to a certain line of "robust" inquisition (including mocking and insulting) in the proposed atheist compliant forum that it will immediately be suggested to them to go play in the sand box.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
I am not at favour of more than the one Forum we have right now, but if this ridiculous line of thinking is pursued, a much fairer deal would be to create two religion forums, one for Christians only, and the other for Atheists only. And then perhaps a third forum where they can debate one another. Instead of catering to atheist needs only in the current Forum, giving them license to hack away as they wish to, and banishing Christians with legitimate complaints to a sand box Forum. It is quite easy for me to visualize that if any Christian should object to a certain line of "robust" inquisition (including mocking and insulting) in the proposed atheist compliant forum that it will immediately be suggested to them to go play in the sand box.


Lets not forget Baha'i, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Paganism, Santeria, Shinto, Sikhism, Spiritualism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and anyone else who may have slipped my mind.
It isn't all about Atheism against Christianity, there are many different faiths and beliefs out there that differ in opinion to an atheist.

...and every one of them might also like to "go play in the sandbox" to declare their truths Wink
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
Its not excluding them from the philosphy forums if they want to debate,its just giving them a safe haven to chat and share their faith with like minded people.
That is not what Bikerman said. Refer specifically the bolded portion which I bolded:
Quote:
but which would, instead, allow the religious posters somewhere to discuss religion without fundamental challenges (such as I don't think God exists therefore this is all moot).

And I responded to what he said.

If you also read Bondings' suggestion, the suggestion is an attempt to deal with the complaints that have been made about heavy handed posts. So add that with the "solution" then it is quite reasonable to come to a conclusion that the verdict that has been made about the complaints that have been lodged is that they are really baseless complaints. Religious people are just being sensitive to being "fundamentally challenged" in the Phil&Rel Forum. So let's create a safe zone for them that they can go post in instead? If they want to post in the Phil&Rel Forum then they have to accept these "fundamental challenges", if they can't live with it, they can go play in the sand box.
truespeed
deanhills wrote:
Right, and it seems as though the suggestion of a solution now is to get rid of those who complained by creating a sand box for them to play in, instead of dealing with the complaints themselves. Basically deporting them from a forum so that atheists will now have free license to hack away? I am not at favour of more than the one Forum we have right now, but if this ridiculous line of thinking is pursued, a much fairer deal would be to create two religion forums, one for Christians only, and the other for Atheists only. And then perhaps a third forum where they can debate one another. Instead of catering to atheist needs only in the current Forum, giving them license to hack away as they wish to, and banishing Christians with legitimate complaints to a sand box Forum. It is quite easy for me to visualize that if any Christian should object to a certain line of "robust" inquisition (including mocking and insulting) in the proposed atheist compliant forum that it will immediately be suggested to them to go play in the sand box.


Don't think of it as a sandbox where they are excluded to,think of it like a Church,where they can gather together and chat about their faith.

Remember also the forum isn't just for Christians,its for people of all faiths,and non faiths like Atheists,even Atheists can go in there discuss all things Godless without having to debate it with those of faith,debates will still happen with all concerned in the philosophy forums,so if i am honest i don't really see why you would object to the suggestion,everyones a winner aren't they?
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I am not at favour of more than the one Forum we have right now, but if this ridiculous line of thinking is pursued, a much fairer deal would be to create two religion forums, one for Christians only, and the other for Atheists only. And then perhaps a third forum where they can debate one another. Instead of catering to atheist needs only in the current Forum, giving them license to hack away as they wish to, and banishing Christians with legitimate complaints to a sand box Forum. It is quite easy for me to visualize that if any Christian should object to a certain line of "robust" inquisition (including mocking and insulting) in the proposed atheist compliant forum that it will immediately be suggested to them to go play in the sand box.


Lets not forget Baha'i, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Paganism, Santeria, Shinto, Sikhism, Spiritualism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and anyone else who may have slipped my mind.
It isn't all about Atheism against Christianity, there are many different faiths and beliefs out there that differ in opinion to an atheist.

...and every one of them might also like to "go play in the sandbox" to declare their truths Wink
Totally agreed Watersoul. And I did not forget about them. The whole reason for this extra Forum started with complaints by Christians. Not any of the other religions. And the complaints were mostly discussions that resulted in badgering by atheists. Atheists insist on a certain code of inquisition that includes mocking and going beyond tearing apart religion by going for the Christians themselves. If it is really true that nothing has changed, and that this is a simple case of just having a separate forum where everyone who is religious can post in peace, then I should be able to still post in that "fundamentally challenging" forum and expect not to be pulled to pieces? To my mind the real complaints will not have been dealt with. I don't mind if aspects of the religion are questioned, but I do mind if the person who is being questioned is being mocked and belittled. And this is not limited to the Phil&Rel Forum by the way. So should we then have a separate Forum to the Politics forum where people can go post in peace and praise politics, and another one where people can be "fundamentally challenged"?
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
So should we then have a separate Forum to the Politics forum where people can go post in peace and praise politics, and another one where people can be "fundamentally challenged"?


Hmm, I think the spiritual side of faith/beliefs in religion make it far more difficult than politics to debate.
Two alternate political views can be debated by provable evidence such as previous success or failure of governments in power etc.

Whereas with religion, it's mostly unprovable and deeply personal to the person with faith. For that reason alone, I could see where an individual with a strong faith being put down by others, will sometimes feel hurt by this percieved attack on what they personally "know is the truth".
tingkagol
deanhills wrote:
tingkagol wrote:
Smile You make it sound like it was Bikerman who campaigned heavily for the split. It was Bluedoll.
That is completely misrepresenting what it was. I responded to the content of Bikerman's posting period. Maybe you should read his posting again?

tingkagol wrote:
Anyway, I think all this new forum does is eliminate all the complaints about "atheists hijacking" supposedly religious discussion-only threads in a philosophy forum. At least the appropriate venue for debates and criticisms will be perfectly clear then- which would be the existing philo-religion forum. And hopefully serious discussions for religious dogma/beliefs/scriptures will blossom peacefully in the new forum. I don't think it's insulting at all. In fact, I'm pretty interested in participating in that forum without worrying about anyone posting "god doesn't exist" or "the bible contradicts itself" every other second.

As for the alleged 'insults', I don't think the new forum was proposed to remedy that. The 'insults' are more of a moderation thing.
Right, and it seems as though the suggestion of a solution now is to get rid of those who complained by creating a sand box for them to play in, instead of dealing with the complaints themselves. Basically deporting them from a forum so that atheists will now have free license to hack away? I am not at favour of more than the one Forum we have right now, but if this ridiculous line of thinking is pursued, a much fairer deal would be to create two religion forums, one for Christians only, and the other for Atheists only. And then perhaps a third forum where they can debate one another. Instead of catering to atheist needs only in the current Forum, giving them license to hack away as they wish to, and banishing Christians with legitimate complaints to a sand box Forum. It is quite easy for me to visualize that if any Christian should object to a certain line of "robust" inquisition (including mocking and insulting) in the proposed atheist compliant forum that it will immediately be suggested to them to go play in the sand box.

You're getting way ahead of yourself. If that's how you see this new forum (that Bluedoll proposed by the way, so it certainly wasn't intended to cater to atheists' needs) as some form of banishment for Christians, then I'm afraid I don't know what else to say.

I'm not an admin nor moderator, but if someone posts religious beliefs in the philosophy-religion forum and complains (probably a formal complaint to the admin/mods) about being criticized/debated against, then, yes, that person will be given an alternative to post in the said proposed forum. I wouldn't say 'banished' (I think that's overly dramatic), but just directed to the appropriate forum where he could probably have a better posting experience. I believe that's the whole point of the new forum. Apparently, the admin and moderators of Frihost are in agreement that the Philosophy-Religion forum remains a debating ground, and I guess we have to abide by that. An appropriate sticky would remind new members about each forum's rules.

I know you're probably worried that atheists will have a new 'gun' in their arsenal to 'belittle' enthusiastic theist posters- the "go to the sandbox if you don't like it here" card if I may. I am worried about that too. But again, that's a moderation issue. And that's also assuming all atheists who post here are a**holes, which is unfair. I am also worried that the negative stereotype 'theist sandbox' will be permanently attached to the new forum's yet-to-emerge reputation. I've actually thought that previously to be honest, and yes, I agree. It is a bit insulting. In the end, there's just no way we can control how people perceive the new forum, so that's definitely a gamble there.

Anyway, I try not to be too paranoid about it. If I think about it in a positive light, I think this new forum could actually work and is at least worth a try.
Bikerman
The proposal was an sincere attempt to solve what some posters see as a problem. The existing forum will remain a place where views are challenged robustly - I have not seen any dissent from that position from other moderators - and therefore this was the only compromise solution we could come up with (and, yes, I did support offering it as an option, albeit somewhat reluctantly at first).
If people don't want this then I think it is up to posters to suggest an alternative which does not involve closing down or restricting debate in the existing forum. The moderators have tried, in good faith, to offer a solution.
ocalhoun
tingkagol wrote:
I wouldn't say 'banished' (I think that's overly dramatic),

Certainly not; being banished means you can't come back, but you're free to switch between the two forums as often as you please.
You still have to accept the inevitable consequences of posting in a 'criticism-allowed zone', but you're free to come back as soon as you can accept that.
deanhills
tingkagol wrote:
You're getting way ahead of yourself. If that's how you see this new forum (that Bluedoll proposed by the way, so it certainly wasn't intended to cater to atheists' needs) as some form of banishment for Christians, then I'm afraid I don't know what else to say.
Here you go again with putting words in my mouth so perhaps I need to make my points clear so that you can really get the right picture. I will be grateful if you could give me the courtesy of reading my points carefully and clearly so that you can have a better understanding of exactly where I come from with my comments:

1. Recently a number of Christians made complaints about the heavy handed posting of another Frihoster/Moderator in the Philosophy and Religion Forum. I did not make a complaint at the time, but of course having been in similar situations even more than they have been, and NOT ONLY in the Philosophy and Religion Forum, publicly came out in their support with my postings in several Forums. The complaints were NOT about being fundamentally challenged with regard to the topics in that Forum but SPECIFICALLY about the mocking and belittling in some of the posts.

2. I did not click when Bondings first made the proposal in this thread, that a verdict must have been arrived at by the Moderators that the belittling and mocking complaints are really only about Christians who have difficulty with and sensitivity to being "fundamentally challenged". That the solution then would be to assist those Christians with posting in a special Forum where they won't be offended. Yet, that WAS NOT the real complaint. The complaints were about mocking and belittling and NOT ONLY in the Phil&Religion Forum.

3. As I understand it, Bondings asked us for feed back on the proposal that is at a suggestion stage only. When I did my first feedback, I thought the proposal was for a split of the Phil&Religion Forum and indicated that that would be of no benefit at all. I had not clicked at that time that the Moderators had come to a verdict that the complaints were merely ones as a result of not being able to deal with fundamental challenges in the Phil&Religion Forum and being sensitive to being offended in that forum only. The first penny dropped when Ocalhoun picked up on a "sandbox" situation and then when Bikerman made his posting I completely understood where all of it came from. It was crystal clear.

4. In my opinion the suggestion does not provide a solution at all, as the real complaints have not been dealt with. Particularly since the mocking and belittling were not limited to the Phil&Religion Forum, but happened in other Forums as well. It is a double disappointment. The first one that the complaints have been judged to be groundless, and the second one that mocking and belittling are now officially protected in the original Phil&Religion Forum by having an "alternative Forum". So those who do mock and belittle can now do so with official back-up, and if someone should feel belittled and complain about mocking and belittling they probably will be reminded that there is a Forum where they can go post in peace?
Ghost Rider103
deanhills wrote:
4. In my opinion the suggestion does not provide a solution at all, as the real complaints have not been dealt with. Particularly since the mocking and belittling were not limited to the Phil&Religion Forum, but happened in other Forums as well. It is a double disappointment. The first one that the complaints have been judged to be groundless, and the second one that mocking and belittling are now officially protected in the original Phil&Religion Forum by having an "alternative Forum". So those who do mock and belittle can now do so with official back-up, and if someone should feel belittled and complain about mocking and belittling they probably will be reminded that there is a Forum where they can go post in peace?


What do you propose we do to resolve the issue? We are of course open to suggestions. Since you are one of the members making the complaints, it would be nice to hear what you want done about it. I believe we've asked this several times to the users who are making the complaints.

Clearly there are no rules against challenging people's beliefs. Whether or not you take offense to how they do so is up to you. There is no problem with challenging someones beliefs as I've stated before. If you take offense to your views being challenged, then you shouldn't post about them as they will obviously be challenged.

The issue you are referring to is not valid at all. Here's a good example:
I'm a web designer, if I were to post one of my designs up in the design part of the forum and someone continually critiqued each design I posted and I was taking offense to it, then it's clearly my fault and I should 1. either ask nobody critiques it at all. Or 2., just don't post up my designs.
tingkagol
I hear you perfectly deanhills, and I completely understand where you come from with your concerns. But I'm afraid your concern is not what the admin is deciding to have a 2nd forum for. The proposal of the 2nd forum only addresses theist-discussion-only threads in the philo-religion forum being hijacked by atheistic challenges. That's it.

As for your concern, it seems the only way to solve them is to alter/modify the way this forum is being moderated so that alleged 'belittling' posts will be policed across the message board. Again, you have a problem with forum moderation, and that is not what is being addressed, unfortunately.
ocalhoun
tingkagol wrote:

so that alleged 'belittling' posts will be policed across the message board. Again, you have a problem with forum moderation, and that is not what is being addressed, unfortunately.

Or, you have a problem with people who cannot differentiate between belittling their beliefs and ideas as opposed to belittling them.

-Same problem viewed from different angles. (Though one of those angles agrees with the forum rules, and the other does not.)
Bluedoll
Ghost Rider103 wrote:
What do you propose we do to resolve the issue? We are of course open to suggestions. Since you are one of the members making the complaints, it would be nice to hear what you want done about it. I believe we've asked this several times to the users who are making the complaints.

Clearly there are no rules against challenging people's beliefs. Whether or not you take offense to how they do so is up to you. There is no problem with challenging someones beliefs as I've stated before. If you take offense to your views being challenged, then you shouldn't post about them as they will obviously be challenged.

The issue you are referring to is not valid at all. Here's a good example:
I'm a web designer, if I were to post one of my designs up in the design part of the forum and someone continually critiqued each design I posted and I was taking offense to it, then it's clearly my fault and I should 1. either ask nobody critiques it at all. Or 2., just don't post up my designs.

Moderation
Then I can challenge this post as a philosophical belief ? 1. or 2. is not a solution. One can ask but a lot of the time 1 is futile. My vote is a no to 2. I have to look at all the philosophy on what to do. I am going with 3 as a solution. 3. Bondings says post!
I am not against challenging beliefs but I do see an exception to this in regards to religion. The exception is not about challenging beliefs the exception is regarding separation of the topics.

you have a problem with people who cannot differentiate between belittling their beliefs and ideas as opposed to belittling them. - ocalhoun

A belief can be challenged but can a personification divine identity = R (for any religion – does not include unicorns and gods of philosophy = P) be respected in a Religion section because the section and all topics in the section should be related to the category as being a religious post? Since a majority of religious posts can reflect very personal subjection, a consideration should be given to what is personal (religion) and what is topical (philosophy).

Smile Moderation is determined by the moderators and administration of this board and I do not want to be in conflict of it ever. I want to abide to the rules of the board and my only request is if I do break a rule that it be explained how I broke the rule. I really do appreciate, the work that has and does go into this board by administration (the we), moderators(the we) and members (the we we) Good going and a pat in the back for the WE (everyone). - Bluedoll
truespeed
I am still not clear on your position bluedoll,do you want a seperate religious forum?
deanhills
tingkagol wrote:
As for your concern, it seems the only way to solve them is to alter/modify the way this forum is being moderated so that alleged 'belittling' posts will be policed across the message board. Again, you have a problem with forum moderation, and that is not what is being addressed, unfortunately.
Thanks tingkagol. You hit the nail on the real problem.
deanhills
Ghost Rider103 wrote:
The issue you are referring to is not valid at all. Here's a good example:
I'm a web designer, if I were to post one of my designs up in the design part of the forum and someone continually critiqued each design I posted and I was taking offense to it, then it's clearly my fault and I should 1. either ask nobody critiques it at all. Or 2., just don't post up my designs.
Ghost Rider, I like you, but can't help getting impatient here. As I have tried to get this message across but it does not seem to have gone through. We are NOT complaining about being critiqued. We are OBJECTING to being BELITTLED and MOCKED! Those are against the Frihost rules! There are very clear rules against trolling, against flaming and against insulting Frihosters.

Those complaints have MOST DEFINITELY not being dealt with by the Moderators. One of the Moderators broke the rules. You decided out of being loyal to him to exempt his excesses under the new popular heading (which he probably coined as well) of fundamentally challenging other Frihosters. He has just received an official exemption from you to go continue mocking and belittling Frihosters.

We voiced our complaints everywhere, and they were not about being critiqued or challenged. But about being mocked and belittled. The last two threads in which we gave you ample examples of this was locked by a Moderator who was supporting the Moderator whose behaviour we had questioned in those threads. Since the concluding remark of the Moderator who locked those two final threads suggested that we report abuses, I have been doing exactly that. And guess what, no action either other than a gentle rap over the knuckles. Following that the Moderator in question then went on to list all the reasons why he thought he and his friend had been completely innocent. In other words, this Moderator, who has been breaking the rules of trolling and flaming, has every reason to go on doing just that as you have helped convince him that he is completely innocent.

The solution the Moderators came up with was aimed at a problem that was misdiagnosed. You looked at the problem as one of not being able to deal with being challenged. The problem that we tried to get through to you is about belittling and mocking Frihosters. For me, the message of your solution is for those who do not like to be mocked and belittled to go post somewhere else. You also focused on just one Forum, the Phil&Rel Forum for which your solution is a little safe Sub-Forum. What about all the other Forums? I am disappointed in the Moderators' misdiagnosis, and I am disappointed in the Moderators' solution.
Ankhanu
ocalhoun wrote:
tingkagol wrote:

so that alleged 'belittling' posts will be policed across the message board. Again, you have a problem with forum moderation, and that is not what is being addressed, unfortunately.

Or, you have a problem with people who cannot differentiate between belittling their beliefs and ideas as opposed to belittling them.

-Same problem viewed from different angles. (Though one of those angles agrees with the forum rules, and the other does not.)


This is really the heart of the issue.
While there are some definite examples of straight up personal attack, most of the initial offenses have been taken at non-personal critique (except insofar as one's beliefs are personal). This then escalates on both sides to "you're being an idiot". Generally, however, it appears, from my standpoint, to often begin with the religious becoming indignant and accusing the challenger of personal attack, often enough retaliating using the personal attack form they perceived.
Like I said, there are definite examples of genuine personal attack rather than belief attack, but, it frequently comes after accusation rather than actually triggering the offense.

Like Ghost Rider said, if you can't handle critique of your beliefs, keep them personal rather than public.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for a critique free venue for religious "discussion", I really think it is silly and affording the religious undue consideration... essentially walking on eggshells around them. No other forum receives this sort of consideration, nor should they... why should religion be any different?

It might be a very important and strong belief of mine that, I dunno... Rurouni Kenshin is the best anime ever produced, and holds many lessons for our lives as well as providing great entertainment... should this belief be free from critique? Of course not, even if dissent is offensive to me.

I believe that Lemarckian evolution is right and that natural selection is absolute rubbish. There are books written about this form of evolution and I take them to be literally true. My belief is backed by freakin' scriptures! I should be able to espouse the virtues of Lemarckian evolution and everyone should hear it's wonder! Should this belief be free from critique, because to suggest otherwise would offend my sensibilities? No, of course not!

Religion is no more sacrosanct than anything else in this world. To suggest otherwise is, well, offensive. Many things in life are very personal, religion among them... just because they're personal does not put them above critique.

Atheistic view points are relevant to religious discussions.
Bluedoll
@Ankhanu
Whether I am called a liar in the forum or not, all I can say is I am telling the truth when I say all I really want to do is contribute without malice. I posted a more detailed suggestion in my blog for anyone that wants to read it.
http://www.frihost.com/users/Bluedoll/blog/vp-120477.html

I agree with equality in all things and have tried to explain why I think separation of p/r might work here. You are right about the heart of the issue but I strongly disagree with the no go for public posts.

I say go for it in any topic by anyone. Maybe philo is not personal but religion is personal. It just doesn’t get anymore personal. So does that mean because it is personal, do not post? Ok, you will get critiqued about belief’s fine but I think everyone is missing what I am saying about this so I will elaborate it.

I will not separate myself from my God for the benefit of a discussion. God is part of me even if I am being laughed at with a remark about God is not registered. Making an insult about God is insulting me very personally as well. If you disagree with this fine. I do not expect everyone to have the same views, belief’s or ideas. Atheistic view points are relevant to religious discussions yes, sure they are, but as with any post a certain respect is to be expected.

Therefore defining what a topic is about and where it should go is relevant. There are some religious subjects that are more than mere philo debates.
Ankhanu
My point is that if one cannot separate an attack on the belief, or on god from an attack on the believer, one cannot realistically discuss the god topic. If you can't discuss the topic without taking it to heart, taking dissent personally, then it is impossible to discuss the topic and maintain personal respect... personal respect is not the same as respecting belief, they are separate concepts.

This is where many of the accusations of personal attacks come from, attack on concept that is personalized by the defender.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
I will not separate myself from my God for the benefit of a discussion. God is part of me even if I am being laughed at with a remark about God is not registered. Making an insult about God is insulting me very personally as well. If you disagree with this fine. I do not expect everyone to have the same views, belief’s or ideas. Atheistic view points are relevant to religious discussions yes, sure they are, but as with any post a certain respect is to be expected.
No you have no right to expect respect for your beliefs and there is no requirement on any poster to show such respect. I do not hold your beliefs in high esteem and nor do a defer to them or think them as valid as my own (a pretty workable description of 'respect'). You can certainly expect to be able to air your views - and you have never been stopped from doing so - but you may not place other demands on posters regarding how they answer your postings.

Your comments about equality ring hollow. You expect respect for your religious convictions but are not willing to afford that same respect to other views.
Bluedoll
Ankhanu wrote:
My point is that if one cannot separate an attack on the belief, or on god from an attack on the believer, one cannot realistically discuss the god topic. If you can't discuss the topic without taking it to heart, taking dissent personally, then it is impossible to discuss the topic and maintain personal respect . .

I disagree ( I can do that right? ) I can discuss philosophy topics detached. I can also talk about God but will not as some kind of remote topic. I can express my view on an attack and try to do so!

Ankhanu wrote:
... personal respect is not the same as respecting belief, they are separate concepts.
This is where many of the accusations of personal attacks come from, attack on concept that is personalized by the defender.

Very Happy I agree that is why I suggested there could be two distinctive sections as a possibility. It is only a possible option. (see my blog for more detail)
I will not as I said ever remove my personal connection to God from any discussion about God. That is my personal right! I can and will discuss God in personal way. Not a mere concept!


@bikerman
I meant a certain respect for another human being which I think is reasonable thing to ask for on message boards for everyone equally.

Mad That is not hollow! It is reasonable. I never said respect for one’s beliefs. You make these kinds of statements not me. I am not placing demands on posters only admin or moderators can do that! What I can do is state clearly what my beliefs are and do so.
My view on posts in P/R in general is that I need to conform to t.o.service but I do not have to conform to anyone’s views or philosophy including YOURS in regards to how I address religious topics.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
@bikerman
I meant a certain respect for another human being which I think is reasonable thing to ask for on message boards for everyone equally.
Not really. I cannot respect a person who I don't know. I can extend certain courtesies to them but why should I hold them in esteem?
Quote:
Mad That is not hollow! It is reasonable. I never said respect for one’s beliefs. You make these kinds of statements not me.

BlueDoll wrote:
Atheistic view points are relevant to religious discussions yes, sure they are, but as with any post a certain respect is to be expected.

BlueDoll wrote:
The religious section would allow for more respect in regard to the belief simply because the topic of religion calls for it.

BlueDoll wrote:
In fact, I am saying the opposite. Discuss it. However respectfully is always better

BlueDoll wrote:
I object to your posts about biblical questions because of the intention to mislead.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
I will not as I said ever remove my personal connection to God from any discussion about God. That is my personal right! I can and will discuss God in personal way. Not a mere concept!

It is absolutely your right to discuss god personally... but on the same note, you either have to accept that people will disagree with you, and it is up to YOU to not be personally offended. You aren't a victim in these circumstances, but you can play one on TV.


Bluedoll wrote:
I never said respect for one’s beliefs. You make these kinds of statements not me.
...
My view on posts in P/R in general is that I need to conform to t.o.service but I do not have to conform to anyone’s views or philosophy including YOURS in regards to how I address religious topics.


You haven't directly states that you want respect for beliefs, but you have stated:
1) You want respect for people
2) You cannot/will not separate your belief from your sense of person
This implies that in order to approach you with respect, one must respect your belief... see how it's a little bit loaded? See how this causes difficulty for us? How can we discuss your beliefs when we disagree, and manage to renounce the belief and not renounce the person, when they are one in the same? You have to take some responsibility for your sense of offense and entitlement.

I'm not asking you to conform to my views, but I am asking you to approach the subject with a little rationality and, well, even humility. I recognize that my atheism may be mistaken, and I'm open to the fact that I may have to adjust my religious beliefs some day if the "god exists" thing becomes more plausible... I ask that you approach religious discussion with the same sort of humility... else why have a "discussion"?
tingkagol
deanhills wrote:
We are NOT complaining about being critiqued. We are OBJECTING to being BELITTLED and MOCKED!

Quote:
There are very clear rules against trolling, against flaming and against insulting Frihosters.

I'm sorry, but I have to comment. The way I see it, you and Bluedoll have completely different problems. Bluedoll hums a different tune...

Bluedoll wrote:
Ok, you will get critiqued about belief’s fine but I think everyone is missing what I am saying about this so I will elaborate it.

Bluedoll wrote:
Making an insult about God is insulting me very personally as well. If you disagree with this fine. I do not expect everyone to have the same views, belief’s or ideas. Atheistic view points are relevant to religious discussions yes, sure they are, but as with any post a certain respect is to be expected.

Bluedoll wrote:
I agree with equality in all things and have tried to explain why I think separation of p/r might work here.

It is widely evident that critiquing God in this forum often comes off as insulting God (thereby insulting people like Bluedoll).

...And this next quote is exactly the basis of having a new forum:

Bluedoll wrote:
I will not separate myself from my God for the benefit of a discussion. God is part of me even if I am being laughed at with a remark about God is not registered. Making an insult about God is insulting me very personally as well.

That is essentially what is being addressed with the proposed forum.

/////////////////

You have a problem with forum moderation:
deanhills wrote:
Those complaints have MOST DEFINITELY not being dealt with by the Moderators. One of the Moderators broke the rules. You decided out of being loyal to him to exempt his excesses under the new popular heading (which he probably coined as well) of fundamentally challenging other Frihosters. He has just received an official exemption from you to go continue mocking and belittling Frihosters.

...and Bluedoll does not:
Bluedoll wrote:
Moderation is determined by the moderators and administration of this board and I do not want to be in conflict of it ever. I want to abide to the rules of the board and my only request is if I do break a rule that it be explained how I broke the rule. I really do appreciate, the work that has and does go into this board by administration (the we), moderators(the we) and members (the we we) Good going and a pat in the back for the WE (everyone). - Bluedoll
Bluedoll
I've made my suggestion (see my blog) to try to help the board in general. This is my last post under this topic started by Bondings. I think the dialogue is becoming insulting to his good intention to gather feedback from members, so I am withdrawing.

@tingkagol If you comment on quotes then go on to speak for that person that made the quote, you should at least get it right. That is a problem!
Critique all you want. Challenge anything you want. Members do not need to insult to deliver points. I do not have an issue with moderation but I will fundamental challenge some members whether they are moderators or not.

@Ankhanu
it is up to YOU to not be personally offended – Ankhanu
Not sure how to read that? Yes, it is up to me to decide for myself and yes, I can be personally offended.
manage to renounce the belief - Ankhanu
I am not asking for anything except a little common respect. Members can disagree and challenge all they want.
I can approach religious discussion when common respect is given. I agree with you in order to have a discussion some common ground has to be established.

People post on message boards, real people behind a keyboard. There should be no distinction made just because it is digital. It does not mean that views can not be challenged but it does mean to extend at the very least some common respect.

Quote:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. – article 1

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Bikerman wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
@bikerman
I meant a certain respect for another human being which I think is reasonable thing to ask for on message boards for everyone equally.
Not really. I cannot respect a person who I don't know. I can extend certain courtesies to them but why should I hold them in esteem?
Quote:
Mad That is not hollow! It is reasonable. I never said respect for one’s beliefs. You make these kinds of statements not me.

BlueDoll wrote:
Atheistic view points are relevant to religious discussions yes, sure they are, but as with any post a certain respect is to be expected.

BlueDoll wrote:
The religious section would allow for more respect in regard to the belief simply because the topic of religion calls for it.

BlueDoll wrote:
In fact, I am saying the opposite. Discuss it. However respectfully is always better

BlueDoll wrote:
I object to your posts about biblical questions because of the intention to mislead.



. . a certain respect for another human being which I think is reasonable thing to ask for on message boards for everyone equally. - Bluedoll

Quote:
Not really. - bikerman


Quote:
Not really. - bikerman


Quote:
Not really. - bikerman


Quote:
Not really. - bikerman


Quote:
Not really. - bikerman


Quote:
Not really. - bikerman
Bikerman
Quote:
a certain respect for another human being which I think is reasonable thing to ask for on message boards for everyone equally. - Bluedoll

Respect : deference, high regard, esteem, honour, pay homage....
So you hold everyone in high regard do you? Even atheists? Funny that, I'm sure you have said otherwise in several postings....didn't you write that 'atheists are pigs'? I'm sure I remember having to remove it.....
Bondings
Ok, I think most people involved have now given their opinions.

I'll -close- this topic for now since it is getting a bit out of hand.

I will decide what actions to take (like the 2-forums thing), probably in a few days. Unfortunately there are quite some different opinions so I doubt I'll have a perfect solution for everyone, I just hope it will be good enough for most people.
Related topics
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> Suggestions

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.