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


Faith forum?





Blaster
I see that we now have the faith forum but don't you think that we should move religion onto that. The two kind of go hand in hand so I would think thats the best move. Now I havn't read the whole topic about the faith forum so this could have already been suggested and if so i'm sorry for bringing it up.
Bondings
It is about faith and religion.
Blaster
My thing is that there is already a religion forum... Maybe that forum should just be philosophy
LittleBlackKitten
Maybe a rename is in order for the other one, to stop the confusion and rename it philosophy and DEBATE instead of religion so it doesn't sound like "Here's the Lion's Den and here's for you lambs".
Ankhanu
Philosophy inherently implies debate...

The Faith forum is for talking about (a)religious belief without any actual debate involved... there's no challenge to belief, just statement. I'm still unclear how this is going to function for discussion and allowed questions related to the topics.
The Philosophy and Religion forum is for debating/discussing belief and philosophy; beliefs can be challenged. This is pretty much a standard sort of forum, where statements will be expected to be qualified or explained rather than just professed.
Bondings
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Maybe a rename is in order for the other one, to stop the confusion and rename it philosophy and DEBATE instead of religion so it doesn't sound like "Here's the Lion's Den and here's for you lambs".

So what exactly do you suggest that I should name the 2 forums?
deanhills
Bondings wrote:
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Maybe a rename is in order for the other one, to stop the confusion and rename it philosophy and DEBATE instead of religion so it doesn't sound like "Here's the Lion's Den and here's for you lambs".

So what exactly do you suggest that I should name the 2 forums?
I think we should give the additional forum a try at least. It is much too early to judge how it is doing. I like how you have stated the limitations for posting in the two forums, and just hope that both of the two forums will be carefully moderated to ensure that the rules for the two Forums will be adhered to.

I initially was against a second Forum, but the way you worded it is right on for me, and I would like to see that we at least try and see how it works before it is nixed. Only concern at this stage is whether people will stick with the rules. I am keeping my fingers crossed for the new external Moderator that you mentioned in your original proposal that could be a possibility, as I think that would make a great difference as well. Someone hopefully with a good sense of humour as well to lighten things up a bit. Smile
Bluedoll
A section named faith and another section named philosophy.

As a separate identity (section) faith is useful but that does not mean religion can not be talked in a philosophy section.
_____________________________

@Deanhills
I agree with you, a period of adjustment with anything new and wow, lot of effort for moderation (all hats off for appreciation for that!) required in this section to start it, and what you have said in the past about the issue is not about the different (non)religions in the world but about ______?

consideration for the topic’s, equality, mutual respect?

Sad Do not feel humour is the right direction at this time to take until things settle in.

_______________________________________________


A: Is the difference in sections a debate, no debate?

B: Or is the difference in the two sections, a consideration given to the op with more on a respectful discussion in faith section while the philosophical section is more focused on heavy debating of any subject?
Bikerman
There is no need for another philosophy section since there already is one. Religion can be discussed philosophically in the existing forum. The new forum exists so that faith can be discussed without anyone raising fundamental objections to the belief itself.
One could perhaps rename the p&r section to just 'philosophy', since religion can certainly be discussed under the label of philosophy.
c'tair
Ah, pretty good choice there, Bondings.

In P&R we can discuss about philosophy as well as the philosophy of religion and not get any flamewars going because my Fly Spaghetti Monster is better than your Invisible Pink Unicorn, which by the way, it is. Razz
LittleBlackKitten
What I meant was Faith stays as is and Philosophy and Religion becomes Philosophy and Debate, removing "religion" from the title, since there's already another Faith forum now.
Bikerman
'Debate' is not needed in the title. All forums are for free debate except the faith forum - which is for a more 'specialised' form of debate.
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
'Debate' is not needed in the title. All forums are for free debate except the faith forum - which is for a more 'specialised' form of debate.
I can see this evolving into a political battle for more 'specialized' debating functions and I strongly disagree.

Perhaps, there will need to be a very specific clear statement presented that revolves around respectful religious discussion.

Not some loop holes, where insults and all the garbage that revolves around religious topics still continues. (it is not about sides as in a debate but about belittling and sarcastic demeaning assaults)
_____________________________________________

On a more personal note, regarding your post Bikerman that you did make in the faith section, except for moderation functions, I request that you refrain from telling me what to do! This includes relaxing, writing, or any other personal visage.
ocalhoun
Bluedoll wrote:

Perhaps, there will need to be a very specific clear statement presented that revolves around respectful religious discussion.

Respectful of what?
Quote:

(it is not about sides as in a debate but about belittling and sarcastic demeaning assaults)

What if the original post is a belittling, sarcastic, demeaning assault?
Bikerman
a) You have yet to show where I have belittled/demeaned you in ANY forum.
b) The posting that you refer to (reproduced below*) is perfectly innocuous and reasonable in tone. If you seriously take exception to it then I think that is more your problem than mine.

* Posting reads:
Bikerman wrote:
If you mean me then relax. I am just as bound by the meaning and spirit of the TOS as everyone else - more so as a moderator.
I will respect the spirit as well as the literal description of the new forum if/when I post.
Bluedoll
I believe the new section being developed should not be about debate but have a format for more reasonable discussion.

“If you seriously take exception to it then . . - Bikerman
The only exception is T.O.S. and that is not the course of action I choose to take on personal directives. I am posting in a public forum for anyone and everyone to read.
On a more personal note, regarding your post Bikerman that you did make in the faith section, except for moderation functions, I request that you refrain from telling me what to do! This includes relaxing, writing, or any other personal visage. – Bluedoll
“You have yet to show .. – Bikerman
I do not have to do anything you tell me to do including provide proofs, debate or argue. Why would I provide when it is so self-evident.



“I will respect the spirit . . of belittling, sarcastic, demeaning assault?” – Bikerman & Ocalhoun

Laughing You two certainly have a way with words. I could not have said it better.
LittleBlackKitten
The reason I say "Debate" Bluedoll is because those that frequent that forum do just that. It would give them a place to evacuate the need to do so everywhere else.
Bluedoll
This is a question?
What is the faith section (not the whole forum).? Is faith a section for religious belief’s (faith = belief in God) or faith in everything including the hockey game last week?
I am not saying atheists can not post or present their views but these kinds of topics (non-religious) belong in the philosophy DEBATE section.


Quote:
I see where this is headed, and it ain't pretty.

This is not a 'religious people only' and 'respect God' forum. The no-debating-against-first-post rule is about preventing 'trolls' from completely derailing various topics with off-topic theist vs. atheist debate.

*heads off to start an atheist topic within this forum*
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-120743.html


I think a decision needs to be made and it is not my decision to make. If I go into the topic I’m a troll, backseat moderation or subject to first post rule.
So can anyone answer this question for me?
truespeed
I kind of agree with bluedoll,if you have a faith forum then i don't see why discussions not of faith should be included,for the faith forum to work,faith and non faith need to be completely separated.

The fact there is already a philosophy and religion forum means there is already a place for non faith to be discussed if needed,as well as debating religion in general..
Bikerman
No. We are not going to have a forum which excludes a whole group of posters.
If you have a 'faith' forum then of course it is valid to talk about faith or lack of it.
Theists and atheists may post in either forum. If they post in p&r then their posting may be disected and debated at length. If they post in 'faith' then the discussion will be more constrained and will not challenge the fundamental 'faith position' expressed.
So it is valid for a Christian to post 'I believe x or y' and the conversation in that thread will now revolve around that belief. It is EQUALLY valid for an atheist to post 'I x/y because....' and the conversation can revolve around THAT position.
What would be invalid would be for the atheist to post in the Christian thread saying 'You are wrong because there is no God, therefore......'. It would be equally wrong for the theist to post in the atheist thread saying 'You are wrong because God tells us this is true'.
deanhills
Bondings very clearly identified what the two Forums are about and what their limitations are, so can't understand why people need to discuss any differences, as aren't they obvious in Bondings' description of what they are?

Quote:
Philosophy and Religion - A forum to discuss philosophical topics, including religious views. Heavy arguments are allowed. However, please note that strictly no personal nor cross-topic posts are allowed.

Quote:
Faith - Forum for religious topics, like a (dis)belief in one or more gods. Please note that the discussion is limited to the beliefs of the first post of the topic.


Bikerman wrote:
Theists and atheists may post in either forum. If they post in p&r then their posting may be disected and debated at length. If they post in 'faith' then the discussion will be more constrained and will not challenge the fundamental 'faith position' expressed.
Bikerman, I don't agree that religious topics in the Faith Forum cannot be dissected or challenged. That is not my understanding, however perhaps Bondings could clarify? If you are correct in your analysis of the Faith Forum, then it will obviously not be justified as a Forum for real discussion of faith topics.
Bikerman
Quote:
, I don't agree that religious topics in the Faith Forum cannot be dissected or challenged.

I didn't say that. I said that the fundamental position (ie the position expressed in the OP) should not be challenged, by which I mean if I christian posts a faith position then atheists should not just post 'not true because there is no God' - and vica versa.
I clarified this in my previous posting to avoid any confusion.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
, I don't agree that religious topics in the Faith Forum cannot be dissected or challenged.

I didn't say that. I said that the fundamental position (ie the position expressed in the OP) should not be challenged, by which I mean if I christian posts a faith position then atheists should not just post 'not true because there is no God' - and vica versa.
I clarified this in my previous posting to avoid any confusion.
Thanks for the clarification Bikeraman, however does this then mean that atheists can say there is no God, but then go on to say why they think there is no God? Surely if they cannot do that, then they can't really challenge anything that Christians say, and that would mean that only other Christians who believe in God can challenge Christians, or only other Muslims Muslims etc. etc.? Doesn't that then logically exclude Atheists from posting in the Faith Forum?
truespeed
I have seen a few atheists posting in Christian started threads,would it be allowed for them to add Christians only in their thread titles,meaning that atheist vewpoints,no matter how on topic are unwelcome.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
, I don't agree that religious topics in the Faith Forum cannot be dissected or challenged.

I didn't say that. I said that the fundamental position (ie the position expressed in the OP) should not be challenged, by which I mean if I christian posts a faith position then atheists should not just post 'not true because there is no God' - and vica versa.
I clarified this in my previous posting to avoid any confusion.
Thanks for the clarification Bikeraman, however does this then mean that atheists can say there is no God, but then go on to say why they think there is no God? Surely if they cannot do that, then they can't really challenge anything that Christians say, and that would mean that only other Christians who believe in God can challenge Christians, or only other Muslims Muslims etc. etc.? Doesn't that then logically exclude Atheists from posting in the Faith Forum?

Atheists (or anyone else) could certainly post a thread entitled 'Why there is no God' - or similar - if they wish. Theists could not then simply reply 'There IS a God'. They could, however, challenge points made in the defence of that statement. Likewise atheists cannot simply post 'there is no God' in a thread that a theist has started to consider some aspect of their faith, but they could challenge particular points made. In both cases discussion would then be within the context of the original posting - which was the intent.

By way of an example, consider the following thread:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-120736.html
It seems to me that this illustrates the point. Atheists are participating in the thread, but the root assumption that God exists is conceded for the purposes of debate, and the debate then proceeds from that point. This, I think, is a good example of how debate can proceed.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Atheists are participating in the thread, but the root assumption that God exists is conceded for the purposes of debate, and the debate then proceeds from that point. This, I think, is a good example of how debate can proceed.

Thanks for the explanation, but that does sound a bit bizarre to me? Doesn't it put limitations on the discussion? And so when we have a discussion in the Phil&Rel Forum is the underlying assumption then that God does not exist, or that God exists for some and not for other debaters?
Bikerman
Yes it does limit discussion - that was the point really. Some theists complained that atheists were 'attacking' their postings, and that they felt that this was wrong. The new faith forum is largely a response to that.

In p&r then anyone is free to challenge any assumption - including any implicit or explicit assumptions in an OP.
LittleBlackKitten
I think the main issue that most of those complaining had, and certainly in my own perspective, that someone posts like this and calls it a debate:

Poster A contributes to a topic about why cheese stinks.
Poster B argues that cheese does not stink when properly cared for, wrapped, and is not old or rotten.
Poster A comes back and tells poster B they are wrong and that there are stinky cheeses in the world they MUST not be aware of, like certain french cheeses which smell like old socks, or bleu cheese, which smells and looks atrotious and says that Poster A doesn't really get it.
Poster B comes back and says excuse me, but I never said stinky cheese doesn't exist, but rather that it needs to be properly cared for, and furthermore that poster A is full of themselves, and offensive.
Poster A doesn't get it, and start on again about why poster B is wrong about stinky cheese.

This is what the issue is. If the conversation went more like this, there wouldn't be an issue:

Poster A contributes to a topic about why cheese stinks.
poster B mentions that certain skinty cheeses don't smell as badly when properly cared for.
Poster A recognizes this is accurate, but also mentions that some cheeses will still smell, no matter what you do with it, such as old-sock cheese and bleu cheese.
Poster B says yes, you are correct, but if it is wrapped right, you only smell it when it's out.
Poster A corrects poster B and says that the cheese actually seeps through any packaging, and your poor nose isn't safe no matter where it's stored! It's just less potent.
Poster B has learned something about stinky cheese, and stands corrected.
Poster A and B harbor no ill feelings and begin to respect eachother.
deanhills
Good point LittleBlackKitten. That to me looks like the basic Internet Etiquette we have been campaigning for. If that could be adhered to of course, we wouldn't need to have a separate Faith Forum do we? I still think we should give the Faith Forum at least more chance, but am wondering whether my worries about it being a sandbox type of Forum have not been well founded. It most certainly does not address the worries we had about your type of example in all of the other Forums. Although I must say I've been impressed about the new Moderator vigilance and faster turn around to Reports. Perhaps the good part of the Faith Forum is that people are much more aware, just hope that that will continue as it certainly makes for much more enjoyable posting all round.
ocalhoun
truespeed wrote:
I have seen a few atheists posting in Christian started threads,would it be allowed for them to add Christians only in their thread titles,meaning that atheist vewpoints,no matter how on topic are unwelcome.

As long as it's on topic, you shouldn't try to exclude it... And certainly shouldn't try to exclude people based on what you know/think their beliefs are.
Ankhanu
ocalhoun wrote:
truespeed wrote:
I have seen a few atheists posting in Christian started threads,would it be allowed for them to add Christians only in their thread titles,meaning that atheist vewpoints,no matter how on topic are unwelcome.

As long as it's on topic, you shouldn't try to exclude it... And certainly shouldn't try to exclude people based on what you know/think their beliefs are.


Aye, this would be patent discrimination and a hideous idea.


That said, I think we've now seen the limitations of this forum's format in the Gos is Perfect thread. Even on-topic discussion is being frowned upon if not completely in line with the OP's stance. There seems to be no winning. Razz
I do intend to keep using the forum, and have some (I think) good topics planned to begin there... but it's clear that some threads and/or users offer no quarter for alternate viewpoints or questing lines of discussion.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
but it's clear that some threads and/or users offer no quarter for alternate viewpoints or questing lines of discussion.
Good point. I think it would be great if the topics of the threads in the Phil&Rel Forum could be vetted from that point of view. A thread like "God is Good" for example is obviously already a red flag discussion generator just by looking at the topic. Perhaps we could have a sub-Forum for suggestions for topics for discussion in the Phil&Rel Forum. These topics could be debated for their suitability as topics for discussion and then collated by a Moderator or team of Moderators as a framework for suitable topics for the Phil&Rel Forum. Then when anyone starts a new thread in the Phil&Rel Forum, they could be guided by this framework of topics. Hopefully these could be screened by a Moderator/Moderators against the guide of suitable topics.
Ankhanu
I was speaking specifically of the Faith forum, not Philosophy & Religion.
P&R has a bit of a tendency to get mildly sidetracked, but has merit. I really think the system you described would not work. It's a lot of work for the mods and it's a serious restriction on posting, as well as slowing down the process of creating topics. Many users simply wouldn't bother posting if they had to go through a system to get their topics approved, or be limited to certain frames.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
I was speaking specifically of the Faith forum, not Philosophy & Religion.
P&R has a bit of a tendency to get mildly sidetracked, but has merit. I really think the system you described would not work. It's a lot of work for the mods and it's a serious restriction on posting, as well as slowing down the process of creating topics. Many users simply wouldn't bother posting if they had to go through a system to get their topics approved, or be limited to certain frames.
Perhaps I did not communicate the system I was thinking about clearly as the intention is not to get topics vetted ahead of posting them, but to have a list of topics available that could serve as a guide to topics. There would be work for a Moderator to check that the topics that have been newly posted are suitable, after they have been posted. I don't think once a structure has been set up that that would be onerous at all. That structure would serve as a guideline only and not inhibit someone from posting a new thread. After the thread has been opened, a Moderator can then look at whether the topic posted is acceptable. For example, a topic such as "God is good" would stand out as a thread that could lead to a typical meaningless debate, may not conform with the structure for new topics and should then be canned. I can't imagine that there would be many such topics posted, but if there are, I'm sure the canning of such a topic will serve as an example of what topics not to open in the Phil&Rel Forum.
Ankhanu
That sounds like a standard component of forum moderation to me.
Bluedoll
I am not prefect but willing to learn and willing to try. Perhaps those that are taking
an interest in the Faith forum could actually post there? I see members offering suggestions to boycott even before it got started. (see comments)
http://www.frihost.com/users/Bondings/blog/vp-120642.html

I realize that the ‘issues’ have taken up a lot of time but perhaps this is because some members view the issues as important from the many different viewpoints here in the forum.

Is there going to be a possible solution? I don’t know? (original suggestion)
http://www.frihost.com/users/Bluedoll/blog/vp-120477.html
The faith and p/r section is what we presently have. My interest in any religious type discussions is just to be able to have respectful discussions. (defined)
http://www.frihost.com/users/Bluedoll/blog/vp-120733.html
In reality, I do not really see this happening.

For the record, I didn’t at the time realize the God is Good post would cause such upheaval. My intention, was a request, a call for like minded members to have an uplifting discussion. That is all and never about discrimination. I stand corrected. I was instructed that this is not permitted on this forum. I made an error from not understanding the effect.
Correct me if I am wrong, but on this forum are not most active posts atheist in religious topics? I know some members feel they have gotten a bad deal in real life but in this forum they are having a picnic and post everywhere, sometimes aggressively. The atheist is not being discriminated again on this forum. Far from it.

@Ankhanu
I answered your questions in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-120736.html
I think we could have discussions but that is up to you of course and only if you want to pursue one.
I will even discuss why respect is better but respectfully?

What I asked for in that post was a respectful discussion. Gos, if I wrote, the Assiest is Good or the Assholyist is Good or the Assholeist is Good in substitution for an Athiest is Good thread, can you not see this action might only lead only to hostile arguments instead of a reasonable discussions? In general, I find you are polite and reasonable in your posts and I admit, I might have tried to reason with you more in that post – asking gently for better terminology - but others pick up on terminology and use it to taunt and demolish any possiblity for advancement.

@Deanhills
Are referring just to the topic? I disagree that a thread like God is Good could not contain a healthy and interesting discussion. Ultimately we certainly realize that this is totally dependent on the posters and not the moderation of it. Regardless of moderation, topics are interesting because of what members put into them.

In my opinion, some of the posts I see in the p/r section are not meaningful debates at all but big macho arguments and not arguments in the sense that they contain two opposing sides to a debate but aggressive arguments aimed at discrediting an individual member. These posts, I would describe as meaningless because they only end up being entertainment only for other readers and have no literary value.
deanhills
Bluedoll wrote:
@Deanhills
Are referring just to the topic? I disagree that a thread like God is Good could not contain a healthy and interesting discussion. Ultimately we certainly realize that this is totally dependent on the posters and not the moderation of it. Regardless of moderation, topics are interesting because of what members put into them.
If there were only theists on the board, then I would agree with you. But it is obvious that the majority of those posting on the Board are non-theists and of the non-theists, probably the majority are atheists. So if they see a subject like "God is Good", they are already offended by it and would feel an overwhelming need to give their views in very certain terms. In fact, they would feel almost compelled to do so in a fundamentally challenging way. Smile
Bluedoll
Thank you, Deanhills, for answering that question, my inexperience on offence shown to non-theists/atheists shows. I never even considered the name would offend. What do you recommend for someone (minority) who has a desire to stick around Frihost, to welcome anyone that wishes to post to such topics in very certain terms that are not in a fundamentally challenging way?

To put this another way. By offering up these topics and in such topics create discussions that are welcoming to even new members who just might appreciate spirited discussion – not just seasoned debate on religious type subjects - it might mean that the forum could contain a wider range of posters and not primarily the one sided majority.

Can I offer posts with something different in topic and approach or do I need to shut up, throw up and then get up and go?


Honestly: Is this not a place to discuss a wide range of topics including religious type topics from any point of view or is it a "sorry boys and girls for us non-theists/atheists only" aka we kill them Christians like real good place!
Razz
deanhills
Bluedoll wrote:
Honestly: Is this not a place to discuss a wide range of topics including religious type topics from any point of view or is it a "sorry boys and girls for us non-theists/atheists only" aka we kill them Christians like real good place!
Razz
I don't think there is a problem with discussing your topics, however you probably would have to accept that there are other people with much different views and confrontational ways of expressing their views that are a bit alien to yours. As much as you would like them to accept your views, you probably would have to make allowances for theirs, sort of try and meet them somewhere in the middle. One of the keys is probably not to start threads that are going to have predictable results. But when you do, to accept the inevitable and be fundamentally challenged. Problem then is that it will likely be a lose lose situation, given that you are in a distinct minority. Why not go for topics on the atheist turf like why do atheists want religion banned in schools, or is atheism a religion with faith in science the equivalent of God, or why do atheists always want to prove that they are right and those who oppose them are always wrong ..... etc. etc. You have lots of stuff from Indi for example that you can pick topics from, especially the one where he more or less told you that you don't get Christianity, he is trying his best to teach you something so that you can get Christianity. Maybe you can think up a few topics out of that posting. Why not shift your topics around a little and explore your opponents' views of their own beliefs? Including their belief/faith that they have something to teach that you and I just do not get.
Bluedoll
Thanks for answering my question Deanhills. I am really glad we can discuss these hot topics peacefully.
Quote:
I don't think there is a problem with discussing your topics, however you probably would have to accept that there are other people with much different views and confrontational ways of expressing their views that are a bit alien to yours. As much as you would like them to accept your views, you probably would have to make allowances for theirs, sort of try and meet them somewhere in the middle. One of the keys is probably not to start threads that are going to have predictable results. But when you do, to accept the inevitable and be fundamentally challenged. Problem then is that it will likely be a lose lose situation, given that you are in a distinct minority.
I do understand what you are saying Deanhills and agree in more than what I disagree with. A comprise is a really great stance to take in almost everything. Think of the other person first and go play in their ball park. It is a game and people like playing games. It’s fun. It works up to a point. It stops when it begins to get serious. Sort of in parity to a terrorists game, do we not always need to remember we do not negotiate with terrorists?
Quote:
Why not? go for topics on the atheist turf like why do atheists want religion banned in schools, or is atheism a religion with faith in science the equivalent of God, or why do atheists always want to prove that they are right and those who oppose them are always wrong ..... etc. etc. You have lots of stuff from Indi for example that you can pick topics from, especially the one where he more or less told you that you don't get Christianity, he is trying his best to teach you something so that you can get Christianity. Maybe you can think up a few topics out of that posting. Why not shift your topics around a little and explore your opponents' views of their own beliefs? Including their belief/faith that they have something to teach that you and I just do not get.
In non-religious topics, it is not much of a problem to just to go along with everything, and learn what the other person is dishing out and play the game sort of thing. That is a good possibility in lots of topics, well, like say computer gaming is such a topic.

On the other hand, topics of spirituality are personal, powerful and seriously important. It can be talked about publicly and it can manifest itself as good will. Everyone has it, even if they are not aware of it. Your advice was good except for one point and thank you for considering my question but what I think you may not understand Dean revolves around the example of Christianity in that my teacher is Jesus Christ. I can not accept another.

In other words, regarding spirituality, men are not my teachers. More importantly, to accept that an atheist belief/faith has something to teach (specifically concerning God) is completely and utterly the equivalent of following Satan (the teacher of Atheism).

I know these are strong words but they had to be said to clarify this point. I can discuss things but I will not be taught.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but on this forum are not most active posts atheist in religious topics? I know some members feel they have gotten a bad deal in real life but in this forum they are having a picnic and post everywhere, sometimes aggressively. The atheist is not being discriminated again on this forum. Far from it.

I, for one, have had a relatively fantastic life. I have a solid family, love, a wonderful daughter, I'm working in a fairly satisfying job, I have the freedom to peruse my various interests, even if finances are sometimes tight… I'm a content man. I am an atheist, and this has not hindered my ability to get along in life, quite the contrary, I think.
I've had the freedom to explore all kinds of topics on religion and other aspects of deism or theism, and have spent several years exploring the topics, both of mainstream and less common faiths or belief structures. I've gone from nominally Christian to atheist, to various forms of paganism, to a sort of neo-Christianity, to a vague new-agey agnosticism incorporating aspects of Buddhism and Tao, and finally have come back to full on atheism after finding many truths along the way. My exploration and seeking has taught me a fair bit, and I value the experience and knowledge gained along the way. Never have I felt particularly discriminated for my beliefs, or lack thereof... I've had some issue with various individuals along the way (almost exclusively from Christians, but that's neither here nor there), but that's just a part of life, no matter what your beliefs.

I don't think my experience as an atheist and getting along with the world just fine is a particularly unique, nor unusual one. I think most atheists get along just fine. I've gotten the impression that several of the other atheists who post here similarly get on just fine in life, with some notable exceptions.

Bluedoll wrote:
@Ankhanu
I answered your questions in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-120736.html
I think we could have discussions but that is up to you of course and only if you want to pursue one.
I will even discuss why respect is better but respectfully?

What I asked for in that post was a respectful discussion. Gos, if I wrote, the Assiest is Good or the Assholyist is Good or the Assholeist is Good in substitution for an Athiest is Good thread, can you not see this action might only lead only to hostile arguments instead of a reasonable discussions? In general, I find you are polite and reasonable in your posts and I admit, I might have tried to reason with you more in that post – asking gently for better terminology - but others pick up on terminology and use it to taunt and demolish any possiblity for advancement.


Bluedoll, I understand your desire for "respect"… however, I cannot fathom how I have acted disrespectfully within the thread. As I can't understand it (or you can't convey how I am disrespectful, whichever, the result is the same), I have opted to withdraw from that particular discussion, though the topic is of interest to me. If I cause disrespect while believing myself to be conducting respectful discourse, well… clearly I can't engage in the discussion without causing upset.

I suppose in the specific context of that thread, I could not use a pronoun to refer to God… but that's often clunky and feels weird. When using a pronoun, I feel it improper and presumptuous to assign God a gender. Given God's unknowable nature, assigning gender seems fallacious. On the other part of the discussion, referring to speaking of God within the context of religious knowledge, well, I know of no other way in which to discuss the topic, so, again, I am at a loss. Hence my abstention.

I'm sure we'll discuss similar topics in other threads, however.
Bluedoll
@Ankhanu
I do not have a problem with your life decisions Ankhanu. I too have gained valuable insights though I must say that they have existed in a real world setting and not over the internet. When approached or in conversation I can say that discussing religious topics has never been an issue for me but then in the real world it is quite different than online forums.

Where you choose to post or not post is entirely up to you of course but I want to clarify what my intention was in that post, if only for good reflections. How you want to judge yourself getting alone with the world up to you. I am not assessing your online behaviour in a negative way when I am saying what I wanted out of topical experience was respect given to God.

I did not have an issue with your personality. I do not have an issue with gender. I have an issue with using God’s name or a title that is devaluing and in my view disrespectful. If we can not refer to God as simply God then I suppose it is best not to continue. For me at least, an it is an object, a thing or a concept, neither of which I will associate nor be forced to use in association with our wonderful CREATOR.
ocalhoun
Bluedoll wrote:
what I wanted out of topical experience was respect given to God.

[...]

For me at least, an it is an object, a thing or a concept, neither of which I will associate nor be forced to use in association with our wonderful CREATOR.


I think that highlights the problem... You can't reasonably demand respect. For yourself or for anything or anyone else. (outside of an autocracy)

You can demand tolerance, which is guaranteed here, more or less... And you can demand that people not overwhelm your discussions with debate. (In fact, I think you have that now mainly because you demanded it.)
But you can't demand respect.
Respect must be earned; it isn't something to be given freely.
Bluedoll
ocalhoun wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
what I wanted out of topical experience was respect given to God.
For me at least, an it is an object, a thing or a concept, neither of which I will associate nor be forced to use in association with our wonderful CREATOR.


I think that highlights the problem... You can't reasonably demand respect. For yourself or for anything or anyone else. (outside of an autocracy)

You can demand tolerance, which is guaranteed here, more or less... And you can demand that people not overwhelm your discussions with debate. (In fact, I think you have that now mainly because you demanded it.)
But you can't demand respect.
Respect must be earned; it isn't something to be given freely.
I can agree on respect is something that can be earned. I did not say,

I was demanding respect!

I did not say that.

I said all I ever wanted.

There is a difference.

There is a difference between demanding and stateing something I wanted.

However, I also said ocalhoun that for me, that is for me, not for you, or for anyone else but for me and that is something I wrote for me? Not for you but for me, I will not, I will not show disrespect.

I am not telling you or anyone else what to do nor will I be told what to do in connection with this. But I am saying for me I will show respect. I am also saying I will show respect and not be forced to show disrespect.

I am not demanding, I was asking while stating what my beliefs are. If people want to debate about this, fine.

The only problem is how some people see showing a little respect as something that does not have advantage when in fact it is only being reasonable in discussions.
deanhills
Bluedoll wrote:
In other words, regarding spirituality, men are not my teachers. More importantly, to accept that an atheist belief/faith has something to teach (specifically concerning God) is completely and utterly the equivalent of following Satan (the teacher of Atheism).
Oops! Think you and I have fundamentally different views on this. I don't think atheism is from Satan, and even if I thought that (which I don't) I would never voice it loudly as that would show intolerance to another belief system. In my opinion, atheists may be justified for being offended by this statement?
Bluedoll wrote:
In I know these are strong words but they had to be said to clarify this point. I can discuss things but I will not be taught.
I like your latter position about not wanting to be taught with regard to your own faith in God. I would wholeheartedly support you on that.
Bluedoll
deanhills wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
In other words, regarding spirituality, men are not my teachers. More importantly, to accept that an atheist belief/faith has something to teach (specifically concerning God) is completely and utterly the equivalent of following Satan (the teacher of Atheism).
Oops! Think you and I have fundamentally different views on this. I don't think atheism is from Satan, and even if I thought that (which I don't) I would never voice it loudly as that would show intolerance to another belief system. In my opinion, atheists may be justified for being offended by this statement?
Bluedoll wrote:
In I know these are strong words but they had to be said to clarify this point. I can discuss things but I will not be taught.
I like your latter position about not wanting to be taught with regard to your own faith in God. I would wholeheartedly support you on that.
I really do appreciate the posts Dean, and will say at this time I am very happy that I can post period without fear. If there is one thing I’ve noticed is that questions can be asked and answers do come back.
We are talking about the same thing right? There is a group of people (worldwide) that are saying generally not to believe in God or Satan. How can they be offended? They say they believe in nothing?
Even if it is in the knowing that other person believes in this that makes the offence plausible, I am still not sure how it would generate much offence unless of course somewhere deep down they consider it a possibility.

I sure hope this makes sense to you as it was kind of wordy.
Bikerman
Quote:
There is a group of people (worldwide) that are saying generally not to believe in God or Satan.
Not really. They say examine the evidence and make-up your own mind.
Quote:
How can they be offended?
In the same way as everyone else - by insult, by crass and rather silly characterisations, by gratuitously offensive remarks and comments...etc.
Quote:
They say they believe in nothing?
Who does? Not me....
deanhills
Bluedoll wrote:
I sure hope this makes sense to you as it was kind of wordy.
Not completely. If anyone should tell you that you are completely mistaken and that your version of Christianity is really from Satan, would you be offended?
Bluedoll
deanhills wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
I sure hope this makes sense to you as it was kind of wordy.
Not completely. If anyone should tell you that you are completely mistaken and that your version of Christianity is really from Satan, would you be offended?
I am going to withdraw from this topic keeping in mind that what was has been discussed here could be interesting topics for a later time. To answer your question Dean, initially, yes, if the post was by insult, by crass and rather silly characterisations, by gratuitously offensive remarks and comments...etc.

And no, if I thought there was one thread of truth in it. In fact, I would be appreciative and longing for that insight. Like books, versions of _________ are often not acceptable and seek corrections. These works neatly written contain mistakes and editorial pages within need constant attention.

Putting that another way, when I make a mistake and it is pointed out to me, as offensive to God why would I not want to make a correction. No, not offended.

In closing:
I see the Faith forum still having potential or act as a learning experience. It certainly is not what I wanted to see occur but then I can only offer up suggestions. Faith a section for ‘gods’? What is that?
I have read a couple of comments directed at me by a couple of members suggestive that I was “the cause of the problem’ ‘being given the faith section’? Well I do not think the faith forum is being tried out only just for me any more than I think I am attempting to be offensive to another person by stating a truth (yet another post). Still, I am satisfied to be able to post in the forum.

Smile
Bikerman
q. ...If it is pointed out that your conception of God is wrong then how would you react?
a. ...I would be happy to correct it, if it was offensive to God.....

Do you not see any circularity in that argument?
Bluedoll
I did not wish to continue with this topic here in suggestions because I thought it is was becoming more suited for another post and distracting from the purpose of suggestions. (I take a lot of the responsibility for the off the topic occurring and apologize and want this discussion to end here and go somewhere else!)

That is why I have taken this topic to another post in Faith.

http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-121049.html

Bikerman wrote:
q. ...If it is pointed out that your conception of God is wrong then how would you react?
a. ...I would be happy to correct it, if it was offensive to God.....

Do you not see any circularity in that argument?


Quite often these kind of statements can develop into arguments as a result of taking topics and reverting them into member challenges. Bikerman you either prompt this to happen or maybe it happens perhaps because of your twisted logic. I am not sure which. Regardless, if you need to discuss this, fine. I just think it should be done in another topic and not in suggestions.

You are commenting on circular arguments. There is no argument period.

What I posted was not in anyway an argument to begin with but was in reply to Deanhills. I am referring this to a discussion and not a debate. I see a definite distinction between the two.

http://www.frihost.com/users/Bluedoll/blog/vp-120733.html

I for one, can certainly reject your misleading reasoning to say that God is a concept and do so totally and completely. If you want to consider merely logic to define your spirtuality, fine, it is you choice but doing that is not for me and I will not be drawn into it's corruption.
I also see in your statement as a suggestion that my faith of God changes?

It is my actions I am referring to.
If I thought I was not acting correctly I would certainly want to change something. That is called personal growth and learning.

So what I am saying in a nut shell is that your alien concepts and false logical arguments are nothing more than silly little prompts to devise some discredit to a post and does not contribute to a discussion. I do not wish to play this stupid game with you here!
Bikerman
If you want to deal with this question in the appropriate forum then that is a good idea.
Your suppositions about my motives, however, are not a good idea and you need to avoid making personal comments of the sort highlighted below in your postings.
Quote:
because of your twisted logic

Quote:
your alien concepts and false logical arguments are nothing more than silly little prompts to devise some discredit to a post and does not contribute to a discussion.
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
If you want to deal with this question in the appropriate forum then that is a good idea.
Your suppositions about my motives, however, are not a good idea and you need to avoid making personal comments of the sort highlighted below in your postings.
And does your logic apply to your suppositions as well?
Bikerman
This is not open to debate.
deanhills
There is currently a discussion going on in the Phil&Rel Forum about creating rules of how Frihosters have to post in the Phil&Religion Forum. The topic is a non Phil&Rel topic on rules of debate with the objective of excluding those who do not abide by those rules.

I need some clarification on this.

First of all, I thought Bondings and the Moderators were the only ones to make rules? The Moderators had come up with their proposal to Bondings, Bondings had posted it up in the Suggestion Forum. We debated it thoroughly, Bondings made his decision, and now we are giving the Faith Forum a try.

It is almost as though the whole wheel is being reinvented in the above thread in the Phil&Rel Forum, including all the divisive and acrimonious discussions that we have had before. What is also of concern is the misconception that those who had complained have been responsible for creating the Faith Forum, and "got their way". I for one did not want a Faith Forum, but once decided, decided to give it a try. But statements like those that are being made in the above thread are completely nixing the Faith Forum.
catscratches
Guidelines, not rules.
Bikerman
a) You either haven't read it or are misrepresenting it. It clearly explains the difference between rules and guidelines and clearly explains that these will NOT be enforced by staff. It is a proposed set of guidelines for users themselves to agree to. If you want to comment then do it in the thread - that is why I created it. Any user can suggest posting guidelines that other users might wish to abide by - I regard that as a sign of a mature membership. The TOS set a minimum baseline for acceptable postings. If users wish to raise the bar in a particular forum then that is a positive thing and should be encouraged. At the end of the day it is the users of the forum who will decide whether or not to agree a new ethos for the forum, not me, not you. If they do then I will support that and help as a poster. It is not my role as a moderator to impose new rules and there is no question of me, or other moderators, changing the rules for one forum without wide consultation with other staff and Bondings. Again this is clear from the posting.
Right at the start of the posting, it says:
Quote:
The following are guidelines, not 'rules'. If you are unfamiliar with the general rules for posting on Frihost then please click HERE and read them carefully.
I don't think I could have made it any clearer.

b) I haven't even mentioned the faith forum in the proposal, and I certainly haven't mentioned anything about complainants being responsible for it being set up. Why is that? Simple, it is because I was one of the people responsible for it being set-up. I supported the notion at the start - when Bondings proposed it, even though I had misgivings. I was trying to offer a solution to a perceived problem and thought that this was worth a try.

Indi has mentioned the faith forum in his proposal for an 'introduction to the p&r forum', in the following words:
Quote:
Because this forum is for open, rational and productive discussion of religious topics, which, necessarily, includes criticism of the beliefs associated with the topics. If someone starts a topic in P&R asking "If God is good, why does evil happen?", you will, necessarily, get some people suggesting that maybe your beliefs are flawed and God isn't good, or that he doesn't exist. You can't have a complete discussion of the topic without considering those, and other, possibilities.

By contrast, Faith is for a more restricted and limited form of discussion of religious topics which does not include criticism of the beliefs associated with the topics. If someone starts a topic in Faith asking "If God is good, why does evil happen?", then you cannot suggest that the original poster's belief that God is good is wrong; you have to "discuss" without challenging the basic belief.

If you are not prepared to put your most cherished religious beliefs on the chopping block, or if you are not prepared to consider the possibility that your religious beliefs might be wrong, then P&R is not the place you want to discuss your beliefs in. Attempting to do so will only leave you feeling insulted and offended that your religious beliefs are being treated so roughly. Instead, you should use the Faith forum, which will allow you to discuss your beliefs, and have them questioned in a manner that does not call them into question, or treat them irreverently.
Notice that he doesn't mention WHY the faith forum was set-up? I also think that this is a helpful, non judgemental and accurate summary of the position.

c) The reason for the thread is because of the decline in quality of debate in that forum. The reasons for that are clear and I'm not going to rehearse them here. The thread is an attempt to get users to take responsibility for the quality of the forum themselves. I regard that as a very positive move.
deanhills
The Faith Forum is being misrepresented in the Phil&Rel Forum Guidelines Thread and a discussion of the misrepresentation in my mind would be logically best served in the existing thread about the Faith Forum. The main focus of the Guidelines Thread is guidelines. A discussion about what the Faith Forum is supposed to be would be a side-discussion. The "Faith Forum" Thread in the Suggestion Forum seems to be a logical place for a discussion like that, as as far as I know the Faith Forum is still in a test phase and this would be a good place for feedback.

Bikerman wrote:
a) You either haven't read it or are misrepresenting it.
Talking about misrepresentation Bikerman. The Faith Forum is completely being misrepresented and being redefined in the Phil&Rel Forum. Here are the misrepresentations:
indi wrote:
Well, good for them, they got what they wanted. But fair's fair, and that means that we can now get what we want. We can demand a higher standard of posting right here in this forum. Damn straight we can: they got what they wanted, now it's our turn to get what we want.
The misrepresentation is that those who had complained had asked for the Faith Forum and then got a Faith Forum. That is false. The Faith Forum was suggested by the Moderators and I for one did not ask for it (by your own admission you did). It appeared as part of Indi's posting in your OP. You made corrections to Indi's posting apparently, but this was not one of them.

The quote below is also a misrepresentation of the Faith Forum - in fact redefining what the Faith Forum is supposed to be:
indi wrote:
With the creation of the Faith forum, we already have all the tools we need to make an awesome P&R forum - specifically, we have a place for people who don't want to take part in philosophical discussions about religion, but who just want to masturbate theology with like-minded posters. All that we need now is the will and determination to make the P&R forum as awesome as it should be.

Here is another misrepresentation/redefining of the Faith Forum:
Quote:
And, if you want to discussion religious beliefs uncritically, there's already (now) a forum to do that. So nothing will change, literally, except maybe a shifting of the problem from one forum to the other. In other words, rather than getting people coming to "P&R" wanting to discuss religious beliefs uncritically, you'll probably now get people going to "R&F" to discuss religion critically... moving the contention there. (Which, honestly, i wouldn't mind in the sense that at least i wouldn't have to deal with the shit... but, unfortunately, the moderators still will.)

Quote:
Leave the Faith forum for the people who want to discuss religious beliefs uncritically... just as it is... and make P&R all about critical discussion... just as it should be. At most, put a disclaimer in an announcement at the top. "LET YE WHO ENTER HERE KNOW THIS: EVERY IDEA, EVERY CONCEPT, EVERY BELIEF IS OPEN TO CRITICAL AND RATIONAL ANALYSIS, EVEN YOUR MOST SACRED BELIEFS. IF YOU DO NOT WANT YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TORN APART AND PICKED DOWN PIECE BY PIECE TO BE TESTED FOR REASONED SOUNDNESS, DO NOT ENTER HERE." And then link to the Faith forum for those who can't take the heat.

Saratdear put it well:
saratdear wrote:
I agree with almost everything Indi has pointed out - except his rather unkind remarks about the Faith forum and the people posting there in general. If I don't want intelligent debate, I could go to the General Chat forum. What he's doing here is painting the Faith forum as a place for people with no mind to go and post happy little messages praising God.

Please don't get me wrong here, Indi. I like reading the P&R forum, I like the debate, I like the action Smile (Although I rarely post) I only ask you to treat the Faith forum with a little more respect.

Then Indi starts again with the divisive type talk about a certain group of people who can't handle challenging posts. That is also a misrepresentation.
indi wrote:
All that i've said about the Faith forum, the people that wanted it, and the people who should be redirected to it, are that they don't want real discussion, and that they only want to make their claims without real challenge. That's all i've said. Everything else you think you see, you put there yourself.

Granted, i have no respect for people who don't want their beliefs challenged, but that's beside the point. The Faith forum is what it is: it is a place to start a discussion with an argument that you don't have to deal with being challenged.
Bikerman
You are conflating people's opinion of the faith forum with proposals for the philosophy forum guidelines. I don't care what Indi and others think about the faith forum - they are free to express their opinions. I care about the proposed guidelines. There is nothing in the proposed guidelines that misrepresents the faith forum in any way.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
You are conflating people's opinion of the faith forum with proposals for the philosophy forum guidelines. I don't care what Indi and others think about the faith forum - they are free to express their opinions. I care about the proposed guidelines. There is nothing in the proposed guidelines that misrepresents the faith forum in any way.
No Bikerman. The discussion of the guidelines is affecting how people are interpreting the Faith forum. It is redefining the Faith Forum as part of the guidelines that are being formulated. That is simply wrong. Since you are the author of the Faith Forum proposal, in the very least, I would be grateful if you would either rectify the meaning of the Faith Forum in the Phil&Rel Forum, or we try and get a handle in this thread of exactly what the Faith Forum is. Or what it is not.
Vrythramax
ummm...if some users have miconceptions about the "Faith" forum...then so be it. They don't have to go there. And as for anyone "demanding" rights....they are dreaming. We provide a *FREE* service to the benefit of everyone. Maybe a bit more gratitude should be shown.
Bluedoll
Vrythramax wrote:
ummm...if some users have miconceptions about the "Faith" forum...then so be it. They don't have to go there. And as for anyone "demanding" rights....they are dreaming. We provide a *FREE* service to the benefit of everyone. Maybe a bit more gratitude should be shown.
This is a suggestion for you Max and anyone else that wants to read this. Try not to be disturbed by it but rather please consider it as really only a suggestion and I suggest you treat it as such. I am sincere in the saying of it and mean no disrespect.

First off, I do hope you believe me when I say I do have gratitude for the people that work so hard on this board. We (I am assuming you mean the team) is a very important, extremely important asset to this board and hosting. Well, it simply would not exist without a team effort. Yes gratitude is issuing.
Smile

I am delighted at the constant reminder by Bondings that invites me to post. When I read however constant reminders of not to post. I do wonder if the (We) in turn, value post contributions as well?

I do understand the idea behind writing ‘stop posting’ unless the nature of the post is to bark demands at the team. Well, I for one will never demand but try to make suggestions that might be helpful but will certainly stop that effort if the feeling is my suggestions are not welcomed. Free is a relative term. I hope you understand what I mean by that Max?

Could you define for me who or what post here is actually doing the demanding and why you feel it is such? I am always interested in reading posts here to the fullest and to improve my understanding of points of view.


__________________________________________



Thoughts about the topics.
I know this thought is redundant but is from another perspective. On the internet if you go to a board about PHP language, you are going to see a lot of posts about coding and web pages. If you go to a board about writing you will see a lot about story writing, poems etc. If you go to a board about breast cancer you will see a lot of . . ok we wouldn’t go there but certainly you see my point on each board has a ‘character’.

Frihost is a general interest board somewhat promoting the regular use of message boards and the creation of web pages. It is not a religious board. Religious boards have a different character. So why not for the sake of defining this board not as a religious board remove the word religion from the topics?

The creation of the faith forum from the beginning was controversial. There is no need to go over all the details. I did notice from the beginning it was to be ‘defined’ by many members here. In fact the first post in the faith forum was ‘Question about this forum” and had to be locked. The announcement made by Bondings was filled with notes denouncing its creation.

Alas and deep down we all do know this, not one person can define what something is to be. The board itself is alive and has a life of its own and it will define what it is. The faith forum will develop into something and define itself by itself without commentaries really. Having said that it will be nice to see a better description of the faith section, when in time, some kind of analysis can be made.

In the meantime, if the general consensus, this is not my decision to make, is to keep the faith section as a perm topic and keep addressing the philosophy section ills then I suggest religion as a topic should be either identified separately on this forum or simply removed from the list of topics.

Religion is the source of most conflicts here. I am not saying religion can not be discussed but saying that people that talk about religion can often get into conflict and to list religion along with philosophy is asking for just that. It may seem like a subtle change perhaps but definitely a step in the right direction.

Keeping a religion section intact as it has been in the past with faith off to the side may be a mistake.

I am interested in agreement or disagreement views on this as it would further my understanding of the makeup.
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
... we try and get a handle in this thread of exactly what the Faith Forum is. Or what it is not.


Bondings wrote:
This forum is intended for religious discussion (including atheism). However it is restricted to the opinions/views of the first post of a 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 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.

This all does not mean that it is allowed to create a topic specifically to insult other beliefs or that is mostly insulting other beliefs instead of stating your own.


Does that cover it for ya?
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
You are conflating people's opinion of the faith forum with proposals for the philosophy forum guidelines. I don't care what Indi and others think about the faith forum - they are free to express their opinions. I care about the proposed guidelines. There is nothing in the proposed guidelines that misrepresents the faith forum in any way.
No Bikerman. The discussion of the guidelines is affecting how people are interpreting the Faith forum. It is redefining the Faith Forum as part of the guidelines that are being formulated. That is simply wrong. Since you are the author of the Faith Forum proposal, in the very least, I would be grateful if you would either rectify the meaning of the Faith Forum in the Phil&Rel Forum, or we try and get a handle in this thread of exactly what the Faith Forum is. Or what it is not.

As Max says - if people have their own ideas about what the faith forum is then that is their business. The thread I started is to define guidelines for use of the p&r forum. I am not interested in 'rectifying' postings in that thread, so long as the eventual outcome is a set of guidelines which do not contain any misrepresentations or inaccuracies.
I think the purpose of the faith forums has been clearly stated, more than once, by the staff - including me - and doesn't require any further clarification.
saratdear
Can't the P&R forum be renamed to just 'Philosophy'?

I was reading Indi's guidelines to philosophy which suggested a wide variety of topics can be discussed under it. So why specify Philosophy in the title?
Bluedoll
Does that cover it for ya? – Ankhanu
Actually it does not eh!

The last line in the description of the transitional faith section is an addenda. I think, because the faith forum is in transition – the description of what the faith forum is – will be modified to suit the needs of the board which will be done not by me but by the staff as they see fit to.

I can, however, continue to offer up suggestions and opinions which I hope will be helpful or at the very least solidify thought on the matter. The faith section history is that of a try-out and until someone tells me the faith forum is a perm. Until that time, it will be my understanding that there is still a purpose for this thread.


@Bikerman
I do disagree that threads or guidelines in p/r does not reflect onto the faith section and the whole forum in general. I believe to say otherwise is a misrepresentation and/or inaccuracy. I do agree with you that when the staff makes a perm decision then that is the style we go with and should not be declared false by a member. In this case, however, is the faith section all sewed up?

I have suggested in the proposal thread that the parts containing religion should be removed – in fact, I am suggesting now, the whole section p/r should be renamed to P. The effect would be the faith section is no longer a side dish for the whiners but an actual part of this forum?

Renaming does not restrict what goes on in a section or what can be or not be discussed in topics. I feel a small change would be simply is a step in the right direction to resolving some issues regarding what kind of a guideline is adapted and what direction a faith section will go in. This may also an outside viewpoint, that is, what new people think a topic is about when they see a section listed?
truespeed
Why not just change the names as suggested,P&R to philosophy and keep the faith as faith.

Then all you need to decide is wether to keep the faith forum as a discussion forum,different to all the other forums on the board,or allow debate like every where else.
Bikerman
Quote:
I have suggested in the proposal thread that the parts containing religion should be removed – in fact, I am suggesting now, the whole section p/r should be renamed to P.
I took that suggestion on-board when it was first made a while ago (ie that p&r be renamed to p). I saw no reason why not, and I suggested it in the staff forum. Such decisions are discussed amongst staff before implementing, but I've not seen any objections to the idea yet, so, when discussion is finished, it may well be changed as you would like.
Quote:
I do disagree that threads or guidelines in p/r does not reflect onto the faith section and the whole forum in general. I believe to say otherwise is a misrepresentation and/or inaccuracy. I do agree with you that when the staff makes a perm decision then that is the style we go with and should not be declared false by a member. In this case, however, is the faith section all sewed up?
I don't really understand this. The thread on guidelines was me, as a poster, trying to see how we can improve the quality of debate in that forum. Of course people express various opinions in the thread - and some of those opinions are about what the faith forum is for. I have given my view on that - and my view is the same as the general staff view, as explained by Bondings and Max.
Are you suggesting that I should moderate other postings in the thread where people disagree? Why would I do that? On what grounds?
The point of the thread is nothing particularly to do with the faith forum - it is to set some general guidelines about posting and explain what philosophy is about to new posters. They are just guidelines and there is nothing binding about them. In fact they are actually just a good summary of generally agreed principles and practice for posting in any similar forum. If you believe the guidelines that are developing are in some way misrepresenting the faith forum then I'll be happy to discuss that in the thread itself (but I can't see how that could be said since the only reference is altogether accurate and a fair summary of the official position at the moment. (If that position changes then so will the guidelines))..
No, the faith forum is not 'sewed up'. Members can express their opinion of that here, or in the faith forum itself. We said it was an experiment and that is exactly the case. If members feel that various tweeks or changes could help then they are free to suggest them.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
Does that cover it for ya?
Ankhanu, no confusion here about what Bondings said the Faith Forum is about. How could I be confused? I was there right from the moment when Bondings first put the suggestion to this Forum. If you had taken the time to read my posts, you probably would have picked up on that as well. It is because I am not confused about the stated objectives, that I am questioning the statements that Indi has been making in the Phil&Rel Guidelines thread. Since the thread that Indi posted those statements in, is quite a meaningful in terms of creating policies, don't you think those statements about the Faith Forum need to be corrected? I thought you guys prided yourselves on being factual? And keeping things real?
indi wrote:
Well, good for them, they got what they wanted. But fair's fair, and that means that we can now get what we want. We can demand a higher standard of posting right here in this forum. Damn straight we can: they got what they wanted, now it's our turn to get what we want.
This statement is false. Bikerman was the one who made the suggestion of a Faith Forum and he did it to the Moderators Forum. That suggestion was discussed by the Moderators, Bondings then posted it as a suggestion in this forum. It was discussed in detail. And then Bondings made a decision to try the Faith Forum out.

With regard to Indi's statement that those who complained got their way. Those who complained were complaining about abusive posts across the Board, not only in the Phil&Rel Forum. And they did not get what they wanted as what they wanted was not acknowledged as the truth. What was accepted instead was that those who complained can't deal with being challenged in the Phil&Rel Forum, hence the creation of the Faith Forum, which indirectly made a statement that there was never any abusive posts, just people who can't deal with being challenged in the Phil&Rel Forum. So obviously they did not get what they wanted. Now also check out the Guidelines thread in the Phil&Rel Forum, and how two of those people who were considered not to be able to deal with challenges in the Phil&Rel Forum are standing their ground right to the point of being accused of trolling and abusing. Making real nonsense of the statement that those who complained can't deal with being challenged in the Phil&Rel Forum.

Here are some further statements that are repeating the same thing over and over again. Anyone who would have joined new would have thought that the Faith Forum is a joke. Instead, according to Bondings' description of the Forum, it is serious.
indi wrote:
With the creation of the Faith forum, we already have all the tools we need to make an awesome P&R forum - specifically, we have a place for people who don't want to take part in philosophical discussions about religion, but who just want to masturbate theology with like-minded posters. All that we need now is the will and determination to make the P&R forum as awesome as it should be.

Quote:
And, if you want to discussion religious beliefs uncritically, there's already (now) a forum to do that. So nothing will change, literally, except maybe a shifting of the problem from one forum to the other. In other words, rather than getting people coming to "P&R" wanting to discuss religious beliefs uncritically, you'll probably now get people going to "R&F" to discuss religion critically... moving the contention there. (Which, honestly, i wouldn't mind in the sense that at least i wouldn't have to deal with the shit... but, unfortunately, the moderators still will.)

Quote:
Leave the Faith forum for the people who want to discuss religious beliefs uncritically... just as it is... and make P&R all about critical discussion... just as it should be. At most, put a disclaimer in an announcement at the top. "LET YE WHO ENTER HERE KNOW THIS: EVERY IDEA, EVERY CONCEPT, EVERY BELIEF IS OPEN TO CRITICAL AND RATIONAL ANALYSIS, EVEN YOUR MOST SACRED BELIEFS. IF YOU DO NOT WANT YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS TORN APART AND PICKED DOWN PIECE BY PIECE TO BE TESTED FOR REASONED SOUNDNESS, DO NOT ENTER HERE." And then link to the Faith forum for those who can't take the heat.


truespeed wrote:
Why not just change the names as suggested,P&R to philosophy and keep the faith as faith.

Then all you need to decide is whether to keep the faith forum as a discussion forum,different to all the other forums on the board,or allow debate like every where else.
This is a really good suggestion Truespeed. Probably the better one by far!
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
Since the thread that Indi posted those statements in, is quite a meaningful in terms of creating policies, don't you think those statements about the Faith Forum need to be corrected? I thought you guys prided yourselves on being factual? And keeping things real?

I've read what you've said, and I understand your points (generally).
Actually, I think that the statements about the Faith forum are completely immaterial to the discussion in the P&R thread. I'm reminded of thread in General Chat of the drunk searching for keys metaphor... a lack of focus on the topic at hand, muddying the base idea with unimportant details.


deanhills wrote:
truespeed wrote:
Why not just change the names as suggested,P&R to philosophy and keep the faith as faith.

Then all you need to decide is whether to keep the faith forum as a discussion forum,different to all the other forums on the board,or allow debate like every where else.
This is a really good suggestion Truespeed. Probably the better one by far!


It's really a non-change change. The only alteration is a title; it changes nothing of content/procedure. I mean, it seems like a popular idea, even if it's not truly a functional alteration.
deanhills
Thanks Ankhanu. Your comment on my PM is much valued.

I was just thinking on a lighter note, whether the Faith Forum now needs to have a Guidelines Thread too? Smile Or perhaps the Faith Forum can wait until the Phil&Rel Guidelines are out, and then use those as a basis if the Phil&Rel Guidelines are usable. I must say the threads in the Faith Forum are not bad at all. And the discussions not much different in standard than in the Phil&Rel Forum. Although I have to touch wood on that one of course. Will see what happens once the Guidelines for the Phil&Rel Forum have been implemented.
Ankhanu
If guidelines see seen to be needed in the Faith forum then someone who has an idea what those guidelines should start a discussion in that forum to develop them. These guidelines would be Faith forum specific, so there's no need to consider the Philosophy & Religion guidelines thread in its creation, much as the Faith forum has nothing to do with Philosophy & Religion forum.

They're separate forums.
LittleBlackKitten
~Please note, this is only my opinion, and is subject to your personal interperetation. I hold no responsibility if you misunderstand what I said, if you twist my words, or take it out of context.~

I think the focus should more be on basic conversation, gentle challenges, and mild debate, rather than the classic "I'm wright, you're wrong, prove yourself right, oh wait, you can't. End of." which generally occurs from BOTH those of faith and those of science. I think the division between hiding up a safety tree like scared monkeys from the lions and the lions roaring as loud as possible could be completely abolished if some ground rules could be set out; toning down the attitude and sense of RIGHTS on BOTH sides.

Perhaps it would work if those who wish to debate cannot simply state "You're wrong because x, and you're silly for thinking so"* or "Not really, becaused y, and try and prove me wrong"*, and those who are of faith cannot simply go "Sad You're mean! I'm telling Bondings! Stop being mean!"* or "You're so arrogant and mean and you're like HITLER! Evil or Very Mad"

I think it should moreover reflect HEALTHY discussion and debate, while BOTH sides have better rules to abide by.

If someone wishes to challenge someone about why they believe Jesus existed, they shouldn't simply be able to go "Well no one else really saw Him and written word in those days is all subjective because they all could be lying, so therefore He never existed."* instead, it might be better to make it a rule that all causes MUST be sited for proof SOMEWHERE that is NOT subjective - such as Wikipedia, historical sites, Encyclopoedia Britannica, Discovery Channel, History Channel, ect. and if they are making an argument it must be backed up, not simply "Look at this web page from x country and x blogger, it says Jesus never existed."* Even if this person is a scientist or known argumentarian, it should still be sited in an objective website. Conversely, those of faith can't simply go "Look it's in the bible, Kay? Shove off. You can't argue with something written in the Hand of God."* Well, yes they can - because to them, the bible is a fallacy. Points from those of Faith must also be cited objectively.

So, my proposal is this:

1. All debating points must be objectively sited, and not just some random website that isn't held to accuracy standards and is subjective with belief. It must be literal fact from a website that is not just some random site.

2. All supportive points must be held to the same standard.

3. NEITHER side can simply say "You're wrong because X reason."* This should be warnable in my opinion, because it is DESTRUCTIVE conversation, rather than CONSTRUCTIVE.

4. Destructive comments and comments that tear down a person's faith, identity, or insults another member should be deleted and forbidden then from conversation. There has been way too many insults ignored, and too many feelings hurt because of these reasons. I believe firmly that REAL conversation has no place for these things. This rule will not only make those posting reconsider harmful points in their rebuttals, but also create a sense of the Golden Rule, and cause the harmful posts to be erased and disallowed from conversation, protecting not only the OP, but those replying, and gives a sense of "you shouldn't've done that"* without reprimanding further.

5. Wording should be carefully picked as to not sound condemnatory, but rather constructive and inquisitive. "Why do you think X"* and "I believe Y, how do you explain z?"* should replace "Not really because x"* and "No, because y."*

I honestly believe there CAN be a hybrid of conversation, debate, religion, and philosophy - if ALL parties are bound to positivity and respect. NO ONE should be able to simply say "You're wrong because x", because no one has the right to tell someone else they should not or cannot believe someone else's belief system, whether scientific, or religious. We live in the 21st century, not 1860. I think the main focus should be on this:

RESPECT.

Not opinion; not who is right, not what fact is more accurate. Respect. That's my opinion, and I am sticking to it.

* These quotes should be considered a generic application of speech, and is not intended to reflect ACTUAL comments or LITERAL representations of what is said or by whom. No one is being singled out, pointed at, or drawn attention to. Any literal interperitation is up to those reading, and if used as such, is not the fault of this poster, as I am NOT speaking literally or using exact words for the quotes.
Bikerman
If these are suggestions for guidelines for the Faith forum then I think it would be better to post them in that forum.

If they are meant to be more general, then I disagree fundamentally with important parts. The moderators are not going to warn people for saying 'you are wrong because of x'*. It is an entirely reasonable thing to say, though it would be much better to leave the 'you' out of it and say:
'that position/point/assertion/belief is wrong, because...'.

I, for one, don't want to see the moderators dictating how a person can express themselves (providing they don't contravene the existing TOS of course) and I see nothing offensive in saying that something (or someone, come to that) is wrong. If people cannot face being told that they are wrong (with the evidence to SHOW that they are wrong) then that is a problem for them, not the moderators.


* This is indeed destructive - it is destructive of fallacy and misinformation, and I am all for it - let's have more, not less. If a person's faith is dependant on demonstrable fallacies or erroneous beliefs then pointing out those fallacies/errors is not harmful, it is beneficial, unless you take the position that faith is more important than truth - which I obviously don't.
deanhills
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
I think the main focus should be on this:

RESPECT.
Not opinion; not who is right, not what fact is more accurate. Respect. That's my opinion, and I am sticking to it.
I agree with you LBK, however there are many other members of Frihost who disagree on this point. They believe that respect is earned not deserved. And apparently those who differ expect to see "good posts" (that fit their standards and criteria) first before they will respect. Something like that.

For me it is OK if someone prefers not to respect someone as that is their problem, but the part that is not OK is when the person then feels justified to mock the other person, make condescending remarks and just talk down to that person. Anyway, it would appear we have now received good guidelines with how to deal with those. If you feel insulted, hit the report button. And if it is a troll, do not respond to it, and hit the report button. Or ignore it.

I think we need to see what comes out of the Phil&Rel Forum Guidelines, and once those are out, should give it a little while to see whether it is going to make a difference, and if the Faith Forum is still around, then suggest some guidelines too. I can't see that there will be a major difference between the two however. More like that in the Faith Forum, if the OP should start with a specific belief, that one can't shoot the belief down, but one can still have a good debate however.
LittleBlackKitten
And yet again Chris takes me out of context, uses that UK brain, and gets it all backwards.

I didn't mean to say nothing should be challenged, and if you READ what I put, WITHOUT the Chris Filter in place there, was that pointing out with no valid proof is unacceptable.
Bikerman
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
And yet again Chris takes me out of context, uses that UK brain, and gets it all backwards.

I didn't mean to say nothing should be challenged, and if you READ what I put, WITHOUT the Chris Filter in place there, was that pointing out with no valid proof is unacceptable.
I always read posts carefully.
Specifically yours said:
Quote:
3. NEITHER side can simply say "You're wrong because X reason."* This should be warnable in my opinion, because it is DESTRUCTIVE conversation, rather than CONSTRUCTIVE.
Now, if you read MINE carefully you will see that it was addressed to this point specifically which was not at all taken out of context or 'backwards'. You still find it necessary to resort to personal comment?

I know your opinion. You have repeated it many times. I've also explained many times that you don't decide what is unacceptable and the current policy will remain in place. Respect is earned.
watersoul
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
And yet again Chris takes me out of context, uses that UK brain, and gets it all backwards.

I didn't mean to say nothing should be challenged, and if you READ what I put, WITHOUT the Chris Filter in place there, was that pointing out with no valid proof is unacceptable.


That could be thought as quite an offensive statement by some folk, if we were to consider the possible inference that UK people have a reasoning that often gets things backwards? I shall assume it was 'tongue in cheek' Smile

...I felt compelled to 'challenge' that after reading the latter half of the above quoted text.
LittleBlackKitten
T'was indeed tongue and cheek as I am half English myself. My Grandparents were born and raised in High Class Yorkshire, so needless to say, I have the backwards brain syndrome myself Laughing

Chris: I was making a proposal; a suggestion. As far as I'm concerned, the opposite of respect is DISrespect; if it is earned, then I would DISrespect you constantly, and I don't, because being disrespectful (or insulting and mean) are all against the TOS...
Bikerman
False dischotomy. Absence of respect is not the same as the opposite of respect....It is also getting tiresome hearing the same nonsense over and again. You have expressed your opinion/made your suggestion - repeatedly. It has been dealt with. That is the end of the matter.
As Max said, if you don't like the rules there are plenty of other forums.
LittleBlackKitten
Actually, YOU responded. Last time I looked you weren't the only valid opinion, Chris.
watersoul
Back to the OP, my son no longer has 'religious education' at school, it's 'philosophy and applied ethics' these days. Anyone happy with that option?!
Bikerman
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Actually, YOU responded. Last time I looked you weren't the only valid opinion, Chris.

No, but I'm now telling you to stop repeating the same point in this forum.
ocalhoun
Okay, let's tone it down a bit...

LittleBlackKitten, It's okay sometimes to take things out of context, especially if you've already separated the context into a numbered list for them. And please, if you think somebody misunderstood something, then try to explain it better (and explain what they misunderstood), rather than tersely (and rudely) telling them to read it again.

Bikerman, even though the suggestion may (or may not) be disagreeable, what better place could there possibly be for it than a suggestion topic about the faith forum? Also, there certainly are some people who value faith more than truth around... The faith forum is probably the one place where such an attitude should be accepted.
LittleBlackKitten
I'm not SAYING to take faith over truth, I'm saying the exact opposite. Frihost is going to die with the attitude that one earns generic civility and respect, and I'm NOT talking the "I look up to you" sort. I'm talking about generic civility and the means by which one opens up a conversation, and allows for healthy discussion and gentle debate, not a house of lions at feeding time.

Chris; I wasn't aware repeating myself was against the rules and moderatable. Perhaps this should be considered every time you put "Not really"?

Ocalhoun; How can I even begin to explain and defend myself when everything I say is twisted, contorted, misunderstood, and I am FORCED to repeat myself over and over and then I am told to Shut Up becasue Chris decides to take your new duty away from you and moderate me like that? I also wasn't talking strictly Faith Forum, I meant P and R as well. It seems respect is a commodity that only those in the upper ring of this onion that is frihost are entitled to. One should not have to perform to recieve the same honest, civil, gentle, RESPECTFUL treatment that Bikerman and the others DEMAND to be given. We are expected to accept their word at the drop of a hat at it's worth, and when we begin to question it, it turns into a flame-war because they don't like to change their minds and won't listen to anyone else; yet when the roles are reversed, we are expected to maintain a quiet respectful disposition and believe everything they say and not fight back. It's as if we're being treated like children and its not right. Seems to me that even with your new job, Chris can't shut off the dictator.
Bluedoll
Rolling Eyes

Please make note here, I would like to make a point here regarding posting in general and more specifically into the faith forum. Please make note here, that this is not in opposition of the tos. Please make note here, we all really want to observe the rules. Why? Because we are afraid of the moderators? Well that could be a reason though I think not a good one. We do not want to risk the chance of losing this service? Please make note here, this may be a reason but perhaps it should not be the best one?

Please make note here, that maybe just maybe the reason not to go against the rules is because it just makes sense not to. Please make note here, that may be the best reason of all. Why would we want to? Agreeing with the rules is simply the best way to interact with others because we want to agree with them.

But note, the point is not about moderation or RULES or Guidelines

Please make note here, though a particular phrase may be becoming a little tiring, I do hope it demonstrates as well as indicates. The point is when we make guidelines for others, when we state what is true or what is false, and when it becomes decided just how and what a person is to post beyond what is reasonable, we risk the possibility of changing a free discussion board into a moderated classroom.


Note: getting annoyed with watersoul for dropping popcorn on MY head
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
Note: getting annoyed with watersoul for dropping popcorn on MY head


Sorry Bluedoll, I was so busy 'making note' of everything in your last post that my popcorn handling skills suffered a little! Wink
ocalhoun
I won't be cleaning up this mess myself, since I don't want to set a precedent of moderating a discussion I'm directly involved in.

But, I will express my opinions about it:
First, if this is 'toning it down' I'd hate to see what it would have otherwise been like. I was trying to avert something like this from happening... But apparently I messed it up, and perhaps made it even worse.
Second, I want to make it clear that I'm not going to publicly argue with Bikerman's saying not to repeat things. Mainly, I just meant that if one was to delete all the repetitions of the same point except for one, this one would probably be the best one to leave intact, as it's in the (more or less) proper place.
tingkagol
watersoul wrote:

This made me lol
Bikerman
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Chris; I wasn't aware repeating myself was against the rules and moderatable. Perhaps this should be considered every time you put "Not really"?

Ocalhoun; How can I even begin to explain and defend myself when everything I say is twisted, contorted, misunderstood, and I am FORCED to repeat myself over and over and then I am told to Shut Up becasue Chris decides to take your new duty away from you and moderate me like that? I also wasn't talking strictly Faith Forum, I meant P and R as well. It seems respect is a commodity that only those in the upper ring of this onion that is frihost are entitled to. One should not have to perform to recieve the same honest, civil, gentle, RESPECTFUL treatment that Bikerman and the others DEMAND to be given. We are expected to accept their word at the drop of a hat at it's worth, and when we begin to question it, it turns into a flame-war because they don't like to change their minds and won't listen to anyone else; yet when the roles are reversed, we are expected to maintain a quiet respectful disposition and believe everything they say and not fight back. It's as if we're being treated like children and its not right. Seems to me that even with your new job, Chris can't shut off the dictator.

Right, let's get some things clear.
a) I don't demand respect as a poster and a glance through this and other forums quickly shows that I certainly don't get it from you and certain other posters.
b) When I make a moderation decision I don't demand respect for it - I insist that it is obeyed and if it isn't I will take further action.
c) If you regard me as a dictator then I can live with that. I try to keep moderation decisions to a minimum but when I feel it is needed, I will make them and you will follow them. If you wish to question such decisions you may do so via pm or you may pm another moderator or Bondings, but you may not question them in public forums.

I trust this is clear?
Bluedoll
watersoul wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
Note: getting annoyed with watersoul for dropping popcorn on MY head


Sorry Bluedoll, I was so busy 'making note' of everything in your last post that my popcorn handling skills suffered a little! Wink
Well I have to say, if the 'truth' be told. It made me laugh too.
Wink
Related topics
Religion/Faith forum
New Faith forum and restrictions
Forum Rules (beyond TOS)
My "Faith" is in myself
Musings on agnosticism
Proposal to posters on this forum
Sitemap
Is reincarnation God's way of redressing karmic imbalance?
Path to faith
Is there a 'general anti-Christian sentiment' in this forum?
How to Grow A Positive Faith Forum
Psychic Abilities?
Thanks for setting up the faith forum
Is it time to scrap the faith forum?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> Suggestions

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