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


Reply to an off topic post...





watersoul
It is sometimes frustrating when a topic is cluttered with comments which are unrelated to the OP.
With that in mind, this topic is a follow on from some comments which I think were spoiling my Do you have any faith that there is a "soul" discussions.
If it was a PM I'd have responded likewise, but the issue was raised in public so for the sake of not pointlessly spoiling the reader experience of my 'soul' thread, I shall respond here instead.
Please feel free to contribute your own views here as the subject question is basically do you think the Frihost forums are a safe place to post or is the moderation unfair and biased?

deanhills wrote:
dan751 wrote:
To each his own. Smile
I vote for that AND I vote for live and let live. Last communication from Bluedoll was that she has decided to leave the Board. She's had enough of mocking, belittling, being labelled a troll by trolls, and having her posts deleted left right and centre. Bluedoll contributed over 1,500 posts to Frihost, all of it passionate and sincere. We can't afford to lose good posters and her departure was completely unnecessary. I hope she will reconsider but I think it was the regular vanishing of posts (the last ones with no notice at all and at a greater frequency) and calling her a troll repeatedly that finally did it. Needless to say, I'm really upset by this. What is the use of getting people to post at Frihost and then to be subjected to this kind of treatment?


watersoul wrote:
Totally off topic Dean, how about starting your own thread to mourn the loss of absent users?
For the record, I like the debate here, and it's why I don't want a mutual self praise forum where everyone agrees with each other. If that happened to Frihost I would probably consider leaving it myself.
It would become boring to only read posts where people slap each other on the back, while they celebrate their various beliefs without any critical debate.

To be fair, topics like 'Satanic Atheism' and the rest were hardly ever going to get much agreement from non believers, and if the only argument someone can ever provide is "I know it's true" or "God told me", I don't consider the loss of such posts to be something I'll miss too much.

This topic is about belief or not in a soul though, not for making personal points about the quality/behaviour of other peoples posts elsewhere on the boards.

I think its acceptable here... Please Hijack this topic!


deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Totally off topic Dean, how about starting your own thread to mourn the loss of absent users?
First part I'm in complete agreement with and apologies for that. The last part is callous, but also meaningful at the same time, I rest my case.
watersoul wrote:
For the record, I like the debate here, and it's why I don't want a mutual self praise forum where everyone agrees with each other. If that happened to Frihost I would probably consider leaving it myself.
I'm totally with you on this, except if it goes over board to the point of shutting up someone you are debating with by deleting that person's posts, you may lose the very people you want to have around for controversial debate. How many posts have you scored out of debating Bluedoll or participating in the many controversial and lively debates with her all over the Faith and Phil&Rel Forums? And NO, it's not about the controversial posting, it is about unfair treatment. There is a BIG difference between a heated debate, and an unfair debate. Which is one where you can't give your honest feedback, as you never know when your post will do a vanishing act.
watersoul wrote:
It would become boring to only read posts where people slap each other on the back, while they celebrate their various beliefs without any critical debate.
Well if you get rid of the opposition, then obviously it is going to come to that. You're guaranteed to end up with a mutual admiration society. I've seen posts in which you have expressed your admiration of Bikerman a number of times. So you seem to be well set in that direction.

watersoul wrote:
To be fair, topics like 'Satanic Atheism' and the rest were hardly ever going to get much agreement from non believers, and if the only argument someone can ever provide is "I know it's true" or "God told me", I don't consider the loss of such posts to be something I'll miss too much.
Amazing how many atheists did respond to Bluedoll's posts and the lengthy discussions she kept them busy with. If you say her posts were that poor, then your fuelling of those posts must say something of the standard of your posts too, right? You can't separate Bluedoll's participation out as it is part of one whole that involves all of our postings.

watersoul wrote:
This topic is about belief or not in a soul though, not for making personal points about the quality/behaviour of other peoples posts elsewhere on the boards.

I think its acceptable here... Please Hijack this topic!
100% correct, but since you have made your off-topic points anyway, I've given you my honest response.
watersoul
My response, which would have otherwise cluttered my 'soul' topic:

deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Totally off topic Dean, how about starting your own thread to mourn the loss of absent users?
First part I'm in complete agreement with and apologies for that. The last part is callous, but also meaningful at the same time, I rest my case.

If you take callous to mean indifferent or unsympathetic, then I am prepared to carry that label.

deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
It would become boring to only read posts where people slap each other on the back, while they celebrate their various beliefs without any critical debate.
Well if you get rid of the opposition, then obviously it is going to come to that. You're guaranteed to end up with a mutual admiration society. I've seen posts in which you have expressed your admiration of Bikerman a number of times. So you seem to be well set in that direction.

Thats mildly amusing, how you've taken my agreement with some of Bikermans succinct and accurate comments to be an example of my admiration of him Rolling Eyes

The moderation ain't bad here Dean, but if you're not happy then you're welcome to raise it here and see how many people share your sentiments. Just leave my threads alone if you want to bleat (like a lost lamb on the hillside) about other people leaving Frihost.
Bikerman
Well, since it is (yet another) complaint about me, I'll answer the 'criticism'.
Yes, I have removed several postings by Bluedoll from the P&R forum. I would not normally discuss such things but since this has been raised publicly I will answer without going into specifics of individual correspondence.

I announced some time ago that I would be tightening up the moderation in P&R because of the number of threads being sidetracked.

Deanhills does not like this for several reasons:
a) he is one of the ones doing the sidetracking
b) he has an overtly Christian line to push, which is fine, but prefers to do it by cheerleading for whoever is currently spouting on the subject.
c) he believes I am a bad moderator and discriminate against theists in the p&r forum.

The latter is a charge I deny. I make no secret of my own atheist views and I argue from that position. The idea that I would remove posts, theist or atheist, that were engaging with the OP is wrong. I wouldn't be here unless I enjoyed debate and I particularly enjoy good debate - and have had many such - with theists. It just so happens that the majority of trolling and silliness has been from theists. That is actually a matter of regret, since I believe the theist position is very badly represented in p&r, but it's not under my control.
Aside from personal likes/dislikes I have always been clear about the distinction between poster and moderator. I would not dream of removing a posting just because I disagree with it. My actions are not completely transparent to posters because I treat pms as 'not for broadcast' unless it is already established that they can be reproduced, but they are transparent to the rest of the staff and I think the implicit assumption that they are reluctant, for whatever reason, to disagree with me or tell me that I have acted wrongly, is a slur.
(As a matter of fact I have reversed myself on more than one occasion after peer review).

Bluedoll, in particular, tends to post her opinion, some incoherent babble about rights to expression, and a refusal to discuss further. That is OK for one posting. People can post their opinion, even if they don't intend to support it, though it is pretty pointless and normally just a distraction from the debate in progress. It isn't fine to then simply repeat variations on that again and again.

I therefore make no apology for removing several postings. I will continue to remove postings which are in breach of TOS, and I will continue to interpret that more strictly in p&r than in other more 'relaxed' forums because I think it is necessary. My judgement on this is subject to peer-review but it isn't subject to Deanhill's or Blueoll's approval.

The following video pretty accurately sums up my position on this:
standready
P&R forum I stay out of. Philosophy is too deep for me and religion is something I prefer to keep to myself. Too many wars are started over religion without another on the these boards.
Bluedoll
@everyone on this forum

The fact is any moderator can use their power to intimidate other members by threatening and removing posts without any good reason or notification if they are involved heavily in a debate. This is not a personal slur but an obvious observation.

I see confusion being generated in what a moderation issue is and what is a religious issue. We all know a moderation issue might be for example about a member showing little respect for another members post. (like saying they write nothing but incoherent babble). Maybe it is only incoherent to the person reading it.

To say that I refuse to discuss, is a joke, for the number of my posts and the responses to posts do indicate something completely different. Also the term trolling in this case is being misrepresented as it is being applied to a religious issue not a moderation issue. I have much to debate about but I just do not debate God. This post is indicative of a topic for debate since my name has been brought into it. However religion is something I do not debate and will never be forced into by moderation.

A religious issue is totally different and that is what has been at question here not debate. The religious issue can best be demonstrated by an opinion that Bikerman holds in that religious belief is, by definition, irrational and therefore in his opinion forum members who hold religious belief are to be considered delusional - edited by Bluedoll Smile.

My religious belief is that God is very real and very loving and it is a belief I can always maintain cheerfully. Although, I may debate many issues, my belief does not need to be justified, proven or even clarified according to forum policy. What I write about religious subjects is merely a personal decision about what I wish to write and I will not be seduced into the kind of posts that are being demanded in this forum and enforced through moderation. The reason, I do not respond to some religious statements is an ultimatum that threatens my spiritual well being.
watersoul
Good to see you here Bluedoll, it appears that the news of your departure was inaccurate.
I'm surprised Dean hasn't popped in to say hi, especially as he raised the issues in the OP Rolling Eyes
Bikerman
LOL...It seems I made a testable prediction without even knowing it.

A couple of postings back I said that :
Quote:
Bluedoll, in particular, tends to post her opinion, some incoherent babble about rights to expression, and a refusal to discuss further.

So let's analyse the last post:
1. Opinion
Quote:
The fact is any moderator can use their power to intimidate other members by threatening and removing posts without any good reason or notification if they are involved heavily in a debate. This is not a personal slur but an obvious observation.

I see confusion being generated in what a moderation issue is and what is a religious issue. We all know a moderation issue might be for example about a member showing little respect for another members post. (like saying they write nothing but incoherent babble). Maybe it is only incoherent to the person reading it.
Incoherent babble
Quote:
To say that I refuse to discuss, is a joke, for the number of my posts and the responses to posts do indicate something completely different. Also the term trolling in this case is being misrepresented as it is being applied to a religious issue not a moderation issue.

And a refusal to debate:
Quote:
I have much to debate about but I just do not debate God. This post is indicative of a topic for debate since my name has been brought into it. However religion is something I do not debate and will never be forced into by moderation.


QED
loremar
Hey look! Shocked It's Jesus Christ! She's back from the DEAD! Laughing (Joke)

Good to see you Bluedoll.
Nameless
I, for one, understand and agree with deanhills' and Bluedoll's comments. I would probably post far more in the P&R forum if it weren't being run by someone as arrogant and overbearing as Bikerman - neither attribute is conductive to open debate.

Edit: Corrected a name.
Bikerman
Well, sorry to hear that. I thought you were nearly holding your own.
I'd quite like to know enough to be arrogant one day....but I think that is a long time away since science is currently progressing quicker than my self-taught maths.
Overbearing? Perhaps. Perhaps you were expecting a different type of forum. The P&R forum is actually quite mild compared with most philosophy boards, but propositions are still there to be challenged robustly - that's philosophy. I think that you simply made an argument that didn't stand up and have taken the subsequent critiques personally. That's a shame, but it's up to you.
Nameless
... I'm going to point out this out once, then leave it be. When complaints are raised against you, it doesn't exactly help your position for your responses to include opening with a straw man (of deanhills), either insultingly or ignorantly dismissing arguments as 'incoherent babble' (Bluedoll's), and assuming a problem must be with the complainer (to me).
Bikerman
I'm not going to get into a long debate over this but I will say that
a) It was no straw man. It was as accurate an picture as I could paint in the space.
b) Bluedoll's posting illustrated exactly the technique used to derail threads in p&r. It has worked here pretty well. It will no longer work in p&r and that is what this is about.
c) You may buy into an image of poor Dean and Bluedoll being terrorised by me abusing my moderator powers if you like. I see it very differently.
watersoul
Nameless wrote:
I, for one, understand and agree with watersoul's and Bluedoll's comments. I would probably post far more in the P&R forum if it weren't being run by someone as arrogant and overbearing as Bikerman - neither attribute is conductive to open debate.

Umm, are you sure you agree with my comments?
I've pulled this from one of my posts further back up the page:
watersoul wrote:
The moderation ain't bad here Dean, but if you're not happy then you're welcome to raise it here and see how many people share your sentiments. Just leave my threads alone if you want to bleat (like a lost lamb on the hillside) about other people leaving Frihost.

I'll admit that Bikerman does have a direct and sometimes blunt way with words at times, but when he's made mistakes I've seen a few retractions and even apologies over the years.
I think its also fair to say that he will usually back up an argument with clear reasoned logic, but I guess thats where the discussion falls down when it involves people who use lines of argument such as "I just know X or Y is true" or "God showed me" etc.

I also think some of his words are taken out of context sometimes, such as 'your thinking is irrational' which I've seen taken as a personal insult by people who feel he is questioning their mental health or whatever.

The 'incoherent babble' line, however insensitive it may appear to be, is unfortunately quite an apt and accurate description for quite a lot of posts I've seen on the forums sometimes.
I've given up asking direct questions relating to certain users posts, because the specifics seem to always be ignored, and it's tiring reading the same old re-hash of "It's true because God/Bible/Holy Spirit/Whatever told me".

I would probably not choose to publicly call something 'incoherent babble' in my own replies, but I certainly think it quite often, and I have to admit that I've laughed out loud a few times when it has been used by Bikerman in the appropriate topics ...no matter how socially inappropriate it might be considered by other (perhaps more diplomatic) users here.

Now, where is Dean I wonder?
I created this topic as an appropriate platform for some unwanted off-topic ranting in my (unrelated) thread. Perhaps the issue was not so important to him after all Question
Bluedoll
watersoul wrote:
Quote:
I created this topic as an appropriate platform for some unwanted off-topic ranting in my (unrelated) thread
I do not think of this topic as ranting. If you thought that then your motivation to post it, is less than admirable. I am not an atheist so do not think religious statements, testimony, or comments are irrational, incoherent babble or inappropriate.
Quote:
Please feel free to contribute your own views here as the subject question is basically do you think the Frihost forums are a safe place to post or is the moderation unfair and biased?- watersoul


    Yes, in my opinion the p/r section in frihost forum is not safe to post in and moderation is unfair and biased.


Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Bluedoll's posting illustrated exactly the technique used to derail threads in p&r. It has worked here pretty well.- bikerman

Biased:
I fail to see how I am derailing a thread here as I stated my opinion after watersoul-Bikerman-standready posted. My opinion was stated on the very same issue as the op but is Bikerman is making a claim here that I am also derailing this thread as well? How is this possible if I debating and stating my opinion on what the op calls for?


Unfair:
Is it enough to say trolling and sillyness as an excuse to delete posts because they are overused and general terms. It is unfair that any member should be labeled as a troll or silly or be used as ‘an example’ of how not to post. I did not create this thread by the way nor was I participating in the thread in faith that it came out of, yet my name does come up as a bad example and in other threads too.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Bluedoll, in particular, tends to post her opinion, some incoherent babble about rights to expression, and a refusal to discuss further. That is OK for one posting. People can post their opinion, even if they don't intend to support it, though it is pretty pointless and normally just a distraction from the debate in progress. It isn't fine to then simply repeat variations on that again and again.
But my debate is I am saying this is not a moderation issue but it is a religious issue because not only did these posts appear in p/r and not as philosophy or as science posts but very clearly as religious posts. This is a moderator calling for evidence about religious topics and if support is not given, the result is punishment by moderation application. A theist need not or be made to “hold their own” in religious topics in p/religion and be told what to write and how to write by an athiest

Unsafe:
From a spiritual perspective, yes.
In a very biased, unfair and horrible forum, a man tells you that you must supply evidence or you will be punished by moderation. No way should a theist should be made to supply evidence for God’s existence or actions. It is enough to state God does exist and God will enact justice fairly. Anything additional to this is an athiests postion.
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Quote:
I created this topic as an appropriate platform for some unwanted off-topic ranting in my (unrelated) thread
I do not think of this topic as ranting. If you thought that then your motivation to post it, is less than admirable.

I make no claims that my reasons were admirable. As stated and quoted in the OP, this new topic is in direct response to Dean getting all upset that the moderation was unfair and also pointing blame because you were apparently wishing to leave the forums for good. It was shamelessly derailing my 'Soul' topic and I figured if the issue was so important to him then he'd appreciate a dedicated place to complain, here.
Bluedoll wrote:
Unfair:
Is it enough to say trolling and sillyness as an excuse to delete posts because they are overused and general terms.

I would say yes, certainly in the critical thinking P & R forum, thats why the Faith board was created to allow any far-out belief to be celebrated without fear of too much questioning if not wanted by the OP.

Bluedoll wrote:

Unsafe:
From a spiritual perspective, yes.
In a very biased, unfair and horrible forum, a man tells you that you must supply evidence or you will be punished by moderation. No way should a theist should be made to supply evidence for God’s existence or actions. It is enough to state God does exist and God will enact justice fairly. Anything additional to this is an athiests postion.

Well, again, you're more likely to get away with that sort of "I know my god is true and I don't have to prove it because everyone else is wrong, including Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, Unitarians, Pagans, Scientologists, Atheists" stuff in the Faith forum, but expect to be challenged in P & R.
deanhills
@Watersoul. I really don't understand why you chose the General Chat forum to post this topic in. Very few people who post in the General Chat Forum post in or are interested to post in the Phil&Rel & Faith Forums. Even less than those know the background surrounding the Faith Forum. Which if you will remember was created a year ago so that people like Bluedoll could post safely without having her religion ridiculed and belittled. The idea was something along the lines of clean debate without ridicule of religion. That does not mean mutual admiration society, just respect for our different views without mocking them or pulling things sacred like God to pieces. So if you intended the Soul topic for the kind of debate that includes the mocking, belittling and making references to people of religion being insane, it may have been better served in the Phil&Rel Forum. Why not ask Dan if he could move your topic there.

Bondings have tried his best to please everyone and I give him kudos for that. He appointed Dan to help things out in the Faith Forum. So I at least feel safe in that Forum to make my views heard. I know if I should have made the same comment in the Phil&Rel Forum that Bikerman would have deleted it all. I'm not going to make any comment here as I feel that is silly and also unfair to Helios. This is supposed to be a General Chat Forum, not a Forum for sorting out the Phil&Rel And Faith Forum dramas.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
@Watersoul. I really don't understand why you chose the General Chat forum to post this topic in.

Maximum exposure, because your rants about the moderation of the forums were derailing my topic and I thought it would be a universal place for you to rant about whatever you like. The more users who read it will understand what is not conducive to an on-topic discussion.
What has this got to do with the OP though Dean? Sidetrack much.

deanhills wrote:
Very few people who post in the General Chat Forum post in or are interested to post in the Phil&Rel & Faith Forums. Even less than those know the background surrounding the Faith Forum. Which if you will remember was created a year ago so that people like Bluedoll could post safely without having her religion ridiculed and belittled.

Even better, it could be informative to these people you mention who only visit General Chat...extra bonus.

deanhills wrote:
The idea was something along the lines of clean debate without ridicule of religion. That does not mean mutual admiration society, just respect for our different views without mocking them or pulling things sacred like God to pieces.

Obviously that status of sacredness only applies to people who have a particular faith. The cow for example is sacred in India, yet we munch them by the millions in the fast food western world.

deanhills wrote:
So if you intended the Soul topic for the kind of debate that includes the mocking, belittling and making references to people of religion being insane, it may have been better served in the Phil&Rel Forum. Why not ask Dan if he could move your topic there.

Nope, that was never my intention and I like it being in the Faith forum thanks. It's always nice to have an alternative view or two there, especially when certain OP's insist that any scientific views are not welcome. Happy balance in the forum is my dream of posting utopia.
For the record, I am interested in any other peoples beliefs, no matter how far fetched they may appear to me. You are more than welcome to go through the entire topic and find an example where I have mocked, belittled or suggested insanity.

deanhills wrote:
Bondings have tried his best to please everyone and I give him kudos for that. He appointed Dan to help things out in the Faith Forum. So I at least feel safe in that Forum to make my views heard. I know if I should have made the same comment in the Phil&Rel Forum that Bikerman would have deleted it all. I'm not going to make any comment here as I feel that is silly and also unfair to Helios. This is supposed to be a General Chat Forum, not a Forum for sorting out the Phil&Rel And Faith Forum dramas.


Thats fine, and if this contribution is the only comment you wish to make on the matter, I'm quite happy with that.
I must say though, for someone who passionately felt the need to continue derailing my topic, even after I suggested you make your own thread, please, in future, keep your trollish off-topic whining out of my attempts to enjoy sensible conversation.
loremar
Actually I like how people belittle me when I am wrong, mock me when I stumble, tore me into pieces like a piece of rag, laugh at my every words that doesn't make any sense, call me insane because I am just human and I make mistakes. Please guys, I beg that all of you to make my life miserable and a living hell and nightmare. Please I urge you. Make it very painful.

Hehehehe.... In case you didn't notice this is like reverse psychology. Smile
loremar
[Moderator - posting removed since it displayed personal details of a user without the prior agreement of that user - Bikerman]
d'oh! Sorry.... Smile
Bikerman
When a fair and impartial question becomes 'mocking and belittling' then you know it strikes home.
The basic position I outlined was uncontroversial. I simply asked if a person unfamiliar with Christianity were given the basic doctrines, factually, then would they be able to draw a distinction between the belief system outlined and one that, for example, might be presented by a paranoid schizophrenic?
Consider:
a) There is one God, split into 3 'person', and this God made everything except itself. It didn't require making because it is infinite in the temporal dimension. It also possesses omniscience and omnipotence, despite the central paradoxes involved.
b) This God really loves everyone - in a much deeper way than it is possible to understand. He used to be a really angry God, though, and in a fit of pique he once wiped out humanity, saving one family and representatives of all the current tens of millions of species, but drowning everyone else - man, woman, child.
c) The earliest humans were perfect and did not die. But God knew (being omniscient) that if he created a tempter, and told them not to eat fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that they wouldn't be able to resist. Being omnipotent he could have created the circumstances in which this didn't happen, but for some ineffable reason this is obviously what he wanted, so that's what he did. He then got angry and put a curse on mankind that still applies to us, thousands of years later.
d) After a few thousand years of various slaughter, rape and conquest, God decides it is time that something be done about this grave offence that was committed against him. He therefore sends one of his three persons down to earth to be tortured and killed so that he will be able to forgive the ancestors of the first humans.

Whilst this is being related, the 'alien' observer would no doubt be looking at the technological achievements of humanity and observing the otherwise rational dealings, and thinking 'what the hell is going on?'.

The question is a fair one and the fact that some believers might find it insulting is an issue for them, not me. The question is an interesting one for many reasons. Firstly, if the alien observer is widely read, then he/she would no doubt immediately see common themes with other religions. The basic mythos - virgin births, trinities, resurrection, global flood - these are common to many early religions. This itself tells us something about how and why religions are created and evolve, and what religious ideas are powerful and therefore likely to survive. For some reason, if you want to start a religion, it is a good idea to have the central deity be born of a virgin. This occurs in most early religions - Egyptian, Sumerian, Hebrew, Greek....etc.

Now, I don't want to continue this thread here - it would be better where I first raised it - but I simply do not accept that I was calling religious people insane and to show why required a more detailed look at the question I was actually asking. The position is nuanced, and to simplify it to a sound-bite - 'he's saying religion is insane' - in order to have a dig at me is the behaviour I have come to expect of some posters, but not something I would hope would be taken seriously by the rest.

PS I chose Christianity simply because it is the religion I know best. I could equally well have chosen Islam, Judaism or any of a host of others. The point is not that Christianity is more irrational than other religions. The point is that we accept behaviours from the religious as perfectly fine that would be considered worrying signs of mental disturbance in any other situation. The interesting question is why.
Bluedoll
watersoul wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:

Unsafe:
From a spiritual perspective, yes.
In a very biased, unfair and horrible forum, a man tells you that you must supply evidence or you will be punished by moderation. No way should a theist should be made to supply evidence for God’s existence or actions. It is enough to state God does exist and God will enact justice fairly. Anything additional to this is an athiests postion.

Well, again, you're more likely to get away with that sort of "I know my god is true and I don't have to prove it because everyone else is wrong, including Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, Unitarians, Pagans, Scientologists, Atheists" stuff in the Faith forum, but expect to be challenged in P & R.
Why does every post seem like it is whining and complaining to you? I am doing neither. Perhaps you only see it like that? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and make the assumption that you are just not understanding me. I can be challenged and questioned in a debate. What is true unless someone tells me differently is that this thread you created is about moderation in this forum. Is this true or not? Repeating this, yes, but, for this debate my opinion is that although moderation plays a very important role, my argument in this topic is ... it is really not a moderation issue but a religious issue, so I was agreeable to questions and challenges about that!

The religious issue here is you and other atheists think you can force people to comply with your atheist logic. Theists do not have to go along with it! What I do agree with you on is that perhaps it is good that general thiest readers that read this thread know what to expect in the p/religion section and might be wiser than I was and avoid the religion like a plaque!

I have debated this topic here but do not think for one second you can play around with my religious belief! A theist does not have to give way to atheist demands!

For example:

I believe in a loving God and in Jesus Christ which I can try but not even come close to emulating.

I need not give more than that to a thread!

Though you or anyone else can try to demand from me, a proof of existence or an explanation of why I believe this, or it disturbs you so much that I can write this without giving evidence in some rude, angry demeaning forum, you are definitely not going to find me in agreement to the demands.
Bikerman
Quote:
The religious issue here is you and other atheists think you can force people to comply with your atheist logic.
Leave aside for the moment the fact that this would not be a religious issue, even if true (it would be a moderational, social and possibly legal issue); rather, for the moment, just notice how logic is now defined as 'atheist'? This makes it all the more surprising that this poster objects to religion being labelled 'irrational', since to be anything else would, in the poster's own words, be atheistic.
watersoul
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
The religious issue here is you and other atheists think you can force people to comply with your atheist logic.
Leave aside for the moment the fact that this would not be a religious issue, even if true (it would be a moderational, social and possibly legal issue); rather, for the moment, just notice how logic is now defined as 'atheist'? This makes it all the more surprising that this poster objects to religion being labelled 'irrational', since to be anything else would, in the poster's own words, be atheistic.

That makes a lot of sense (I hope no-one thinks that means I swoon in admiration of you though) Rolling Eyes


*Edit*
So far it's over 800 views of this topic in a couple of days, General Chat is definitely the most accessible platform for offering suggestions of ways to change the (allegedly) cruel world of moderation in Frihost! Smile
Bikerman
watersoul
Bikerman wrote:

Tragically it seems that way, lol
Ankhanu
bluedoll wrote:
The religious issue here is you and other atheists think you can force people to comply with your atheist logic.


The use of "atheist" as an adjective here is revealing of what I perceive as the actual problem here... There isn't an issue with atheist logic, the problem is simply with logic.

My main issues with moderation have largely been centered on it being too lax in too many situations. I have had a few of my out-if-line posts deleted/edited/moderated, but it's always been an appropriate choice, and I shouldn't have posted what was removed in the first place, and I knew it when I posted it.
A lot of potentially great threads have been lost to hijacking and side tracking. Occasionally moderators have been involved in the tangent's proliferation (and not just Bikerman), which has gotten my goat on a few occasions.

There are moderation issues here, but I don't see them quite as they've been presented here.
Bikerman
And it was an attempt to address this that led to the rules in p&r being tightened recently. I am actively removing what I consider to be trolls/sidetracks. Unfortunately this means that it is a matter of judgement on my part. I'm well aware that some theist posters might consider me biased and therefore more likely to remove theist postings. I don't agree. I am biased for sure, but I also take the role seriously and try to keep moderation judgements as impartial as I can - and if I can't I seek peer-review/advice.
Unfortunately all of the postings removed so far have been from a theist poster, but I can only call them as I see them and I wouldn't change any decision made...

Ultimately it is up to posters in that forum. If a significant number feel I am acting unfairly then I would obviously have to review my position, but I fully expected, and predicted, cries of foul from DH and BD because they are, in my own opinion, two of the biggest culprits.
watersoul
Bluedoll wrote:
Why does every post seem like it is whining and complaining to you?
I wouldn't say every post but I see a large percentage.
Bluedoll wrote:
you and other atheists think you can force people to comply with your atheist logic.
Bluedoll wrote:
A theist does not have to give way to atheist demands!
Bluedoll wrote:
Though you or anyone else can try to demand from me
Bluedoll wrote:
you are definitely not going to find me in agreement to the demands.


Sorry, I must have missed this earlier, but where are all these so called demands which you're whining and complaining about now?
A quoted example would certainly be helpful in tackling this alleged assault of mine on the vulnerable theists of Frihost?
loremar
I was wondering if this alleged abuse is really true so I studied the Faith Forum and read through some of the threads made by Bluedoll and some Atheists, since that forum seems to be the source of Bluedoll's disappointment.

One thing that i have observed in the Atheists' reply to a theist's OP is that they are not necessarily violating the forum rules. The rules said that you shouldn't challenge the OP's statement. For example, If I say I believe in God and he's real. You shouldn't say God is not real, there is no evidence. But the rules does not seem to restrict anyone to give comments on the OP whether it be negative or positive. So if someone says God is real, I can say I don't like this God or This God gives me the impression of.

When I started on this forum I found a thread that says Satanic Atheism. Even the title itself is indeed offensive to all atheists. Satan is a symbol of evil and for it to be associated to atheism definitely will enrage an atheist because we don't like people to think of us as evil. The OP is clearly violating the Forum rules because it shouldn't be offensive.

But then I found this thread that says It is immoral to believe in God and the OP says that believers will more likely become immoral because God will forgive his sins. It was dated Dec 2010. So I thought this could be the reason why Bluedoll posted a thread on Jan 2011 that says Satanic Atheism as oppose to this thread.

Then I found another forum dated Nov 2010 that says Faith in Satan. The OP has a statement that says Satan would have wanted people to not believe in God. This is again offensive to atheists because it gives the impression that we are under control of Satan. I myself is enraged by this kind of statement because I have received hate from people that believes in this concept. Just go to Philippines and ask them what they think about those who do not believe in God, all of them would say They are evil because they don't believe in God.

Bluedoll seems to aggressively demand respect when she herself fails to understand respect. If she have ever felt that she was belittled or indirectly intimidated by any atheist in these forums, I think she kinda deserves it.

I myself don't have any issue with deanhills. I think the guy is great and friendly. So I hope deanhills won't hate me because I am in the atheists side. I just kinda feel what other atheists feel because I am an atheist as well.

Anyway, Watersoul's thread about faith of soul is kinda tricky, I think. It says Do you have any faith that there is a soul? While his OP clearly stated that he does not believe in the soul. So somebody comes in answers the question and says "I believe in a soul because of this and that.." unknowingly he was already violating the rules. Damn, was I so stupid I fell for it. Brick wall Laughing
watersoul
loremar wrote:
Anyway, Watersoul's thread about faith of soul is kinda tricky, I think. It says Do you have any faith that there is a soul? While his OP clearly stated that he does not believe in the soul. So somebody comes in answers the question and says "I believe in a soul because of this and that.." unknowingly he was already violating the rules. Damn, was I so stupid I fell for it. Brick wall Laughing

That's the beauty of the Faith forum to me though, if the OP is happy to debate and interested in other peoples views then the alternative can still be expressed.
If it is not welcome then the OP can make it clear, as others already have, by stating (for example) that scientific opinion should stay out of the conversation.
As I said earlier, Utopia in the Faith forum, will be a balance of viewpoints.
Bluedoll
loremar wrote:
Quote:
Bluedoll seems to aggressively demand respect when she herself fails to understand respect. If she have ever felt that she was belittled or indirectly intimidated by any atheist in these forums, I think she kinda deserves it.


Interesting posts, but I do need to clarify something. I aggressively demand respect for the right choose a religion. Common respect for all members would be nice but not only is this not the case it has been well documented that not all members will be respected in this forum by Bikerman. There is no question that I have been treated unjustly in this forum. I see a solution for stopping the abuse but have little confidence that this will ever happen.

I am not from the Philippines and never said atheists are evil but I do say atheism is evil because I really do believe this and I consider it to be a cult type religion. I do identify atheism as the anti-christ in the bible. I do not have to give up my personaly belief on this particular identity unless I see something to change my mind.

Yes, I agree this topic could make an atheist angry but I have always been willing to discuss this topic reasonably. I do observe that some atheists are unable to do this. I am not judging or condemning individual atheists but athiesm. What is happening in this forum however is because of this topic, I have been threatened (trolled, slurred as a trouble maker, my posts edited/deleted, warned about being banned, etc) and treated overall like dirt. That should also tell you something.
Ankhanu
Bluedoll wrote:
I aggressively demand respect for the right choose a religion.

I cannot think of an instance where this right has not been maintained. If you know of times, certainly, show us, I think it would be enlightening. There have been times where the choice has been ridiculed or otherwise negatively commented upon, but the right to choose itself has never been harmed. Deriding a choice is not the same as removing the right to make it.

For example, if I chose to get a dolphin tattoo on my lower back, I would reasonably expect a fair degree of ridicule from my friends, and ridicule from strangers that I might never hear. All the same, I still have the right to choose to get a ridiculous tattoo in a ridiculous location. That dolphin might have some importance to me (perhaps it's a symbol of a lost opportunity for a relationship, and the target of my unrequited love has passed on; that dolphin would be a constant reminder of that person and opportunities lost), but that doesn't really change the impressions it creates in another.
loremar
Bluedoll wrote:
I am not from the Philippines and never said atheists are evil but I do say atheism is evil because I really do believe this and I consider it to be a cult type religion. I do identify atheism as the anti-christ in the bible. I do not have to give up my personaly belief on this particular identity unless I see something to change my mind.

What? Atheism is evil? NO! CHRISTIANITY IS EVIL!!! Mad
Bluedoll wrote:
I do not have to give up my personaly belief on this particular identity unless I see something to change my mind.

Go to my place. Watch me speaking to a person. I'll tell him "I am an Atheist" or "I don't believe in God". See how the person reacts. If you find the entire scene pleasing to your eyes then I guess you should be happy and proud to spread the word "ATHEISM IS EVIL".
Bluedoll
@loremar
I am sincerely sorry for any real life experiences you might have but the fact is I am not there to witness events. In this thread I think I want to focus my comments on this message board but will state that there are worldly religions and followers of religion that have and do behave badly and though they declare themselves as Christians are not emulating Jesus Christ. Does that make Christianity evil? I do not think so any more than an atheist could make atheism evil or good.

@Ankhanu
Alright you need an example for this debate. Sorry, about the poor sentence structure in that quote, it should have been “the right to choose my religion.... or perhaps it should have been the right to express my religious beliefs”. I belief, I have the right to express what I believe and about even how I feel about my religious beliefs. One of those personal belief presently concerns atheism (the anti-christ movement – bibically represented).

In this post about atheism the op stated...
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-127454.html
Quote:
All this talk of atheists being religious and so forth, has me wondering...
*can we just call this a belief in the separation of church and state?
I welcome the religious and non-religious opinions... – Hello World
I was locked out of that thread. I posted three times in that thread and not about atheists being religious. The first post was actually being helpful. It did not contain slurs, negative comments or anything disruptive to the post. It was removed without notification. I wrote two more. Removed. The notification was blunt and unreasonable. My posts were not a contribution.


Now you might ask yourself how does that relate to religious freedom? It only relates because I have been removed and restricted in what I can publish. The only reason seems to be there is little or no contribution on my part. If that is the truth, why are there so many people reading this post? Is it only because of the watersoul contribution as a topic starter – I doubt it! I feel I have also made an important contribution to this thread. Even though many may not agree with what I write, at least I am contributing my views and this leads to more posts and debate. If I am to actively practice and publicly declare my religious beliefs, I must be allowed to have a voice. That voice is being deleted in a dominated atheists p/religous forum. This is not to say the choice can not be made to make this section strictly an atheist forum, for that can be an owners choice but if moderation does not allow both sides to be heard it can be observed as unfair and biased. Unfair moderation inhibits me from religious declaration.

But there is an even more serious side to this religious debate. A non-atheist in general in this forum is demanded by forum policy (stickys, rules and moderation) to adhere to an atheist approach to religion (supply evidence etc). To comply with this means that a theist in order to post must give up there religious well being and engage in hostile religious arguments such as supply proof that God exists or prove the bible is truth. Failure to engage in these arguments inside the religious topics means they have the choice to either leave the topic (the only option) or submit to the requirements that are being issued. Submitting to the current moderation requirements does violate a persons belief. I would never argue about God or question God (I do not mean here a question - question, but a suggestion that God is not in authority). Yet, that is exactly what the requirements are and the ones being enforced. Moderation demands that the scientific model must be used in religious type posts and this is fine and correct for atheists but is not acceptable for non-atheists. This is not about ridicule, it is about moderation of religious expression.

Another example is my post about satanic atheism http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-122849.html.
Here, I need to be fair. It remains. It was not deleted though it still can be I suppose for this too has been suggested. I do recognize as well, that Bikerman will debate actively (oh, lord do I know this!) so credit must be given. I honestly think deep down in his heart he wants to be fair. It was Indi that wrote publicly that I was insulting atheists and brought troll into the daily vocabulary (I agree with the ignore part) and suggested to Bikerman he should come down on me for it. But this was not true! I tried my best to show that the topic was entirely about atheism not atheists though I understand now, how the connection can become personal for atheists. I was however allowed to post this belief in the Faith section but the price I paid was not merely ridicule but exception (since control of what and how she writes does not seem to work) from future religious declaration in religious topics.

Quote:
I cannot think of an instance where this right has not been maintained. – Ankhanu
Bikerman
I'm not going to bother responding in detail, because it is mostly incoherent babble.
What I will respond to are the major misrepresentations, misconceptions and plain lies - just to put the record straight.

a) Anyone of any religious view may post in P&R; but one is expected, I believe reasonably, to provide reasons for any assertions made. If you post that Jesus is God then it is perfectly reasonable to expect some debate on that matter. Simply posting it and then refusing to debate it is what we call proselytising and the P&R forum will not be used for that. This has always been my position and will continue to be my position. If people wish to post 'Jesus is Great' or 'Vishnu is Lord of All' then they can do so in the Faith forum. If such postings are made in P&R then the poster is expected to backup their assertions. If they refuse then the posting will be removed.

b) The idea that insisting on proper debate is somehow insisting on the 'scientific method' betrays a deep ignorance of both concepts. Philosophy does not demand the scientific method. Reasoning is perfectly acceptable, and there is no insistence on experimental or observational evidence in order to make a point.
The further notion that this is somehow 'atheistic' is frankly stupid and deeply offensive to many. Bluedoll tends to call anything she doesn't agree with 'atheistic'. What she seems unable to face is that the majority of Christians in the world do not share her views. I have many Christian acquaintances and friends who would be horrified by the suggestion that logic and science are 'atheistic'.

c) Nobody has 'threatened' Bluedoll. I have, on a couple of occasions, pmd her to warn that particular postings are unacceptable, and tried to explain why. That is an attempt to be helpful and clear up any misconceptions. Once I realised that such efforts were futile I stopped.
So if I try to help I am accused of 'threatening' and when I don't try to help she wails about postings being removed without notice. Obviously I can't win in that situation so the only sensible approach is the one I have adopted - I will simply remove postings which proselytise without any effort or willingness to debate.

As with any decision, I am open to challenge. Posters may, in the first instance, pm me to discuss the matter. I have, on at least a couple of occasions, changed a moderation decision in light of such representation. If a poster remains unhappy then they are quite free to pm another member of staff with their complaint. I am answerable, like all mods, to my peers - other staff members - and ultimately to Bondings whose system this is.
What I won't allow is questioning of moderation decisions in public forums. This is against TOS and is disruptive. At best it sidetracks debate, and at worst it sets-up cliques and factions within the membership and lowers the quality of debate by personalising everything.
I have made a couple of exceptions to this in order to address whispering campaigns and various snide little remarks in postings - this thread is one such exception. In general, however, postings questioning moderation decisions (by any moderator) will simply be removed.

The issue that underlies a lot of this is simple: various Christian posters think that they have some automatic right to 'respect'. By that, they mean that everyone should treat their views seriously and avoid pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions. I, on the other hand, believe that no position or view is automatically deserving of 'respect'. I do not 'respect' racism as a view, and I don't 'respect' most religious beliefs. What some people seem unable or unwilling to grasp is that respect for the RIGHT to believe is not the same as respect for the belief. I absolutely believe that anyone has the right to believe whatever they choose. Further, I will stand with them should that right be challenged. That does NOT mean that I support their views/beliefs and it does NOT mean that I will refrain from challenging such views/beliefs. A (very) few Christian posters see this as evidence of atheistic bias. I find this quite funny, actually. I wonder if they would be happy with a practising Jew, Hindu or Muslim as moderator? I take the view that all religions are 'unproven' - that such evidence as is available does not indicate to me that any religion is likely to be 'true'. If one wishes to call that 'bias' then OK - I'll accept that. What I won't do is favour one religious position over another.
Now, if I am unable to avoid atheistic bias in my decisions (something I challenge, of course) then it absolutely follows that any theistic moderator would be biased towards their particular religion. So which is worse, I wonder? Bias against ALL religions, or bias in favour of (say) Islam?
Bluedoll
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Anyone of any religious view may post in P&R; but one is expected, I believe reasonably, to provide reasons for any assertions made. If you post that Jesus is God then it is perfectly reasonable to expect some debate on that matter. Simply posting it and then refusing to debate it is what we call proselytising and the P&R forum will not be used for that. This has always been my position and will continue to be my position. If people wish to post 'Jesus is Great' or 'Vishnu is Lord of All' then they can do so in the Faith forum. If such postings are made in P&R then the poster is expected to backup their assertions. If they refuse then the posting will be removed.
    Jesus Christ is the son of God.


Quote:
Proselytizing is the act of attempting to convert people to another opinion... Today, the connotations of proselytizing are often negative and the word is commonly used to describe attempts to force people to convert; however, this article will be using it in the more neutral meaning of attempting to convert. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism#In_Christianity
Is not using reasoning in philosophy (but many posts in p/r are purely religious posts) attempting to win an arguement or promote ones opinion too? I am certainly not forcing people or possibly could force people to convert to my beliefs but rather try to keep my personal application of a “proselytize” nature to be in emulation of Jesus Christ and not of any worldly religious organization.

Quote:
“Let him FOLLOW me” – Jesus Christ in the Bible
What people do with this is totally up to them so my assertive words are not forcing but rather my 'proselytizing' is very soft. Though I will debate non-religioius topics, how I discuss religious subjects is very important to my spirtuality and based only on this can not agree with being forced to backup every word about someone I have full devotion and confidence in.
Bikerman
That's absolutely fine, just keep your 'debate' in the faith forum and there is no issue.
Quote:
Is not using reasoning in philosophy (but many posts in p/r are purely religious posts) attempting to win an arguement or promote ones opinion too?

No.
Reasoning is an attempt to get at the truth of the matter. You will frequently see me, Indi or one of the other regular posters adopt a position that we might not personally believe in. This helps to clarify a position by testing it from other perspectives. Most times no one person has a complete answer to a particular question. The answer is synthesised as different theses are discussed, challenged and modified or discarded. An essential part of this process is reasoned debate, whereby the flaws, fallacies and weaknesses of a particular position are laid bare, so that they can be addressed.

You do not wish to do this, so you do not wish philosophical debate of your religion. Fine, but in that case don't post in that particular forum. This is not much to require, given that we created a special forum exactly for the kind of posting you wish to make.
watersoul
Well, there have been a lot of interesting comments shared in this topic and with 1400+ views so far I think a lot of people may have learned what to expect in the Philosophy & Religion, and Faith forums now.

The usual opinions have been expressed by the usual people, I'm satisfied with it, others users will read them and make their own minds up themselves as to how ridiculous or not the particular viewpoints may be.
Unless Dean has something new to raise (although he didn't engage with the debate here quite as vociferously as when he was derailing my topic) I'm personally quite happily done with this thread, for now.

Of course, if it doesn't get locked by a mod or something, I shall continue to keep it in mind as a place to refer anyone who wants to attempt off-topic derailing in future.

...General Chat rocks Cool
watersoul
Well, there have been a lot of interesting comments shared in this topic and with 1400+ views so far I think a lot of people may have learned what to expect in the Philosophy & Religion, and Faith forums now.

The usual opinions have been expressed by the usual people, I'm more than satisfied with it, others users will also read them and make their own minds up themselves as to how ridiculous or not the particular viewpoints may be.
Unless Dean has something new to raise (although he didn't engage with the debate here quite as vociferously as when he was derailing my topic) I'm personally quite happily done with this thread, for now.

Of course, if it doesn't get locked by a mod or something, I shall continue to keep it in mind as a place to refer anyone who wants to attempt off-topic derailing in future.

...General Chat rocks Cool
Bikerman
I will lock it if asked to do so, since I have nothing more to add, and the complaint(s) seemed to be specifically about my moderation.
watersoul
Bikerman wrote:
I will lock it if asked to do so, since I have nothing more to add, and the complaint(s) seemed to be specifically about my moderation.

I'm happy with it staying open as a place I can refer the DH/BD crew to if a future topic is being derailed with complaints about the 'oppressive regime' here, or if similar distractions start going round and round again elsewhere on the forums.

I'm easy with it, either way, but I'm not the one who's being attacked about moderating standards here, if you want to lock it feel free to do so at any point.
I do think its a handy place to refer 'incoherent babble' to though Laughing
Bikerman
LOL...I have no problem with it staying.....and if other people wish to complain then I suppose this could be a place for them to do so in public.
Related topics
SEXIEST female in your eye
Internet?
[some off-topic talk] Did author Scott Turow get worse?
Off-Topic Forum
Lack on Posts
Should I get a snake?
A flash forum
Teacher Going off Topic
A rant on God, religion and morality
Cuidado con lo que miras en la Ciudad de México, D.F.
Download gratuito (e legalizado) de programas pagos
Forum Rules (beyond TOS)
How to Grow A Positive Faith Forum
smoking should banned entirely in Australia
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

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