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

Religious Intolerance at Frihost




I totally cringe when a group of people such as Muslims are ridiculed to the extent they have been in the Proof that Islam is man-made thread. Some of our members at Frihost are Muslim, I can't understand how this is allowed. Isn't that supposed to be against Frihost Forum rules as well?
Quote:
Posts, avatars, signatures and usernames must not degrade, insult or disrespect other users or groups of people.
Source: http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-13011.html

The Mods suggest that all we need to do is hit the report button, but how many times have I hit the report button to no avail. To make it worse, the perception is that I apparently hate Bikerman. And I have some or other vendetta against him. Which is blatantly untrue. What I am against is the type of discussion where any group of people are being ridiculed as per the above example, and there is a total absence of moderation to sort it out. Hitting the report button is futile. As none of the Mods would dream to touch Bikerman. All of us know it. And so does he. I am also completely against him moderating his own discussions in the Phil&Rel Forum. Including threatening those that he has had differences with while he was actively involved in discussions with them. That is simply wrong. Not much of that has been happening lately however as I don't know whether anyone has noticed. There aren't any theists left in the Phil&Rel Forum, nor in the Faith Forum.

The Faith Forum was supposed to be the Solution Forum for those of faith who allegedly could not make it in the Phil&Rel Forum. Refer the quote from an E-Mail of Indi's below (in Bikerman's OP and thread of 27 November last year):
Indi wrote:
Look, we have been given a unique opportunity here. A group of people complained that the discussion tone was too 'aggressive' - they didn't want to be contradicted. They have now got a forum tuned to their wishes: a forum where they can post on Faith issues without having to worry about someone challenging or contradicting their beliefs.

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.
Source: http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-121119.html

Yet it did not take long for atheists to hijack theist threads in the Faith Forum as well. Discussions have deteriorated to the extent that I don't see any theists posting there any longer. Why should they even want to post in an environment where there is intolerance of and bias against religion, and the religious and religions are ridiculed and hacked to pieces the way they have been?



111 blog comments below

I’ve been keen on learning about Islam in the last number of years because it has been in the news so much but also because I really know so little about it. I would treasure hearing different perspectives and peoples opinions about subjects around it both for and against but definitely not in this way. I agree religious bashing is not something I want to be a part of. Did scan that thread briefly so I can feel secure about commenting on your blog Dean but not really interested in reading this kind of thing in any detail.

I understand what you are now expressing, after taking part in the forum for so long. As many times as I stated something, I always found that it was over stated and even saw comments on things I said, thought or believed though I didn’t actually say or deserve what they said about me. It goes with the turf I suppose. Anyway, they did get what they wanted which is complete control and domination of those religious sections and as far as I am concerned they can have them.

I never hated anyone but did hate how the topics about religion were handled but in the end what was said in the forums to me was very true. Basically the message was, “this is the way we do it around here and if you don’t like it leave!” so I did.
Shame on you
Bluedoll on Tue Nov 01, 2011 9:37 pm
I really don't see an issue with the thread you have linked us to.

I didn't see any disrespect towards Muslims, no attacks and certainly no insults. The point of the discussion was to try to prove that Muslims were man-made.

I don't particularly even agree with having a P&R forum, in fact if it was up to me, I would probably completely shut down that section of the forum. I would never recommend Bondings do that, as it would probably cause a loss of post numbers and also a loss of some very good members that hardly come out of that forum (Indi being an example). But this section of the forums causes nothing but absolute issues.

Anyways, back on topic. Where, how and why do you see this as either degrading, insulting or disrespecting Muslims? I think the title of the thread was titled a bit wrong, as the OP really didn't have any solid proof of the subject and was really just speaking his mind on the matter.

There are many ways to look at this. I can possibly see it as disrespectful, but not nearly enough to close the thread, especially since there wasn't any flaming going on and was a very gentle arguement/discussion going on.

But, if I look at this thread disrespectful, then I have to be fair and look at everything else from the same point of view.

For an example, your thread on "World's Seven Billionth Baby - How Do They Know?" I can look at in a way where I could also possibly see it as disrespectful. If I was the person who had come up with the statistic, I might be furious, thinking you are assuming my statistic is a bunch of bull, and judging by the thread title, I might even think you are trying to prove me wrong.

It's an iffy example, but you get the point.



As for your reports, every single report gets handled one way or another. But just because you report something does not mean we will do anything about it. It is up to up whether the report if valid or invalid. If you report this thread, I would have to say that it is invalid. If another mod sees a reason to close the thread, I wouldn't object to another mods point of view when it comes to closing a thread.

For other mods fearing Bikerman - hardly. If I ever catch Bikerman insulting, degrading, or attacking a specific person and/or group, I would gladly open an AWIT on him and Bondings would be appointed to it. Have I ever seen Bikerman personally insult someone? I sure have not, and I've honestly looked through quite a few of his posts actually looking for a reason to open an AWIT on him. Not because I dislike him, but because of all the issues that he is involved in and accused of.

I find Bikerman to be harsh when it comes to arguments. However, I've learned that is his personality and there is nothing wrong with that. He is very rough, but I haven't seen him cross the line yet. But believe me, I'm definitely watching.

If people can't discussion/debate on religions, what is the point of the P&R forum?

This really isn't my preferred area to moderate in. I do indeed visit the P&R forum and the Faith forum, but I usually keep my comments to myself. However I have no problems stepping in to moderate when necessary.

I'd normally keep my comment to myself on this post as well, but common Dean, this is unnecessary.

If you really think this is disrespectful to Muslims, then your thread "Can Atheism Exist Without God" is also disrespectful to Atheist.
Ghost Rider103 on Tue Nov 01, 2011 10:01 pm
this is a big reason why I have quit posting in the forums and am considering quitting frihost and finding a nice forum to settle down in that has better moderation and such, but I have to many problems going on right now to pay much mind to this, but I am totally in agreement with you but the others are to blind to see.

My mind may work different than others, but if there is something I cannot stand is religion bashing and lack of following rules when the one who made them is absent.

I do not know why, but it seems that the human race has become infected by parasites and is letting these parasites take over them and turn them into these kind of people.

Say what you will, but I am done answering to these people and do not feel safe speaking when they are watching but whatever to you I am just a kinder, but I have so many thoughts in my head that you cannot understand. Well it is not that you can't understand the parasite wont let you. It doesn't want you to see that this is wrong.

So if you have something to say to me say it, just from your response i can tell if you are infected or not. and deanhill let me say you seem to be one of the few people who isn't, and I applaud you for fighting back.

But a few of them have even tricked me for a little bit, but now I see that they are one of them.

I'm done. You can go back to turning a blind eye now.
foumy6 on Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:03 pm
I agree with Ghost Rider,i see nothing worng with anything said in that thread,perhaps you could quote the parts that you find offensive Dean? Or is it just that Islam is questioned at all that you find offensive?

I don't agree with Ghost Rider that P&R should be scrapped however as most of the interesting debates/topics on frihost occur there.

I do agree with Dean about the faith forums however,it has become just an extension of P&R,i always assumed it was going to be a place for people of faith to discuss their faith without having to justify or debate,but the faith forum rules meant that was never going to be the case,so what we have is P&R 2.
truespeed on Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:15 am
It's the atheist haven. If you want to walk free on it, you have to walk pass the balcony of thorns.

lol.
loremar on Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:22 am
In response.

Seeing as this appears to be at least aimed partially at me, I will first address the charge of posting the faith forum... which I did do once, when I was new and didn't realise the distinction... (In the topic Satanisc Atheism) and when I was accused of breaking the rules, I assumed I was being accused of going off-topic which was in fact incorrect. Well, sorry, you will see I haven't done this since.

More to the main point of the blog, the charge of religious intolerance. I'm sorry, but I wish to plead not guilty thanks.

I admit the title was on the attention-grabbing side, yes. But at that point in time, it was proof enough for me. People disputed my hypothesis, did quite a good job of critisising my view. As I expected, the best way to test an opinion is to have it challenged.

Some of our members are Muslim. I had thought that one/some of them may post. They chose not to. I would have welcomed their contribution, I would have learned more about their religion, as I hoped to. If you look back at posts I have had with resident Muslim posters, well, one in particular, you will see I considered him with the utmost respect, despite being offended by a number of his views.

I guess the question is really, what exactly is religious intolerance?

Are we forbidden from debating religions other than our own? If so, then I am guilty, but freedom of expression is severely quashed. And so is yours.

Or is intolerance really about allowing everyone to hold their own views and practise their own views? I am a great supporter of this, it is fundamental to my outlook on life. My thread never comes close to stopping people from being Muslim, unless they choose to agree with my thread...
Hello_World on Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:35 am
Hello world you asked a question, what exactly is religious intolerance? You then went on to ask are we forbidden from debating religions other than our own or is intolerance really about allowing everyone to hold their own views and practise their own views?

That is entirely the point I think, that in the frihost athiest haven -“loremar’s analogy” only one sided viewpoints were allowed. When I made my views and beliefs know they were not merely challenged. I was personally ridiculed, critized and labeled a troll to be ignored and only because I did practise my views. Because, I was not deterred by the bulling and continued to express, I was attacked through moderation with edits and removal of posts, so I decided at that point to leave, after seeing there was indeed religious intolerance in frihost forum. The answer is yes, here in athiest frihost forum, you are forbidden from religious expression.

I can not even fathom how Ghost Riders could make on the watch comments like “Have I ever seen Bikerman personally insult someone? I sure have not” This board was so rediculas, but the truth is yes, insults were part of the norm here and no one did much about it.

Bikerman did made it very clear that some members would not be respected. There may have been rules to follow but these rules were not equally applied.
Bluedoll on Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:29 pm
One of the main reasons you don't have my respect is that you lie fairly often.
I did NOT say that 'some members would not be respected' - EVER.
I said that some viewpoints are not automatically worthy of respect. I also gave examples - the view that adults should be able to have sex with children being one such example.

Neither were you 'attacked'. You posted several insulting and offensive attacks on atheists. I removed them.
Bikerman on Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:44 pm
"I find Bikerman to be harsh when it comes to arguments. However, I've learned that is his personality and there is nothing wrong with that. He is very rough, but I haven't seen him cross the line yet. But believe me, I'm definitely watching."

quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Smile I have no doubt that you are watching me - and I would further add that I would both EXPECT and WANT you to do exactly that. I find the idea that any moderator is 'above' abiding by the TOS troubling and would have great difficulties were that the case.

Am I 'Rough'? Perhaps. I don't respect religion and I don't consider a religious view to be automatically worthy of respect. Is that rough? Personally I think not. We've had 2000 years of religious violence, religious bigotry, intolerance and killing. I don't find anything to respect in that.
I always try to 'attack' the point, not the person making it. I have failed in that a couple of times in the past (I'm only human) and, when I either realised my error, or had it pointed out to me, then I have acted to correct the situation - by apologising for the posting and changing any offensive remarks where indicated.

The whole argument is, to my mind, confused. One the one hand we have some posters who call for religious respect and believe that their views should be automatically respected. Then, when this does not happen, they cry 'religious intolerance'. That is a NONSENSE - and it is actually deeply offensive to those people who really DO suffer religious persecution.

Anyone is free to express a religious viewpoint. If they do so in the P&R forum then they are expected to justify it, or at least provide some reasoning. That is not intolerance, it is philosophy.
Bikerman on Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:49 pm
"I do agree with Dean about the faith forums however,it has become just an extension of P&R,i always assumed it was going to be a place for people of faith to discuss their faith without having to justify or debate,but the faith forum rules meant that was never going to be the case,so what we have is P&R 2."

I don't entirely agree - I think some effort has been made to stick to the original mandate. However, rather than defend the status quo I'm happy to consider alternatives.
As a gesture of goodwill I'll stop posting in the Faith forum completely - can't say fairer than that Smile
Bikerman on Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:54 pm
Bikerman you did say, “I'm not planning to be a regular poster there myself”
http://www.frihost.com/users/Bondings/blog/vp-120642.html
Well, obviously you must of changed your plans in regards to the new faith section because history proved otherwise.

Not that I care where you post or don’t. I myself have made no plans to contribute to either p/r or faith topics.
Quote:
I did NOT say that 'some members would not be respected' - EVER.
I said that some viewpoints are not automatically worthy of respect.


Well excuse my grits, now we have the truth in writing no less. It does not really matter to me how you state it, in practice the result is the same. You are implying in my mind at least, that you do show respect to all members that post, if you take the time to show how important it is to define exactly what you actually did say and before you even complete that correction, call me a liar. Oh no, should we also define that too? You didn’t actually perhaps call me liar you simply said I lie fairly often. That is so very different? You are completely full of yourself Bikerman, when you write things like this, offering a self centered, one sided retort.

So then, what I wrote was not worthy in your finely tuned reasoning, as you just said, “If they do so in the P&R forum then they are expected to justify it, or at least provide some reasoning.”

This is an atheist’s prospective only for all the "they". In non-religious topics, this kind of reasoning works well for most things such as in science and even philosophy but not in religious topics.

News Flash

I can believe what ever I wish and my religious beliefs I will express openly. I believe in God and that belief does not need justification, nor am I required to provide reasoning, proofs or any other demand from anyone! This is my religious affirmation and I will stand by it as my right of a religious choice so help me God.

You are correct in stating that religious posts that do not meet your rigid standards are removed and this was made apparent by your actions. You have proved this over and over – you have been in charge of religious topics in this forum for a long time and there is no disputing that. In doing so though, I see you not only as an unfair moderator in some obscure forum on the internet but as a common bully against people with religious views.
Bluedoll on Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:53 pm
Quote:
As none of the Mods would dream to touch Bikerman. All of us know it. And so does he.

No Dean, I certainly do NOT know that, in fact I know it is not true. I also think it is rather insulting to the other moderators/staff to suggest that they are somehow afraid of me, or unwilling to challenge me if they think I have stepped over the line. Ghostrider has assured you that this is not the case, and I have no doubt that he would indeed pull me up if he thought I was out of order - as would any of the moderation team. In fact if I thought otherwise I would be very concerned.
Your belief is based on the fact that numerous complaints about me have not been upheld. You interpret this as meaning that I am somehow untouchable. There is another possible interpretation - that the complaints had no merit.
Quote:
I am also completely against him moderating his own discussions in the Phil&Rel Forum. Including threatening those that he has had differences with while he was actively involved in discussions with them. That is simply wrong.
Yes, if it was true then it would be wrong. In fact if you can supply an example of me threatening anyone then I'll publicly apologise - I'm not aware of every having done so. I have, on a couple of occasions, pointed out that a particular posting was sailing close to the wind with regard to the TOS. That was simply an effort to avoid having postings moderated, and certainly not a threat.
Just what do you think I can threaten people with?
Banning? I can't ban anyone* - no moderator can. Removing postings? I can remove postings, but it is VERY rare for me to do so in p&r, and on those occasions where I have, I have consulted with other staff in the staff forums. The only reason I would ever remove a posting is if it was obviously in breach of the TOS. I hate having to remove ANY posting, particularly if it is in a thread where I'm active, since I'm aware that it could give the appearance of me misusing moderator status. This is why I have ALWAYS consulted when I felt it necessary to do so.

In fact I've been chatting to other staff about the issue, and I'm persuaded that the best course of action is to NOT moderate ANY posting in threads where I'm active - so you may rest assured that it will no longer be an issue.
Quote:
There aren't any theists left in the Phil&Rel Forum, nor in the Faith Forum.
Really? I wonder how you know that, since quite a few posters haven't actually said what their religous position is. If I had to guess then I'd say that mgeek, tinkagol, Dialogist & menino are possibly theists - though I wouldn't presume to say so for sure.

* Actually on a point of accuracy I should clarify this. We (mods) CAN ban new users with less than 10 postings IF those postings are obvious spam. This was introduced to allow the mods to quickly intervene when Frihost suffers a spam-attack - as happens fairly often. For 'normal' users we have no power to ban - and speaking personally I don't want such power. Where we feel that a user should be banned (and that would only ever be in exceptional cases) we can vote for a ban in the staff section, but the final decision rests with the admin staff.
Bikerman on Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:43 pm
Well this is a breath of fresh air, a Fri blog post dedicated to an almost tiresome continual complaint which has been previously posted as an off topic distraction in other threads.

I would ask for quoted evidence from the OP to show how the case can be argued for what is quite a serious allegation?

P&R forum is a place for critical thinking. Lines such as 'my god/s told me so' can be challenged vociferously there, based on debate which involves more than blind faith.

Faith forum is a place for stated belief or lack thereof.
I've enjoyed the opportunity to make my position clear in 'Faith', as have others from different camps. The discussion there is different and we can start whatever topics we like, if we believe (or not) in any of the many different (and opposing) religions, or other unproven things, from around the world.

I personally see two very different forums, with distinct rules about posting which separates them from each other.
Again, I would ask the OP to provide quoted examples of where rules have been clearly broken?

...or is it just about the interpretation of what counts as intolerance? I would imagine that an individual with strong faith could perceive some loss were that faith to be questioned. Maybe someone of that mindset would perceive 'Forum Utopia' as a place where everyone thinks the same thing without asking critical or probing questions?

The irony is that even amongst strongly religious/theistic folk it is only a thin veneer of pseudo respect that can be found for each others beliefs. The many different religious/spiritual views oppose each other so badly it could even be argued that atheists on Frihost actually show more honesty when debating or stating their reasoned viewpoint.

Anecdotal evidence, but I'm yet to read a reply where any theist has answered my 'other religions conundrum' thoughts while they were passionately spelling out the wrongs of atheism.
watersoul on Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:00 pm
B vs B, deanhills vs watersoul.

Damn, having an archnemesis is fun. How I wish mgeek comes here more often.

Anyways, we all come here to learn, right? That's where all the fun in forums come from, learning. We don't come here so we can get a pat in the back. There's a different place for that...called social networking?

We should say and seek nothing but the truth no matter how the truth hurt. Some truth may offend people. But like they say....The truth will set you free.

So far, I have not seen any theist come to P&R and present a truth that comes close to the truth as presented by Bikerman with plenty of scientific basis and logical reasoning to back it up. Most people come to P&R with both hands covering their ears and say "Blah blah blah".

If that sounds sucking up to him, No. I think back in the past and I remember most of the things I've learned in school came from people whose personality I may not necessarily admire. Some of them talk brash and are often evaded in the hallway. Sometimes they stare at you until you get petrified and freeze to death. But learning is worth it.

So what? Bikerman goes to P&R and people get to learn something. Of course, the theist can go to P&R so other theists can learn more as well. But everything has to be challenged so people can know whether it is something that is worthy of learning, whether it be something from a theist or an atheist. That goes the same as well in the science and politics forums but religion is just something that is just personal. So yeah, chances are people beat each other in that section. But again, so what? If we remove Bikerman in P&R, atheists would find that place boring and we get this people go to that forum talking about shariah law like there's no end.
loremar on Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:04 am
So far, I have not seen any theist come to P&R and present a truth that comes close to the truth as presented by Bikerman with plenty of scientific basis and logical reasoning to back it up”. –loremar

This is your view loremar. My view is that a *religious truth can be presented clearly without scientific basis and logical reasoning. This does not mean that religious truth is not logical but that atheism is based solely on these reasoning and does not have Godly attachment. The problem was if the atheism agenda was not meant, the posts got deleted. The reason given was insults to atheists ‘“Anyone is free to express a religious viewpoint. If they do so in the P&R forum then they are expected to justify it, or at least provide some reasoning. That is not intolerance, it is philosophy.” – Bikerman’s tos

If the &R forum was a place for critical thinking where lines containing words God could be challenged vociferously then it stands to reason that the atheist perspective could be challenged as well, which was not the case.

To clarify what the above paragraph means - atheist's and atheist moderation demands justification from people with religious beliefs (it is a religious belief for them that justification should not be applied) then additionally does address religious type posts as complete bullies.




*the topics in question are all around religion not philosophy, they were “god is a monster- bikerman” type posts and not philosophy topics.
Bluedoll on Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:01 am
Bluedoll wrote:
*the topics in question are all around religion not philosophy, they were “god is a monster- bikerman” type posts and not philosophy topics.

Sorry, but I disagree. God is a monster(evil) is definitely within philosophy.

Most religious posts are not exclusively categorized under Religion. For example a post that says "God love his children" can be attacked philosophically. In fact, this topic has been heavily debated for many centuries under the field of philosophy. Epicurus asked a valid question about God. And still is valid today. So no, you can not avoid encountering a philosophical attack if you post something religious. Even if the forum only says Religion, a philosophical question is still valid. In fact science have something to do with it as well.

As much as religion is part of most human beings, philosophy is also part of every person and also science as well. So no, you can not throw a religious opinion and no one will criticize it with philosophy or science. As much as it is a fact in P&R forum, it is also a fact in everyday life. People will disagree with you and they will speak out.

It just so happens that many atheists come here and want to speak out their thoughts. As much as some people talk about against Obama and USA in the politics section, atheists also come here to talk about against God and Religion. It just happens that there's less emotional attachment in politics than P&R. So yeah, there's more fun in P&R than in any other forum sections.
loremar on Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:44 am
Quote:
The problem was if the atheism agenda was not meant, the posts got deleted.


Asking that people justify assertions is not an 'atheist agenda' - it is basic to any sort of philosophy and most sorts of theology.
Bikerman on Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:53 pm
I am not arguing philosophy. My point is my post is religious. Your post may be what ever you choose to express but remember it is not your post that is being deleted.

You can say, “god is a monster” but I will say you are wrong.

I can say God is not a monster and that I trust and love God very much.

You can then ask for proof, disagree and attack my statement but I am not obligated to justify anything other than to say this is my belief and entitled to express this fact as my religious conviction. This is not trolling into topics but answering specific statements made in posts in accordance to my religious belief.

In this case the tos established, violates my religious belief when it demands that I respond in a manner that goes contraire to my religious choice. I do not have to follow any particular “philosophical attack” standard in my religious practice.
Bluedoll on Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:53 pm
Quote:
In this case the tos established, violates my religious belief when it demands that I respond in a manner that goes contraire to my religious choice.
Well, as I said, if that is the case then you are better posting in another forum. It is some kind of odd religion that deems it wrong to explain - very weird and wacky.
It isn't the 'Praise Jesus' forum, and simply posting that sort of thing is better done in a blog. If it is against your religion to actually debate religion then the answer is simple - don't debate religion. Since the P&R forum is for debate, the conclusion is obvious.
Bikerman on Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:04 pm
Quote:
If it is against your religion to actually debate religion then the answer is simple - don't debate religion.


In fact, the topic in Dean’s blog has little to do with debating religion, everything to do with intolerance to it. I have much to say about religious subjects. I also have very strong beliefs, these include religious, moral and ethical. Everyone has beliefs and I am very able to exchange many views with others.





Many of my beliefs are my business, private, not yours and I do not have to justify them to you. The fact that you continuely want to insult my beliefs (very weird and wacky) is indictive of yours (rude and abusive). Your answer is always the same “better posting in another forum”. Well this one point I do agree with.
Shame on you
Bluedoll on Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:39 pm
Thanks for all of your comments. The one I appreciated the most was from Ghost Rider as I totally agree with his idea to close the Phil&Rel and Faith Forums. I really don't see any worthwhile discussions in them at all. I remember about a year ago when I had suggested to Asgardsfall who had won the Philosopher Princess's competition a few years ago, whether he could run a follow-up competition, and he then responded:
Quote:
I stopped following the board mainly as all the threads were religious rants and arguments, and there was in fact very little of interest in a strictly philosophical sense.

@Hello_world. This Blog Post was not aimed at you personally. Menino tried to tell you something and did not seem to get his message through. Having a joking session about Muslims is insulting in the extreme. If you don't have an understanding of how insulting it is, then that shows either lack of education about the Muslim culture and religion or intolerance of their beliefs. Hopefully it is the former.

@Bikerman. It is well known, and I think you've said as much too somewhere in the Forums that there is a policy in the Staff Forum that all Moderators stick together. So if you get to be Moderator of your own discussions, and I report you on making threats, then it is obvious how it is going to turn out. I'm not against Mods sticking together but I'm totally against you moderating your own discussions as that is creating a problem for everyone. To me it is logical that someone else with a lesser involvement in the discussions should be moderating the discussions in the Phil&Rel Forum. A Moderator of the character of Dan would have been ideal for that position.

Your personal remarks about Bluedoll are classic of how not to deal with Frihosters. Telling them that they would be better off posting in another Forum does not conform with the Post to Host rules at all. As far as I know Bondings wants us to post to our hearts' content here and Bluedoll had been doing just that up to the point when you started to gun for her. Nowhere in the TOS does it say posts have to be to a certain standard in the Phil&Rel forum. You and others in the Forum made those rules up as you went along. If you compare the standard of Bluedoll's posts to the average standard of posts at Frihost hers had been excellent, particularly when you look at the one-liners and cut-and-paste quote jobs. There had been a marked deterioration in the quality of her posts, as there there had been with Dialogist's and Pentangeli's when you started to threaten, edited and spam canned their posts.
deanhills on Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:35 pm
The only intolerence i see in P&R is from theists who can't accept criticism or even just a discusion of their God or their religion,or as it seems from the OP's blog post,any religion.

I see no mocking in that thread about Muslims or islam just a discussion on understanding Islam or rather a part of Islam.
truespeed on Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:16 am
Quote:
I totally agree with his idea to close the Phil&Rel and Faith Forums. I really don't see any worthwhile discussions in them at all.


I disagree. I have found many interesting and worthwhile discussions in that forum, which is why I post there. Most of my life I have simply been an atheist, found my own views, philosophies etc and lived by them without any reference to others of the same viewpoint. I have found it interesting to discover what other atheists think about given topics and so on.

Quote:
This Blog Post was not aimed at you personally.

I am aware that this issue is ongoing and long-lasting, not only about me. As the author of the thread you are posting about, there was some direction towards me, and hence I defended my position. But thankyou, I appreciate the assurance that this isn't a personal attack on me.

Quote:
Menino tried to tell you something and did not seem to get his message through. Having a joking session about Muslims is insulting in the extreme. If you don't have an understanding of how insulting it is, then that shows either lack of education about the Muslim culture and religion or intolerance of their beliefs. Hopefully it is the former.


I did not mean by the post that all Muslims are the same, that women's position hasn't improved, and the only reason I didn't respond to that part of his/her critisism was that I wasn't talking about Muslim practise but the religion itself.

He/she alerted me to women's rights under Christianity, and I agree but I wasn't talking about Christianity this time.

The main point of his/her post, as I understand it, was that I shouldn't 'attack' religions other than my own. I disagree.

I wasn't having a joking session about Muslims. They have put forward a theory, which I claimed doesn't make sense. My response to their theory was, if a God cannot understand the creatures he/she supposedly put on earth, how can that God be real? To which was replied, essentially, that a God may have created women strictly for the purpose of making other creature happy, men. I went on then to discuss what it means to have an immoral God. People (Indi in particular) discussed where I was factually incorrect.

As far as I am concerned, this is a legitimate philosophical discussion.

I actually don't think it is at all a laughing matter that women are treated as second class in any religion.

It is not really my concern whether or not anyone is offended by my post, but whether or not it is overstepping the boundaries between tolerence and intolerance. Discussing, even critically discussing the religion of another is not intolerant. Calling for modifications of their lives, calling for others to dislike the adherants, is intolerant.

Muslims may be offended by my post, just as they are offended by the cartoons. That doesn't necessarily mean it is intolerant. My discussion is no different to one in which the ins and outs of Christianity are discussed, except that I know less about Islam and am more interested to know about it.

If indeed Muslims think that discussing their religion is an affront to their culture, (as I think is what you are saying), then indeed it clashes with my own culture which says that we should be free to learn, discuss, challenge...

I expressed an unsureness about where exactly the line is, in my thread, but I didn't make the thread in any effort to cross it, and I don't think I have.
Hello_World on Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:34 am
Actually, my description of intolerance was too harsh, sometimes it is perfectly acceptable to ask believers to modify their behaviour when it infringes on others, for example, I would be perfectly happy to ask the theocratic Iran government to modify its behaviour of hanging gay people, but it would be intolerant of me to ask them to stop building mosques.
Hello_World on Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:08 am
Quote:
@Bikerman. It is well known, and I think you've said as much too somewhere in the Forums that there is a policy in the Staff Forum that all Moderators stick together
No I didn't say that. I said that we do not want moderators arguing in public - competely different thing.
Moderators, and other staff, discuss issues in the staff forums where they are perfectly free to disagree with each other - and frequently do. Ghostrider has already told you that he would not hesitate to pull-me up, so do you think he was being untruthful?
Quote:
So if you get to be Moderator of your own discussions, and I report you on making threats, then it is obvious how it is going to turn out.
Since you have yet to show any such threat I don't really see anything to discuss. It doesn't matter WHAT threads I moderate - reports are put into a central queue. Whichever mod picks up the queue will normally deal with the outstanding reports. You also know, or at least you have been told repeatedly, that I don't pick-up any reports which are complaints against me. I leave any such report in the queue, should I pick it up, and I immediately request that another mod deal with it. ALWAYS.
So your point is ill-founded - and wrong.
Quote:
I'm not against Mods sticking together but I'm totally against you moderating your own discussions as that is creating a problem for everyone.

No it isn't. You once again mistake YOUR problems for those of 'everyone'. Besides, I have already said that I will not be moderating threads where I am active - you obviously didn't read it.
Quote:
Your personal remarks about Bluedoll are classic of how not to deal with Frihosters. Telling them that they would be better off posting in another Forum does not conform with the Post to Host rules at all.
Pointing out that someone who says it is against their religion to debate it, would be better off in another forum, is simply common sense.
Quote:
Nowhere in the TOS does it say posts have to be to a certain standard in the Phil&Rel forum. You and others in the Forum made those rules up as you went along.
No, you are wrong again. I first checked-out my proposal with Bondings and others, and I explained in the clearest possible terms what I planned to do. Nothing has changed.
Quote:
If you compare the standard of Bluedoll's posts to the average standard of posts at Frihost hers had been excellent, particularly when you look at the one-liners and cut-and-paste quote jobs. There had been a marked deterioration in the quality of her posts, as there there had been with Dialogist's and Pentangeli's when you started to threaten, edited and spam canned their posts.
Excellent? I think not. The fact that I was forced to remove several postings was not something I particularly relished, but they were well beyond what is acceptible. Any moderator would have removed them - there was no disagreement in the staff forums. The same goes for Pentangelli who sent an extremely abusive posting to another moderator, as well as his abusive postings in the forums. I find your whole position hypocritical to the point of the ridiculous. You complain about atheists abusing Islam and congratulate the most abusive posters the forum has ever seen for the excellence of their postings. Also, posting assertions and refusing to engage with any questioning of those assertions is not 'excellent' posting. It is simply prostelytising - something which you complain bitterly about when you say atheists are doing it (although I see precious little evidence of any atheists trying to 'convert' anyone - and indeed find the whole notion silly since, by definition, they have no view to convert anyone to).
Bikerman on Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:13 am
Dean, the thing that always bothered me with these posters in frihost is what we see going on right now here in your blog and I do not care what titles they give each other (moderators) or just who they think they are. I’ve always taken the same stance from the beginning.

The idea of what debate should be that these moderators employ is very different than mine. I have always been referring to religious subjects not philosophical ones in this deliberation . How I debate and how Bikerman debates and is adopted by others, who he has convinced is the right approach is fundamentally different.

So what if he says, he will not moderate or if he does has little to do with it. Indi who is not a moderator has been able to convince others (the stick’s) that this style of debate is right. I realize anyone can influence but it is very obvious which style of debate has been adopted as shown right here in your blog that this forum is an atheists haven and that is so true. Is that wrong? I am not sure but the way debate is carried out I am saying is wrong from a religious perspective.



example

atheist: god is monster.

believer of God: No, God is loving and caring.

atheist: it is obvious by killing of millions and can be proven by how religions have persecuted people. (proofs then given)

believer of God: Though it may be true that religions have faulted and it was mankind that lead to the injustices, God is not to blame for this

atheist: then how do you account for god killing people

believer of God: I do not have to answer that question but I will say I have complete faith in God and trust God’s judgements

atheist: wacko since you can do nothing but add affirmations without prove posting of this nature will now be removed

This is the style of debating that is carried on in this forum.



Though I may have joined in and exchanged viewpoints and discussed religious subjects to great length as I did, I did not and will refuse to join in debates where the kind regulations imposed could be described as the debating rules of control freaks.

I do not have to answer to the questionings of the self-appointed religious extremist atheist rulers I choose not to follow.
Bluedoll on Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:02 pm
I too saw nothing particularly intolerant in Hello_World's topic that spurred this blog. I suppose it was kinda offensive in that I found it a little boring, but, that's a pretty minor slight in the run of things.
Hello_World's question was a valid one, though his interpretation was a little simplistic. Rather than the thread showing any real intolerance, it, I think, offered up a fine platform upon which to build a solid discourse on the fundamental aspects of the religion, the nature of its benefactor and the beliefs of its followers. That hasn't happened much, but we have seen non-believers step in and show how the initial premise was flawed… also a valuable tool for learning and exploring a topic. I didn't see anything that could be construed as ridicule, save for one sentence that was presented somewhat tongue-in-cheek near the end of the thread… but even that was pretty weak sauce.

deanhills wrote:
The one I appreciated the most was from Ghost Rider as I totally agree with his idea to close the Phil&Rel and Faith Forums

That's a very simplistic and, ultimately, inaccurate interpretation of what Ghost Rider said (I think). If I'm not mistaken, what he said was that he would not create a board with these sections, but, would not remove them now that they exist. This is a different idea than closing them down.
deanhills wrote:
@Bikerman. It is well known, and I think you've said as much too somewhere in the Forums that there is a policy in the Staff Forum that all Moderators stick together.

Publicly.
This means that once the team makes a descision, they all abide by it. That does not mean that they all agree with one another, nor does it mean that they do not debate decisions to come upon that point they bring forth publicly.
This, again, is a different idea than sticking together and not disagreeing on a more general interaction level. Mods are not required to agree with one another on non-policy topics… Dan751's frequent and recent disagreements with Bikerman on various spiritual topics, or ocalhoun's similar disagreements with the same are fine examples.

This sort of "mods stick together" policy is quite common among messageboards and other communities of any appreciable size. Cohesion makes it so that weasely offenders can't generate rifts and divides compromising moderating efficiency/capability… and almost always relates only to the forum rules. It's the same issue of kids who try the whole "but mom said it was alright" bit when asking for something they know they can't have... good parenting, just like good moderating, requires communication between the individuals in charge, and presenting a solid front when a decision has been reached.
Ankhanu on Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:36 pm
loremar wrote:
B vs B, deanhills vs watersoul.

Damn, having an archnemesis is fun.

Lol, I only just noticed that while catching up on the topic to see if Dean had presented any quoted evidence to indicate that there is indeed religious intolerance on Frihost.
It's been a couple of days since I posted and I thought that would be long enough to provide specific examples for an allegation which appears to be so passionately in the accusers heart?
I guess I was wrong, or perhaps the claim is just, well, another unsubstantiated whine from someone who has an unusual blind respect for any religious view, regardless of how ridiculous the view may be?

As far as any individuals who refuse to discuss certain aspects of their faith as if it were taboo, I would say it's pointless posting in a discussion forum, and why do it if you're going to kill a conversation when questions are asked?
I find it quite boring sometimes and I personally wouldn't miss reading silly posts that are simply 'praising a lord' with no room allowed for serious questioning.

I assume the next thing we'll see is a couple of folk 'threatening' to leave Frihost (again), and the post count will go down a bit.
I would only hope that anyone in that position will find comfort in some kind of religious forum which pats all the members on the back even when their views conflict.
"I know my holy books/god/s say that your holy books/god/s are a big crock and that terrible things will happen to you if you don't absolutely believe my holy books/god/s, but as long as we never mention those bits we can pretend to respect each others belief" [/yawn] Rolling Eyes

I certainly won't be following anyone to a forum like that though, I prefer reading real debate where if an individual makes an assertion then they can reasonably be expected to provide evidence in P & R, or otherwise just proselytise all you like in the 'Faith' forum sandpit. I find amusement there myself sometimes.

...oh, and I'm still waiting for the evidence about this intolerance claim Dean
watersoul on Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:07 pm
I am certainly not going to answer religious questionings of the very rude and ignorant only to receive more sick insults when any answer is given. Do you not realize, it has not been whining but a very solid NO on my part! But I gave my reasons!!!

There was nothing going on in the p/r topics but very stupid debate of the monstrous .


What I am seeing now is the validly of “claims” and calls for evidence in Dean’s blog no less.

All these self made important terms!! Terms full of demands, like the mod team decisions, like some college whoop up from a losing group of jocks that don’t have a future. All this talk about real debates on an out dated message board that is on its way out and all ready has one foot in the cyber dumpster. Congratulations for making it what it was, just a low rate atheists haven with slanted rules that would stifle even the most crude court case lawyers.

These pitiful comments about threats of LEAVING. I have never heard anyone being described anywhere as threatening who says they are walking out the door. What the heck is that about? Laughing It might make sense to some would-be intellectual on a popcorn rush.

Why call it debate at all, define it as retorting garbage.
Bluedoll on Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:22 pm
Quote:
I am certainly not going to answer religious questionings of the very rude and ignorant only to receive more sick insults when any answer is given.

Haven't seen much of that myself but you're of course welcome to refer me to some quoted examples if you feel like doing so. I would obviously never dream of demanding such a thing from you, but if there are some rude and ignorant questions, or sick insults I've missed, it would greatly assist me in considering the religious intolerance allegations in this topic.
Quote:
Do you not realize, it has not been whining but a very solid NO on my part! But I gave my reasons!!!

No, didn't realise...still struggling to.

Quote:
There was nothing going on in the p/r topics but very stupid debate of the monstrous .

I guess that depends on your viewpoint.

Quote:
What I am seeing now is the validly of “claims” and calls for evidence in Dean’s blog no less.

I would suggest that accusations of 'religious intolerance' are serious enough to ask for some supporting evidence.

Quote:
All these self made important terms!!

What does that mean in relation to asking for examples of this alleged religious intolerance?

Quote:
Terms full of demands, like the mod team decisions, like some college whoop up from a losing group of jocks that don’t have a future. All this talk about real debates on an out dated message board that is on its way out and all ready has one foot in the cyber dumpster. Congratulations for making it what it was, just a low rate atheists haven with slanted rules that would stifle even the most crude court case lawyers.

Any examples? Which demands are being referred to here?
Reasonable requests or expectations are slightly different to demands, unless I missed something at school Rolling Eyes

Quote:
These pitiful comments about threats of LEAVING. I have never heard anyone being described anywhere as threatening who says they are walking out the door. What the heck is that about? It might make sense to some would-be intellectual on a popcorn rush.

If these allegations of religious intolerance were proven to be true then it could possibly drive people away, hence my request for quoted examples to help me make my own mind up.
I haven't seen any of that myself, but I'm of course open to a change of mind if someone were to show me evidence of intolerance which is stronger than unsubstantiated opinions.
...I imagine I'll have a long wait though

Quote:
Why call it debate at all, define it as retorting garbage.

That's exactly what I'd say about some of the posts I read in the forums, and some posters are certainly more prone to retorting garbage than others - thats for sure Wink
watersoul on Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:30 pm
I'm tired of this "religions are not suppose to prove anything". So if a religion practices some rituals like sacrificing virgins or baptizing children with sexual rituals then you don't find anything wrong with that? Certainly people who understands morality would object to that kind of religion. So I definitely don't see what's wrong with religion having to undergo to some logic test to prove such religion is not wrong. So in Hello_World's thread we see something wrong in Islam and we're not suppose to object against it? So what if instead of misogyny, Islam practices the examples that I just gave. Only stupid people do not object to that. And definitely only stupid people do not object to a misogynist religion.

Yeah, you can call P&R an atheist haven or whatever but certainly Atheists will never allow religious theist's posts to pass through without being challenged especially if we find something wrong about it. We have the freedom to do so and I don't see anything wrong with that. It is not to offend people but wrong are just wrong. And I don't see either why posts by theists should only be exclusively categorized under religion, after all, it is a Philosophy and Religion forum. If we separate the two in different forums, that still doesn't stop the Philosophy forum to talk about religion. People already do that for centuries.

So what if a religion gets ridiculed. If we find anything in it that is worthy to be ridiculed then why not ridicule it? Certainly if we find anything that is immoral like murder or rape, we definitely would ridicule it, right?
loremar on Sat Nov 05, 2011 6:49 am
Watersoul said,
Quote:
I would suggest that accusations of 'religious intolerance' are serious enough to ask for some supporting evidence.


Serious enough? Serious enough for what? To go marching into some virtual frihost courtroom and determine the outcome of the world? Yes, I do have an opinion and voice it strongly but I am not in a courtroom where evidence is required. Get with reality school boy!

Quote:
Reasonable requests or expectations are slightly different to demands, unless I missed something at school


Oh stop with the sly demeaning remarks will you? How stupid is it not to acknowledge there is a demand that posting in p/r must follow these kind of debating rules? Bikerman made this obivious. They are not reasonable and they are not requests.

Quote:
some posters are certainly more prone to retorting garbage than others


You can have any mindset you wish and believe anything you want. I am not trying to persuade either way but know garbage by the smell of it. You think I am asking for change? I am telling you off.
Bluedoll on Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:44 pm
Loremar said,
Quote:
So I definitely don't see what's wrong with religion having to undergo to some logic test to prove such religion is not wrong.


This is something I can agree with. Mankind’s religions do not have a perfect track record. That is why I’ve always said atheism is a religion though a church less one but does go about trying to convince others what they should believe is truth on religious subjects, exactly.

Quote:
certainly atheists will never allow religious theist's posts.........

stop there!

true

Quote:
So what if a religion gets ridiculed.


I personally object to being told what to write and how to write on religious topics and being required to meet some standard set by athiests so to control board postings.
If Dean has other issues he can say himself
Bluedoll on Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:44 pm
bluedoll wrote:
Watersoul said,
Quote:
I would suggest that accusations of 'religious intolerance' are serious enough to ask for some supporting evidence.


Serious enough? Serious enough for what? To go marching into some virtual frihost courtroom and determine the outcome of the world? Yes, I do have an opinion and voice it strongly but I am not in a courtroom where evidence is required. Get with reality school boy!

*shurg* If the accusation isn't important enough for an accuser to demonstrate where the accusation originates, it's likely that the accusation has no real merit and should be dismissed.

Simply, what's being accused is just short of being a crime. It's a pretty serious accusation. If it's not important enough to be demonstrated where/when the near crime was committed, well, why should we give it any further consideration? Those who are claiming intolerance may as well just forget about it if it's not that important to them.
Ankhanu on Sun Nov 06, 2011 2:47 pm
I think Ankhanu makes quite a valid point, it would appear that there is no substance to the accusation of intolerance, due to the apparent lack of will to produce examples or other evidence?

Regarding Bluedolls rather emotional reply to me though, I shall refrain from responding directly as it would probably be inspired by an intention to ridicule and go off topic.
...I'm also quite sure the member concerned needs no assistance from me or anyone else to reach that situation. Rolling Eyes
watersoul on Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:26 pm
Thanks for everyone's comments. Thank you Hello_World for your reasoned debate as that is the kind of debate that works for me. There are no slurs, personal comments like (you're a liar - this is why I don't respect you etc etc) in your statements, it is all reasoned debate without talking down at anyone. It's the condescending remarks, like Bikerman's about Bluedoll in this blog that expresses intolerance. I.e. making personal remarks about theists that he is debating with as bigots and liars. Or to use the "divide and rule" type of argument, i.e. set me against Ghost Rider or the other way round. We don't need that in our lives around here.

@Loremar. I've purposely not gone for specific examples this time round. I wanted to see how this Blog post does before I proceed with examples. There are plenty of examples in the Phil&Rel Forum from the beginnings of time. You can work your way through the threads if you like. I have a few themes in mind:
1. A list of all the instances when a theist has been threatened with moderation while the moderator was debating that theist
2. A list of theists who had been threatened and/or insulted with condescending type remarks who are no longer posting in the Phil&Rel Forum
3. Examples of condescending and personal remarks that had nothing to do with the topic of discussion and that were actually used to discredit the person who was being debated against
4. Examples of topics in which theists are being depicted as idiots/nerds/etc.
5. Show BEFORE and AFTER posts by theists who started off with great posts, and then after being threatened with censure got worse and worse.
6. Examples of the Moderator of that Forum suggesting that the theist he is debating with should post in another Forum

I still have to hear why the standard of posting in the Phil&Rel Forum has to be different, more robust, more insulting, more anything than any other Forum. Why should the situation be such that theists are actually asked to post in other Forums? What is the difference between the Phil&Rel Forum and other Forums? And how is it mandated by the TOS and Forum rules? How does it fit in with the Post to Host rules?
deanhills on Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:27 pm
deanhills wrote:
There are plenty of examples in the Phil&Rel Forum from the beginnings of time. You can work your way through the threads if you like.

Urm, how about you produce them instead as you made the accusation?
Why is it a better option for everyone else to search for these alleged postings of intolerance?

Quote:
I still have to hear why the standard of posting in the Phil&Rel Forum has to be different, more robust, more insulting, more anything than any other Forum. Why should the situation be such that theists are actually asked to post in other Forums? What is the difference between the Phil&Rel Forum and other Forums? And how is it mandated by the TOS and Forum rules? How does it fit in with the Post to Host rules?

Sidetrack much? (again)
Lets deal with the serious charge in the OP first perhaps?
You made an accusation, so back it up if you want anyone to have a grain of sympathy towards your assertion.
Yes, all these new questions are a related, but side issue (which you know full well already), why not stick to your original charge first and then we can consider wider forum rules when that has been put to rest, or not.

Pretty lame to accuse something then refuse to provide the offending examples to the readers if you ask me. But then, I would guess by now that most folk here have pretty much dismissed your claims as unfounded, and to be blunt, rather amusing as well now.
watersoul on Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:42 pm
watersoul wrote
Quote:
Lets deal with the serious charge in the OP first perhaps?
You made an accusation, so back it up if you want anyone to have a grain of sympathy towards your assertion.


Serious charge? What is next? I object! Overruled. Exception. I charge most of the active atheist dictators in this forum with serious over egotistical bloat as you support the ruling that non emotional replies are the only ones permissible and religious truths (assertions)are not allowed except for atheist ones such as there is no God.

Quote:
Sidetrack much? (again)

Dean, should you make sure you use your blog as dictated by the gods of atheist frihost according to their rules of assertions? They must be ______ no _____ or maybe ______ oh I got it, blind!


There are the a stickies – telling everyone this is an atheist forum

http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-97567.html
Hello here is the theme of the p/r forum it says,

Quote:
“There is no proof that God is real;
I think that God was an idea to stop humanity to fall upon itself;
I think that without the idea of god, or any kind of religion, humanity would not have succeed as its has now;”



http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-126169.html
it says creation is a taboo topic in the forum


http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-127506.html
Indicates that the p/r section is only for atheists


http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-125960.html
Quote:
“From today onwards, therefore, the moderators are going to take a less tolerant line with postings that are obviously either off-topic or simply assertion with no backing.”

What this means you can not actually write in the p/r forum you have to write under atheist moderation of non tolerance to religious truths (assertions).

http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-69774.html
philosophy? Ok, check it out
Quote:
“Every argument for the existence of a god or gods must necessarily make some assumptions about the nature of that god. You can't prove that "god" exists until you define "god".”

I refuse to do this. The answer is no! I will not! This goes against my religious beliefs.


http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-127577.html
this was a post that was extracted from another topic all together, it had little to do with me but rather in connection with Dean this is what 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.”


It is a typical example of how I was made an example of even in posts I was not involved in. There was certainly a pressure to conform to atheist ways of dealing with religious matter, it is one I rejected but was repeatedly harassed to conform. Right of expression is certainly a religious pursuit and a refusal to discuss something like, “why I think God is not a monster type posts” in the p/r forum - it does go against my spirituality to do so and I do not enter into very ruthless religious arguments. I did however post about topics that got started and did respond to statements that were made as I have here in Dean's blog.
Bluedoll on Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:28 pm
As a general rule I don't respond to postings which are obvious sidetracks. I will, however, occasionally correct any mis-statements or invalid assertions, since they reflect on posters generally and moderators in particular.
The previous posting contains links to postings which, BD claims, indicate the 'policy' of the p&r forum.
This is simply wrong. The posting from Shadow-Master, for exampe, is HIS OPINION, and is a setup for the debate. It isn't 'policy'.
Other examples:
Quote:

http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-127506.html
Indicates that the p/r section is only for atheists

If you follow the link, you will see that it says NOTHING about policy. It is simply a helpful definition of terms, designed to help posters and avoid common misconceptions being repeated.
Quote:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-126169.html
it says creation is a taboo topic in the forum
Again, follow the link and the posting is a response to general creationist misconceptions. It says nothing about policy and is, again, simply there to provide information. This posting, like the last, is simply a useful 'reference' document which can be linked to if anyone posts one of the assertions referred to. In the past I, and other posters, have spent inordinate amounts of time correcting common misconceptions - this just does the job more efficiently.

The only accurate policy statements referred to are mine - specifically that posters should be prepared to support any assertions made. That has nothing to do with being an atheist, as should be apparent. It is the general assumption on ANY forum which hosts debate (as opposed to those which purely act as a place to advertise personal agenda/belief). Since P&R is, and was intended to be, a place for DEBATE, then it follows that posters should be willing to debate. My statement of policy is therefore little more than common-sense. The fact that some posters do not like it is reflective of their own opinions about what the P&R forum should be, not of my 'atheist bias'.
Bikerman on Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:41 pm
Bluedoll wrote:
watersoul wrote:

Lets deal with the serious charge in the OP first perhaps?
You made an accusation, so back it up if you want anyone to have a grain of sympathy towards your assertion.



Serious charge? What is next? I object! Overruled. Exception. I charge most of the active atheist dictators in this forum with serious over egotistical bloat as you support the ruling that non emotional replies are the only ones permissible and religious truths (assertions)are not allowed except for atheist ones such as there is no God.

watersoul wrote:

Sidetrack much? (again)


Dean, should you make sure you use your blog as dictated by the gods of atheist frihost according to their rules of assertions? They must be ______ no _____ or maybe ______ oh I got it, blind!


Lol, my reply was directed solely towards Dean and again a 3rd party comes rushing to his aid with silly sidetrack nonsense which anyone reading the whole thread will clearly see for what it is.
I can only hope that Dean replies for himself in a more coherent and succint manner which relates to the issue at hand - the validity (or not) of his accusation that Frihost is intolerant to religion.

Whilst babble about 'gods of atheist frihost' etc is mildly amusing, it's not very helpful to the discussion.
watersoul on Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:13 pm
Watersoul wrote,
Quote:
I can only hope that Dean replies for himself in a more coherent and succint manner which relates to the issue at hand - the validity (or not) of his accusation that Frihost is intolerant to religion.
Oh, I think he can if he chooses what to write into his blog if he wants but I do not think he needs to be assigned the task by anyone! I posted links because Watersoul, was looking for something as he is blind like so many others that post to these kinds of topics, I supplied a few things that I view as policy intolerant to religious choice. I had something to say so I said it! If you don’t like it suck on a lemon popcorn boy!


Bikerman wrote,
Quote:
...response to general creationist misconceptions. It says nothing about policy and is, again, simply there to provide information. This posting, like the last, is simply a useful 'reference' document which can be linked to if anyone posts one of the assertions referred to. In the past I, and other posters, have spent inordinate amounts of time correcting common misconceptions - this just does the job more efficiently.
..when sticks are put up they do not need to be designated “policy”, they are guidelines that all members can see is the theme any forum board this is obvious. A useful reference document for who? atheists! Common misconceptions? Not everyone accepts your “misconceptions about assertions” as true. I certainly don’t!
Quote:
It is simply a helpful definition of terms, designed to help posters and avoid common misconceptions being repeated.

Quote:
It is simply a helpful definition of terms, designed to help posters and avoid common misconceptions being repeated.

Quote:
It is simply a helpful definition of terms, designed to help posters and avoid common misconceptions being repeated.

[quote]As a general rule I don't respond to postings which are obvious sidetracks. [quote]but you do
[quote]As a general rule I don't respond to postings which are obvious sidetracks. [quote]But you do!
Quote:
My statement of policy is therefore little more than common-sense.
But you do make policy and you do moderate and you do it in a very bias and very religious way on religious topics modeled by atheism belief which is “there is no god, everything other than this is an assertion”
Bluedoll on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:21 pm
Bikerman wrote,
Quote:
The only accurate policy statements referred to are mine - specifically that posters should be prepared to support any assertions made. That has nothing to do with being an atheist, as should be apparent. It is the general assumption on ANY forum which hosts debate (as opposed to those which purely act as a place to advertise personal agenda/belief).
The kinds of debate that employ’s moderating religious debates about religion from atheists are exactly what is being discussed here and that the policy and the application of those policies is what is wrong about the p/r forum. What is apparent is that this garbage is being supported.


Quote:
Whilst babble about 'gods of atheist frihost' etc is mildly amusing, it's not very helpful to the discussion.

I disagree that what I’ve put down as my perspective of this issue which for me was centered around the bully arrangement of frihost moderation authorized by Bikerman is babble but rather this very post of Bikerman is nothing more than an idolization of what should take place in the forum and what it was designed for. If it was a web page of Bikerman’s then perhaps he has domination over what it is intended for but not in a public forum.
Quote:
Since P&R is, and was intended to be, a place for DEBATE

Who is he to say what a &religion forum is intended for since he has absolutely no jurisdiction over religious views of other people. Though he may be able to control what posts go into the p/r section, he does not have control of what people can believe.

I have been making one point here and gave some evidence to the fact that the p/r forum is being run and manipulated by Bikerman that put those sticky’s up there in the first place. The fact that Bikerman might find it ‘not very helpful’ is his opinion and should not be am automatic standard for everything that appears in print and I totally disagree with his standards and policies
Bluedoll on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:23 pm
Bikerman wrote,
Quote:
Since P&R is, and was intended to be, a place for DEBATE, then it follows that posters should be willing to debate.
Debate item # 1 Bikerman is a big pooo pooo head. Evidence - Proof read his posts! Proof – just follow his one sided logic on religion as confirmed atheist with the intention to persuade anyone that wonders on to his board that they must follow his direction or leave.
Debate item #2 moderation on this board sucks! Evidence – Bikerman determines what is proper topics and what are merely sidetracks then goes to moderate this in the p’r section Proof – any person that gives their viewpoints on religion where they are showing that this guy is possibly wrong does have their posts deleted as dictated by “p-o-l-i-c-y”.

Want to ask me to explain and provide proof why I think God does exist, Bikerman or to give evidence explaining in defense why God is not a violent monster who murders people? Failure to give evidence is against policy. My answer is. God is loving, kind and wants all his children to see goodness. What? Is there a problem. I’ve been accused of interrupting the p/r board by posting numerous “Jesus saves” type posts. This is not true. I never did that or want to but I did challenge what people wrote here and I did challenge the moderation policies and of statements made by religious fanatics. Should we all hail atheism the religion of choice here?

No, I choose not to.
Bluedoll on Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:25 pm
Bluedoll wrote:
If you don’t like it suck on a lemon popcorn boy!


Bluedoll wrote:
Bikerman is a big pooo pooo head.

I haven't laughed so much in a long while as I have after reading these most recent rants Laughing
Yet another classic example of unhelpful alternative debating styles - lol again - I would be surprised if anyone takes any of it more seriously than I have - brilliant stuff, really made me chuckle, and pretty much killed any credibility in the expressed views which are now lost amongst the silly insults.
Move along people, nothing to see here, just keep calm and carry on.

As I said earlier, some members need absolutely no help at all to attract ridicule while derailing threads.

...still waiting for Deans specific quoted examples and/or other evidence of religious intolerance though
watersoul on Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:09 pm
Quote:
Debate item # 1 Bikerman is a big pooo pooo head.

Quote:
Debate item #2 moderation on this board sucks!

Quote:
If you don’t like it suck on a lemon popcorn boy!

Yeah, keep going. Keep proving how correct Bikerman actually is.

Quote:
Bikerman determines what is proper topics and what are merely sidetracks

Bikerman isn't determining anything. He's simply pointing out facts and is debating your views. For one, I will tell you I am determining that the quality of your posts are absolute crap and all you're doing is stirring up trouble.

For one, this topic should have been closed for this very reason. I decided to leave it open, to let everyone discuss and debate on the issue. However with immature posters on the board like yourself, it's difficult to leave the discussion open.

Quote:
any person that gives their viewpoints on religion where they are showing that this guy is possibly wrong does have their posts deleted as dictated by “p-o-l-i-c-y”.

No post is ever deleted. And even if a post were to be deleted, it's none of your business. Every decision made by a moderator is final. No ifs ands or buts, and theirs nothing you can do about it.

Don't like it? I, nor does any of the other staff care what you don't like.

Read the rules. http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-13011.html

Still not clear to you? Let me be more specific.

Quote:
The FriHost Moderating and Administrating Team reserves the right to ban anyone.
The FriHost Moderating and Administrating Team reserves the right to alter the rules anytime without prior Announcement or Warning.

also
Quote:
The moderating team reserve the right to edit or remove any post at any time. The determination of what is construed as indecent, vulgar, spam, etc. as noted in these points is up to the Moderating Team and not the users.


Quote:
Who is he to say what a &religion forum is intended for

He is a moderator here at Frihost. Who the hell are you to question his judgement?

You don't like it, tough, take it up with Bondings. If he or any other staff responds without action and/or does NOT respond, your inquiry is obviously INVALID.

I could go on all day why you are wrong in every way Bluedoll, but this alone is enough.

Bikerman doesn't care what religion you are. He doesn't care if you keep believing in what you say you do - he isn't here to transform you. He's here to debate, discuss and attempt to disprove what you believe in. If you don't like it, keep your religious thoughts to yourself.

Quote:
Debate item #2 moderation on this board sucks!

Back on this topic, you're right, I've been slacking. The fact that you aren't banned yet baffles me.[/quote]
Ghost Rider103 on Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:25 pm
Dean can add more to his blog or start a new topic if he wishes. If I thought that he wanted to approach a topic in a specific way I would be oh so willing to oblige. All he would have to do is say the word and I would happily step aside if that is what he wanted.

In reply to these derailing remarks, I have heard so much about them. Has this kind of things ever occurred in the forum before ever and if so was it always by me? Oh now, I expect to you comment back with well, I said, “As I said earlier, some members need absolutely no help at all to attract ridicule while derailing threads!” some members being well you know some members, you didn’t really mean me? Anyone can see you are talking about me.

The only thing that comes to my mind with posts like yours (am i ridiculing here, no, I am stating a fact) is I think it is not your place to say, it is Dean’s, but then that is your style, isn’t it watersoul, first sly so not be direct and secondly to assume that just because your or bikerman’s comments on derailing.... not to mention that in the p/r section derailing is associated with trolling and that is an offence at least in little fri’s official policy terms.


“the silly insults”

The method of debate being used in frihost forum is to debate without emotion, post only in a formal factual format with proofs and evidence. All religious claims must be proved including impossible ones. If a religious person simply states what they believe in the p/r section that post will be removed. Atheists are allowed to ridicule and disrespect other members personally as they please but no one else and anyone that does not compile with the atheist biased policies of this forum will be told bluntly to shut up or leave.

Signed,
Mr poo poo head and the popcorn king

Ps: repeat this six hundred and sixty six times
Bluedoll on Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:26 pm
Ghost Rider103 wrote,
Quote:
He is a moderator here at Frihost. Who the hell are you to question his judgement?

I will tell you who I am! I am a person, that is who I am. You better get your thinking cap on before you ask me who I am, Mr.

Judgement is exactly what is being discussed here and the topic is religious intolerance. This is a religious topic and a religious discussion.

Make no mistake, no one, not you, not bikerman, not bondings will pass judgement on me as to what I can write or not write religiously.

Yes, management does lie within the hands of people that call themselves “the staff” how could that be disputed ever? That is not something I am debating. You want to cast your vote against me because I will not submit – go ahead but don’t you dare get on my case and tell me to...

Quote:
keep your religious thoughts to yourself.


NO!

I do question the idea, of the absolute nerve that someone can force me to oblige to atheism’s views – yeah, i don’t like it. I will never support atheism.

I will always express how much I love and trust God.
Bluedoll on Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:45 pm
So what we have is a specific accusation of intolerence expanded to a general accusation of intolerence when proof of the initial accusation can't be found.
We also then have the added accusation of insults towards theists when irony of ironies the only person making personal insults in this topic is a theist. (bluedoll)
truespeed on Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:53 pm
'twas ever thus. Welcome to my world.
Bikerman on Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:18 pm
truespeed wrote,
Quote:
So what we have is a specific accusation of intolerance expanded to a general accusation of intolerance when proof of the initial accusation can't be found.
We also then have the added accusation of insults towards theists when irony of ironies the only person making personal insults in this topic is a theist. (bluedoll)

Actually what you have is me telling some people off and Dean writing in his blog but if you are talking about a topic and want to hear more from Dean you should ask nicely starting with the word, please, not some sarcastic slur about getting proofs. I will certain stand aside and let Dean get his points across if that is what he wants but in my mind Dean already gave them here in the course of his contributions to frihost many times...


Bikerman wrote,
Quote:
One of the main reasons you don't have my respect is that you lie fairly often.

Now that is personal.

My personal insults – Bikerman is a poo poo head and watersoul is a the popcorn king

Wow!!!!
Bluedoll on Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:54 pm
Quote:
I will tell you who I am! I am a person, that is who I am. You better get your thinking cap on before you ask me who I am, Mr.

You missed the point here, as Bikerman consistently points out (correctly). I personally don't care who you are. All you are is a user here that agreed when you signed up to abide by our rules and TOS. If you can't follow those rules, you are not welcome here.

Quote:
Make no mistake, no one, not you, not bikerman, not bondings will pass judgement on me as to what I can write or not write religiously.


I've made no mistake. Not me, not Bikerman, not Bondings has told you what you can or cannot write, on any subject what so ever. You are absolutely free to write whatever you want, wherever you want, EXCEPT at Frihost. You don't make the rules, we do. If I tell you that you aren't allowed to post something on these forums, then you better believe you are NOT allowed to do so. I'm not saying I will try to change your views or beliefs, but I will control what you post here at Frihost. Like it or not, that is the way it goes.

Quote:
I do question the idea, of the absolute nerve that someone can force me to oblige to atheism’s views – yeah, i don’t like it. I will never support atheism.

Nobody is asking you to support atheism. I simply made a suggestion, that if you don't want your views to be debated, then don't post. I'm warning you now, if you post here, your post is subject to being debated by any user, in any way.

If you don't like that, that's fine. Just know that when you do post here, there is a very good chance someone is going to debate on whether or not your post or information you're giving / thinking about has any truth to it at all.
Ghost Rider103 on Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:27 pm
I’ve created/responded to many topics when I was posting in the forum very often, everyday in fact and I also contributed to religious topics alongside atheists. I wrote and gave my views according to my beliefs. I have not posted for a long time after every second post was getting deleted.

You are mistaken! You are wrong on this one point. I am not arguing about who is in control of Frihost. We all know this. This has been proven many times. What I am referring to is How I am being told How to write and I will refuse to follow a policy that has been clarified here by Bikerman, therefore do you see me posting in the p/r section?

Ghost Rider103 wrote,
Quote:
I'm warning you now, if you post here, your post is subject to being debated by any user, in any way.
Warn all you want, I don’t respond to angry religious debaters. I state my viewpoints and if evidence or proof is required - read the bible.

I am not going to follow any atheist debating rule because I will continue to refuse to debate with any atheist aggressor!


2 Timothy 3:1-5
The Message (MSG)
Don't be naive. There are difficult times ahead. As the end approaches, people are going to be self-absorbed, money-hungry, self-promoting, stuck-up, profane, contemptuous of parents, crude, coarse, dog-eat-dog, unbending, slanderers, impulsively wild, savage, cynical, treacherous, ruthless, bloated windbags, addicted to lust, and allergic to God. They'll make a show of religion, but behind the scenes they're animals.
Bluedoll on Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:41 pm
@Bluedoll - Are you really just Dean posting from a different IP? Laughing

You are the only two people who seem to feel there is religious intolerance at Frihost, both either offended by the request, or refusing to supply evidence for the accusation, and Dean has been suspiciously silent on this, his own blog, even though he was posting replies in other topics earlier this afternoon.

Whatever, this blog thread has definitely been good for attracting replies, and any potential new member who reads it all will clearly see that the accusation is unfounded/unproven/unsubstantiated and to be blunt, rather silly, although entertaining at the same time.

Oh, and you forgot this one when you defended your earlier insults:
Bluedoll wrote:
that is your style, isn’t it watersoul, first sly so not be direct


Usually I would consider a line like that as an insult but in this case it made me laugh.
I agree that I may be subtle at times, but I do feel more comfortable in that writing style than if I were to perhaps let fly (as others sometimes do) with emotional rants which would only convey a message that I failed to either read, or understand, the posts I replied to.
I also prefer subtlety in my communication generally with others because it helps me avoid embarrassing myself with outbursts which would weaken my argument, or cause a situation where people might think of me as childish or irrational.

...still waiting for Deans specific quoted examples and/or other evidence of religious intolerance
watersoul on Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:10 am
(This is in response to Bluedoll's concept of an atheist way of debating and not to the original OP claims of religious intolerance.)

Am I missing something here?

There are two well defined forums for the discussion of religion and philosophy.

One is specifically defined as a place for debate... debate in the common, everyday sense of the word.
It is no atheist conspiracy - debaters challenge the position of others. This is the real word definition of debate.

There is another which is specifically so you can post your views, you can go there and pat each other on the back and revel in the glory of Jesus or whatever it is that you like to do.

That is my understanding, I really can't see the problem here.

I also don't know how many times or different ways Bikerman needs to say that he doesn't moderate his own posts, and so on...
Hello_World on Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:30 am
watersoul wrote,
Quote:
You are the only two people who seem to feel there is religious intolerance at Frihost, both either offended by the request, or refusing to supply evidence
Is it irrational to think this? – > 2 + all the others that left or will not join fri. Evidence?
the popcorn thing and your remarks are childish.



Dean can return to his blog at his leisure.
@Deanhills
I am happy to have had the time to post to it. Thanks Dean.




@hello_world
Yes Hello_world, you are missing something and since you asked this question in a reasonable way let me answer it the same. You need to look at the time frame. I do not post in p/r and faith sections anymore. I stopped. So everything being discussed relates back in history. Although Bikerman made a statement in here, he certainly did moderate his own posts and plenty. The faith section was just a bad idea that didn’t work in my opinion. I made a suggestion to separate religion from philosophy but that was suggestion was not applied – the reason, I believe you can find in how the faith section is defined.

You see, I believe atheism is a church less religion but a religion (false) just the same. I see atheism as a real identity and it does have a following. It’s message is (do not believe in God) and it does attempt to convince others to follow its reasoning and accept it as true. This is what the issue is all about. It is not about some stupid little power struggle on a message board but a religious question.

I think if a purely religious section would have been made on frihost, atheists here would then be admitting by default their atheism persuasion is indeed involving itself with religion on a level that is comparable to any other religion. They did not want that but would rather hide behind a mask of science or philosophy.

Keep in mind we are talking purely about a religious discussion (debate) about religious intolerance, not philosophy and not science.
Bluedoll on Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:10 pm
@Deanhills, not you Bluedoll, Dean is a big boy and I'm sure more than capable of answering for himself. Apart from anything else, I would suggest that Dean is the only one who knows the answers to my questions (note, specific questions to Dean, not demands)

Dean, 56 replies including this, in your blog, only 3 posts are yours, why such a low post count for you here? Confused
Are you going to give any specific examples to help support your accusation of religious intolerance?
If not, this is just going to be Bluedolls place for her unique style of 'discussion', repeating pretty much the same theme every post - or perhaps thats the way you want your blog topic to be now?
It just seems odd that you're posting elsewhere on Frihost, but after making a controversial statement, silence in the one topic you would be assumed to be most interested in. Would you please explain this, if you are able to?
watersoul on Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:04 pm
Bluedoll:
Quote:
The faith section was just a bad idea that didn’t work in my opinion. I made a suggestion to separate religion from philosophy but that was suggestion was not applied – the reason, I believe you can find in how the faith section is defined.


Why not?

The faith section is well defined.

Topic description:
Quote:
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.

And Bondings: http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-120666.html
Oculhoun's sticky includes amongst other things:
Quote:
In the Faith forum, however, it is accepted and respected that you may believe things by trusting the person who told you alone - sometimes known as 'faith', so such views should not be challenged there. The P&R forum, however, is open to all debate, and reason and evidence are the best tools to use. So, depending on what you want to talk about, please choose the appropriate forum.


Bluedoll:
Quote:
it does attempt to convince others to follow its reasoning and accept it as true. This is what the issue is all about. ... They did not want that but would rather hide behind a mask of science or philosophy.


Should we give up science and philosophy then, because of our secret atheist agenda? lol. What about logic? Why not give up all the accumulated knowledge we have built over the generations?

(Perhaps you can see that reason and evidence point in favour of there being no God, and as you don't want that to be the outcome, you blame reason and evidence...?)

Bluedoll:
Quote:
Keep in mind we are talking purely about a religious discussion (debate) about religious intolerance, not philosophy and not science.


That appeared to me to be the strength in your argument - that using best practise methods of debate (ie, science, philosophy, reason etc) is somehow intolerant of those who wish to simply state their point of view... and hence why a forum was created (faith) to allow those who wish to simply state, to go ahead and do that. There is a space for that.

You say that the Bible is all the evidence you need... well and good. But yet you are aware that there are a number of atheists that you are debating. If you choose to debate atheists, don't think they will care what is written in the bible. Atheists, to be blunt, think that the Bible is about as real as the Lord of the Rings. It doesn't hold any sway. It is not an effective tool. I wouldn't choose to have a debate with scientists and quote physics on planets on Star Trek.

I'm not saying, don't use that as your evidence, but don't expect atheists to take it seriously.

Don't forget that I was challenged when I claimed that God doesn't understand women. (When the debate raised the possibility that God wanted women as lesser) I didn't actually feel that for myself I need any further proof that God is not real than that religious texts and ideas are mysogynist. However, quite rightly in a debate it is not enough evidence to come to the conclusion that it is a proof. Now I feel it is not proof enough that God is not real, only that he or she is unworthy.

In other words, I came with evidence that was not proof enough, and was called on it. You should expect the same, in a debate.

So you have said, you don't post anymore in the p/r section. My point is, you have the faith section set up specifically to allow you and people like you to quote your bible and discuss with like-minded people, but you are still raging against the p/r section because people in there are having debates based on best practise.

Setting up such a forum, as far as I can see, is best practise in terms of religious tolerance - it is a space where even those who reject ordinary discourse can talk in comfort, so long as they are not attacking others in doing so.


What I am hearing from you is:
    1) rage against atheists
    2) rage against science and reason
    3) rage against Bikerman
Hello_World on Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:26 am
@watersoul
If your postings are all about you and Dean, why is my name mentioned twice and I am referred to 2 times too? Surely Dean can do anything he wishes with his blog. You on the other hand can not even ask him nicely a question but keep to your sarcastic persuasions. Could it be the atheist in you? Could it be the atheist in you? Could it be the atheist in you?




@Hello_World
I can debate. I just do not debate when it comes to religious truths. I will not for example argue about God’s purposes. God’s will, will be done in time. It needs no debate.

Quote:
Should we give up science and philosophy then, because of our secret atheist agenda? lol. What about logic? Why not give up all the accumulated knowledge we have built over the generations
You call what you have as logic? You know only atheism, a religion that has little to offer but lies and manipulation. Everything about atheism is a false and what it offers will be its demise in the end when the real truth does become known.

It’s (false) religious knowledge only seeks to convince people to go out and argue with others so to prove itself right. But it is so wrong. I am not saying it is a secret agenda oh no. I am saying it is anti to God and anti to anyone that believes in God. How can anyone believe it is not anti? All it wants to do is debate about the belief of others – it’s non god non belief non everything is only hiding it’s true sly face but when exposed does show clearly, logically what it is all about [There is no God].

I see only angry debates trying to convince all that fall into its trap that atheism is truth. It is not! It has no evidence that God does not exist. A lie is what atheism is. Is arguing with people about God in the name of atheism - science and philosophy? No, atheism is a religion. And it is very intolerant to all religions other than itself.


Quote:
I'm not saying, don't use that as your evidence, but don't expect atheists to take it seriously... In other words, I came with evidence that was not proof enough, and was called on it. You should expect the same, in a debate.
I agree with debate when it applies only to science and philosophy. I am only referring to religious subjects. They do not care that is evident. They do not want to listen. They do not want anyone to reason with emotion or anything connected with spirituality. That has been made known over and over. It is not about what I expect. It is about how I will always reject the reasoning that only atheism logic prevails. It is false.

As for the faith section as a place where ‘they’ can go I object to strongly. Tell it like it is. Tell the truth. I am not saying all the atheist in the world are the same for many just take a stand to believe what they want and go on their way but not all. Many atheists on this board are religious fanatics because all they do is argue about religion and are not open to any reasonable discussion and it could be called intolerance, indeed.




_________________________________________________________________





You are confused. This is not rage on my part. I think Dean like others has an intention (though I will let him say what they are if he wants to) but after reading some of his posts, I think he may envision a future here with frihost and would like to see changes occur. I think he sees what is happening on the forum boards as negative (like religious intolerance) and would like to see something better (like Bikerman not moderate). I think he would make a very good moderator actually but that is beside the point. I want to clarify here and now that I have little interest in frihost forum anymore. I see the forum as a web site that is losing any reasonable advantage for anyone and will fade into the distance as a has been. Therefore my purpose for posting on Dean’s blog was tell a few of the members here what exactly I think of them in no uncertain terms.

The reason I write the way I do is to reinforce exactly my points. I am serious about religious discussion and do not take part in angry debates about God. Anyone with a religious belief other than atheism will find this out, anywhere.If you choose not to have a reasonable serious discussion fine but instead you use laughter and sarcastic replies then expect what from me? I am not laughing. I do use and like humour often but not in serious topics.
Bluedoll on Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:45 pm
Quote:
And it is very intolerant to all religions other than itself.


No, it isn't. Atheism is by nature very diverse in viewpoints.

But I am not here to argue about the virtues of atheism in this blog. We could take that to the p/r section lol.

Quote:
As for the faith section as a place where ‘they’ can go I object to strongly.


Why? It is called freedom of religion. There is a place where people can feel free to debate religion and a place where instead you can discuss religion with like-minded people.

It caters for all. I truely can't see why you would object to this. Unless of course you are saying that atheists shouldn't be allowed to participate in debates, which of course would be intolerant towards atheists.
Hello_World on Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:00 am
Bluedoll wrote:
If your postings are all about you and Dean, why is my name mentioned twice and I am referred to 2 times too?

The first mention of your name was to advise you that I was looking for an answer from the OP specifically, not you.
The second was a simple reference to you while I expressed my thoughts about how the thread could develop while the OP remains curiously silent.

Bluedoll wrote:
Surely Dean can do anything he wishes with his blog.

Surely I've never even implied that he couldn't.

Bluedoll wrote:
You on the other hand can not even ask him nicely a question but keep to your sarcastic persuasions.

Urm...I did say please.
Perhaps it would be more useful to wait and see if Dean is as troubled with my questioning style as you appear to be for him.
It could also be helpful to remember that my questions were aimed at him alone, not your good self.

Bluedoll wrote:
Could it be the atheist in you? Could it be the atheist in you? Could it be the atheist in you?

I gave my best effort but I simply don't understand that last line. The closest I could interpret was a rather angry and possibly intolerant view of atheists?
I have to admit I even imagined you chanting it in a primary school playground style, and that also distracted me from finding any reasoned thought behind the repeated words.
How does a lack of belief in a deity have any relevance to an individuals style of questioning?

...ah, thats right, it doesn't - but back on topic, I'm still waiting for the elusive quoted examples of religious intolerance on Frihost.
watersoul on Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:45 am


?
Ankhanu on Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:26 am
[watersoul]How does a lack of belief in a deity have any relevance to an individuals style of questioning?[/watersoul]Easy question. If say for example a person who did not believe in God wanted to ask a question that person might pick any of the varied topics on the board.

If someone answered with “and God bless you” at the end they might chuckle or think well ok that is a believer, I am a non-believer and go on their way.

On the other hand an atheist like we have on the frihost board here would certainly respond back with. “There is no God you moron.” The same athiest would then answer posts titled Merry Christmas with something like – “and I should believe in the tooth fairy too...non science – you are stupid.” This is pretty much the scope of quality posts here in fightshost.

How does lack of belief affect posting? It means a person might be interested in say web page development and then post to it.

An atheist on this board though that has a strong deity (unity) with atheism goes out of their way to convert anyone who has alternative beliefs other than atheism to atheism. The atheism obsessed demanding will always argue or support atheism by posting one liners, video’s or go on a campaign to smear other religions to support the atheism’s mission of conversion or intolerance to other religions. Does that answer you question, how.


Yes back on topic, be advised Dean, the lord watersoul is asking for some EVIDENCE pleaseeeeeeeeeee– ye must comply. Thanks again for creating this blog as I’ve enjoyed answering all the questions directed to me in it.

by the way – watersoul wants to talk to you and you alone, he is a new member to frihost and does not know how to pm



@Hello_World

Quote:
Unless of course you are saying that atheists shouldn't be allowed to participate in debates, which of course would be intolerant towards atheists.
No I never said that. Nor did I say that atheists would burn in hell or did I demand anything from someone here. I just said that I would not agree to the debate policies being applied in religious topics.

Quote:
There is a place where people can feel free to debate religion and a place where instead you can discuss religion with like-minded people.
Well, for me it is not to be found in frihost forum.
Bluedoll on Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:26 pm
Bluedoll wrote:
Yes back on topic, be advised Dean, the lord watersoul is asking for some EVIDENCE pleaseeeeeeeeeee– ye must comply. Thanks again for creating this blog as I’ve enjoyed answering all the questions directed to me in it.

by the way – watersoul wants to talk to you and you alone, he is a new member to frihost and does not know how to pm

Yet another childish reply filled with the usual trollish nonsense Rolling Eyes
Oh, and lack of faith is not a religion. You've had it explained to you many times but still struggle to grasp this basic fact.
If your silly comments weren't so amusing they would be tiresome, but you have made me laugh a few times so please do continue to entertain me with the ridiculous lines I now expect from you Laughing
watersoul on Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:11 pm
watersoul wrote:
If your silly comments weren't so amusing they would be tiresome, but you have made me laugh a few times so please do continue to entertain me with the ridiculous lines I now expect from you

... a couple edits to make; I'll just delete the parts that don't apply...

watersoul w/ markup wrote:
If your silly comments weren't so amusing they would be tiresome, but you have made me laugh a few times so please do continue to entertain me with the ridiculous lines I now expect from you


watersoul - final edit wrote:
... your silly comments were so tiresome...
Ankhanu on Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:56 pm
Childish?

Childish?

Let me tell you this, when I was 12 going on 20 or when I was 16 going on 30 and I was called childish, I was resentful. I did not want anyone to call me a child. I wanted to be consider as an adult.

Now, if someone calls me childish, I can only smile and relish with joy at the idea of it.

Me Trollish?

Trollish?

I came into Dean’s blog with the first comment to it. I am not on the forum board now and I only have responded to other comments that were made here. Yet, you say I am trollish? I had something to say on this topic.

If you could do as well, you might but that is up to you. However, if you do not like what I write, I suggest you look to one of indi’s logical inputs in the stickups on trooools and comments on thus. He suggested one thing I was in agreement with. He said something in the context of if you do not like something and do not want to comment on it then ignore it and carry on. Do not he said, make sarcastic comments in return just to be _____. Indi’s logic would be, “Shut up then ass holes!” This is what indi would say. indi said this. Indi says, this, yep.

I’ve always found in the past that when the little tiny nothing much to contribute monsters here can not get thier way, they resort to little name calling, back biting and insults so to .... what is it called again? Oh, right debate. Anything other than your b.s. is derailing. For a definition of what b.s. is, consult with the head ring leader. You can always say proof please?
watersoul wrote,
Quote:
lack of faith is not a religion. You've had it explained to you many times but still struggle to grasp this basic fact.
When did you ever get the impression that I wanted something from anyone here. Did I ever ask for this false logic? No, I did not. The very idea that just because something as you say “has been explained” does not make it a fact. It is not a fact. You have been mislead in your logic and you are totally in the dark if you think that atheism is not acting like a religion.



Lack of faith is doubtfulness that is all it is. An atheist is doubtful that God exists, this is so, and I have little argument there. A religion is an organization, man made. Whether a religion is church less or not or merely runs along empty headed like atheism does as it shouts we do believe that God does not exist does indeed make it a religion. The religion of atheism does all the things you see other religions doing like charity work.
Bluedoll on Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:59 pm
Bluedoll wrote:
I’ve always found in the past that when the little tiny nothing much to contribute monsters here can not get thier way, they resort to little name calling

What was the name calling I read from you earlier? Thats right , it was 'Poo Poo Head' Rolling Eyes
Would your above statement be a case of putting your own good self in the category of poster you just described?
It certainly appears that way, Lol.

Anyway, I'll leave you to this thread (which you appear to have moved into) on Deans blog, I'm happy for you both, and it's especially nice to see you assuming a spokesperson role for Dean as well. It must be reassuring for him to have someone so eager to leap to his defence, and hopefully with your continuing support he may one day feel confident enough to return and post in his own blog topic, himself.

For now though I've read enough of your silly 'organised religious atheism' ramblings, so unless you particularly amuse me (or I'm inspired for other reasons), it's unlikely I shall post in this pointless blog topic again.

...it's just a pity for Dean, he failed to offer anything to support his assertion that Frihost is a place of religious intolerance, although not really a surprise.


@Ankhanu - Good edit to my previous post Wink
watersoul on Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:03 pm
@Bluedoll

I have considered the things you have said about the particular so-called intolerance via 'atheist' debate.

I think I can see where you are coming from, but you are wrong.

You think that the terms of debate about religion shouldn't be the ordinary terms, as you feel that your own version of evidence is enough, so you think it is a little unfair.

I disagree, I mean, debate is debate and evidence is evidence, strong opinion is simply not enough.

However, whether or not we disagree on this, it matters not. The reason it matters not, is that there is a forum where it is enough to state you have an opinion such as that you think the Bible is the word of God, that is that - the 'faith' forum, yes, the 'faith' forum found here at Frihost.

I don't really see why you should get to complain about the debate policies in one forum when there is another forum directly allowing for your particular views. Given that there is such a place, it seems to me that you are trying to impose your views on the rest of the forum, in this particular matter, and pretty much, I disagree with people trying to impose shit on me.

Even if there were not a special faith forum, I would probably bother to continue to argue with you about debating and so on. However, there is no further need as stated above, and written one further time, there is a faith forum where the rules of debate are different.

At this point in time I feel that I have a completely clear conciounse about this specific issue, and unless you add something new, or an angle that I haven't considered, I think I will stop concerning myself with this specific concept of tolerance.
Hello_World on Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:12 am
@watersoul
Dean can speak for himself and so can I when I say I find what you write to be ignorant and rude. I will not call this fact nor not name calling because I am simply saying it directly and I do mean what I say. If you need more evidence look in the mirror. The rudeness makes it difficult for me not to loose my temper – that proves I am human.

Hello_world wrote,
Quote:
I disagree, I mean, debate is debate and evidence is evidence, strong opinion is simply not enough.
I understand this is what you want. Then do that!

Quote:
I don't really see why you should get to complain... it seems to me that you are trying to impose your views on the rest of the forum, in this particular matter...


What I do is tell others what I believe is true and that I do know without any doubt God does exists. I need no evidence. It is the atheist debates that are imposing and arguing.
Bluedoll on Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:33 am
Quote:
What I do is tell others what I believe is true and that I do know without any doubt God does exists. I need no evidence. It is the atheist debates that are imposing and arguing.


No. You can do that in the faith forum.

I didn't mean you are trying to impose your Christian views on the forum. I meant, you are trying to impose your idea of debate on the rest of the forums.


Quote:
I understand this is what you want. Then do that!


But now you say we can, so good.
Hello_World on Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:00 pm
Hello_World said.
Quote:
But now you say we can, so good.

Is this sarcasm?

I am not speaking for you, or anyone else. I said, “I understand this is what you want. Then do that!” not to give you a permission or something but to say then you can do that! In other words you can do whatever you please and I will do whatever I please.

You want debate. Debate. You want arguments, argue. You want evidence and proofs, look for them but you find only so much with that method.

Quote:
I didn't mean you are trying to impose your Christian views on the forum. I meant, you are trying to impose your idea of debate on the rest of the forums.
How can I impose? How can I force? How can I demand? Only the moderators can do this.

I know what debate is. I have never said my idea of debate is better. I said debate belongs with science and philosophy.

Secondly, for me, this is not about changing a thing here (though at one time I did offer suggestions) I have no plans to post in the forum and have little current interest in it. What the forum does is up to the moderators who have made it clear time and time again just who controls it and how it functions.

Third and final, I do not agree with the policies on frihost, nor the conduct that is promoted here and therefore choose to avoid these conflicts. I do not feel comfortable interacting with atheist members on this board. If someone other than an atheist wants to share beliefs including those about atheism, it is seldom properly discussed. Much of the atheist membership (including moderation) on this board become sarcastic, controlling and generally rude when discussion is not in line with how they view atheism. I would rather put these things away from me.
Bluedoll on Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:34 pm
hello_world wrote:
I didn't mean you are trying to impose your Christian views on the forum. I meant, you are trying to impose your idea of debate on the rest of the forums.
Bluedoll and I am talking about debate that follows rules of decorum of being civil and respectful of others views, whether you agree with them or not. You can still have a rigorous debate, but you don't have to knock the other person down in the process of doing it. Or make personal comments.

I still cannot understand why the Phil&Rel Forum has to be different from other Forums at Frihost. This is a PUBLIC post to host Forum. There are VERY CLEAR Forum rules against one group of people insulting and belittling another group of people. Nowhere in the TOS does it cover the requirement for "rigorous" debate in the Phil&Rel Forum to the extent of belittling or making personal remarks about people. You don't do it hello_world as you are not a rude person. Neither is the owner of this Website doing it. So why is it allowed, and is it really constructive debate to call someone a liar or a bigot or a clown?

But then again, you may have a good point, particularly since you have fresh insights to contibute. Majority rules. And the majority of those participating in the Phil&Rel Forum are atheists. By their own admission. Some are strong atheists to the point of being atheist evangelists. No doubt about it, there is a party line in the Phil&Rel Forum and it is atheist, you can see it in all of the posts, and even topics of posts that are mocking religion. So perhaps a solution may be to rename the Phil&Rel Forum the Atheist Phil&Rel Forum? Then people who join Frihost for Free Website Space will know that if they are non-atheists, better not post in the Atheist Phil&Rel Forum, or stay away from Frihost all together. Because as it is at present, there is no warning at all that the Phil&Rel Forum is an atheist Forum and that those of different beliefs may well be treated in a disrespectful way that may not work for them. Perhaps another Post to Host Forum would be more suitable for them.
deanhills on Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:58 pm
More of the same...innaccurate and unsupported opinion.
As previously pointed out, theists regularly post in the p&r forum.
As also previously pointed out - if you have specific examples of religious intolerance then you should provide them.
Majority does NOT rule, Staff rule.
Any 'party line' is your invention, certainly not the actual policy in the p&r forum. I haven't got much of a clue what many of the other posters think on many issues. If an issue comes up then we will see what people think by what they say - I doubt very much that there will be an 'atheist' consensus on most things.
The only 'party line' is the willingness and ability to debate - whatever the point raised. The fact that you don't like the way debate is conducted is unfortunate but not something that has been raised by many members - in fact it has been raised, to the best of my knowledge, by 4 theist posters because they somehow think that their religious views should be accorded respect. As previously explained, ad nauseum, I do not agree, and neither do other staff. No viewpoint is accorded automatic respect, just because of the person stating it, or the type of view it is. If people assert stupid or ridiculous positions then those positions will be examined with rigour and challenged. That goes for alien landings, psychic powers, religious myths...and any other extraordinary suggestion.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and to make such claims without ANY evidence is just blowing smoke. There are plenty of places on Frih to blow smoke, but it is not unreasonable to expect a slightly better standard of debate in the philosophy and religion section. Nobody is forcing you to post there if you don't like it.
Yes, this IS my view and it IS the position that I have enforced, very occasionally, by removing postings - after several warnings. I make no apology for it and I certainly don't accept that this has been targetted specifically against theists. It just so happens that the most offensive and most ridiculous postings have come from a few theists.
Bikerman on Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:44 pm
This blog post started with a religious intolerance accusation in the Proof that Islam is man-made thread,many replies later and we still have no explanation as to why this accusation was raised.

But as everything seems to have gone off topic and we are back to the theist claims (bluedoll & dean) of general intolerance then i guess it needs to be addressed as its been brought up many times and is clearly not going to go away.

deanhills wrote:
Bluedoll and I am talking about debate that follows rules of decorum of being civil and respectful of others views, whether you agree with them or not. You can still have a rigorous debate, but you don't have to knock the other person down in the process of doing it. Or make personal comments.


Whilst i agree with your comment,citing bluedoll doesn't really help your case as she is as bad as anyone for making personal comments.

deanhills wrote:
I still cannot understand why the Phil&Rel Forum has to be different from other Forums at Frihost.


The politics forum gets quite heated sometimes,so its not just P&R,when you have certain subjects where someone adopts a stance and you have a follower of a particular political party or a particular religion who then comes up against someone of a different view,strong views are inevitable.

Also go on any other forum on the net and religion does spark heated discussions,its the nature of the beast,belive me people on this forum are a lot more civil and tolerant towards the religious than on other forums i browse.

deanhills wrote:

So why is it allowed, and is it really constructive debate to call someone a liar or a bigot or a clown?


Clown isn't acceptable,but i think liar is if you think someone is lying,so is bigot if you think someone is a bigot .

deanhills wrote:
Some are strong atheists to the point of being atheist evangelists.


We live in a world where religion is on our news every day,you can't just ignore it,you can't just pretend its all prayer and love,religion of all persuasions cause a lot of harm in the world,they shouldn't be knocked for pointing out the harm where it causes harm.

deanhills wrote:

those of different beliefs may well be treated in a disrespectful way


I think this will always be your stumbling block dean,you think religion should be respected,never criticised,just accepted,no matter what it says or does,what harm it causes,who it harms,we should all just accept it and its believers because?
truespeed on Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:54 am
Atheist is totally convinced there are no gods so he sees it as the only correct way of thinking. Theist can't give enough evidence to satisfy Atheist so Theist says there is no need for proofs and that Atheist should stop ask questions. Both goes to two opposite corners of the room and throw arguments at each other, both fully convinced to not give up. For some reason Atheist throws more arguments than Theist so Theist feels offended.

I have before all this intolerance talk came up noticed that there are a lot of atheists around and that it is probably not a very comfortable place for theists. I don't think people are breaking the rules but sometimes they could be more gentle. I think it's not so good when people create a lot of topics just because they know it is controversial to some people, or to try to convert other people.

Above comments contain a lot of unnecessary words like "silly" and "ridiculous". Maybe these words should be used less to create a friendlier atmosphere. Bluedoll's poo poo head was a joke, right? That's the problem with jokes. You don't always know if it's a joke and in either case it can be hurtful. Don't cry Bikerman... Bluedoll was just joking Wink

I haven't been active enough in the faith and P&R forums to know what accusations are true about the moderators but I don't think it is always necessary to justify what you say. P&R is not the science forum! It all depends on the topic. Bikerman state everything as if it was the truth. That's his way of speaking but is it clear when he is speaking as a moderator and when he's not? If not, it could be a problem. I fully understand if some people think Bikerman's avatar is considered provocative. What other purpose does it serve?

deanhills wrote:
Having a joking session about Muslims is insulting in the extreme. If you don't have an understanding of how insulting it is, then that shows either lack of education about the Muslim culture and religion or intolerance of their beliefs. Hopefully it is the former.
This was said early in the discussion but think it shows why deanhills have something against the thread linked in the beginning. Different groups of people should be handled differently? I don't like the sound of that.
Peterssidan on Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:48 pm
@truespeed
Where do you get these things from? “everything should be just accepted no matter what it says or does”...? – truespeed. The only person that wrote that in this blog post is you? I think it might be only in your head. You say liar and bigot are ok to throw around and call members too? ... I hear a lot about showing proofs, well Bikerman said I lied early in this thread but what proof was supplied?
Quote:
Whilst i agree with your comment,citing bluedoll doesn't really help your case as she is as bad as anyone for making personal comments.
I am not an angel nor will I allow myself to be put on some man made pedestal to be abused by any bully with a need to make personal comments. Someone calls me a name, I just might call them one right back. Maybe even poo poo head. Laughing

@Peterssidan
There may be a staff rule against friendly atmosphere, not sure about that though.

Bikerman wrote,
Quote:
Staff rule
Regarding, religious choice, staff does not rule, warnings or no warnings.

Quote:
I still cannot understand why the Phil&Rel Forum has to be different from other Forums at Frihost. This is a PUBLIC post to host Forum. There are VERY CLEAR Forum rules against one group of people insulting and belittling another group of people. Nowhere in the TOS does it cover the requirement for "rigorous" debate in the Phil&Rel Forum to the extent of belittling or making personal remarks about people.


Should you be criticized for writing something like the above Dean? Just because you understand clearly that all members should be respected perhaps does not give you the right to say it, does it? Staff rules, yeah! You are not a moderator on this board, even though you would make a good one and would treat people fairly. Maybe you need to be chastised by a moderator for contributing a post about fair rules, yes, after all the real moderator here does rule, that is for sure!

:-& Maybe you should be told to support moderation that needs to assert stupid or ridiculous positions, is that it? You should take the official staff position? Don’t let people post if they disagree but call it assert stupid or ridiculous positions because you support mod rulership, I mean a ridiculous staff member ridicules, oh shoot, Dean, you are wrong because you disagree with the rules, ok. The rules clearly say, assert the stupid or ridiculous position of disrespecting members, yeah that’s it. Or maybe, just possibly you are right, in which case you are a better moderator though not an official one?
Bluedoll on Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:33 pm
I can't say I've ever seen an instance where someone's right to believe anything they want has been questioned or denied. From my perspective, this idea is a complete non-issue. I could be wrong, as I haven't memorize every post, but I doubt I am.


Calling in to question the validity of a belief is not the same as denying one's right to hold it.
Ankhanu on Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:39 pm
Quote:
I can't say I've ever seen an instance where someone's right to believe anything they want has been questioned or denied. From my perspective, this idea is a complete non-issue. I could be wrong, as I haven't memorize every post, but I doubt I am.

This is a total made up issue to me as well.

Quote:
Calling in to question the validity of a belief is not the same as denying one's right to hold it.

Totally agreed and this is what is actually happening yet the theists (actually only a select few) don't seem to understand that.

Quote:
Regarding, religious choice, staff does not rule, warnings or no warnings.

For the last time, nobody cares what your religious choice is, nor does anyone on the board wish to change it. Express your religious thoughts all you want, but the validity of your beliefs/thoughts will almost surely be questioned. It would be stupid to add a rule that says no user can question another users views/beliefs. Then we wouldn't have any discussion at all.

Just as if an atheist post their own views about religion, theists will try to disprove what a atheist is trying to prove. This road goes both ways.

76 comments on this blog post and this hasn't gone anywhere at all.

Really, what are you people proposing? That we make Dean a moderator and demote Bikerman to a normal user? What a great idea this is... Not, because actually it wouldn't solve anything.

In fact, let's put this into play. Lets say Bluedoll and Dean are now moderators. Ok ladies and gents, what are you going to do to fix this religious intolerance (which doesn't exist)? We're all sitting on the sidelines, waiting for you to create a miracle to solve the issue that you have seem to made up out of thin air.
Ghost Rider103 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:47 pm
I don’t want to moderate at this board but play is what mods do here?

Ghost Rider103 wrote,
Quote:
In fact, let's put this into play. Lets say Bluedoll ......ladies and gents, what are you going to do to fix this religious intolerance (which doesn't exist)? We're all sitting on the sidelines, waiting for you to create a miracle to solve the issue that you have seem to made up out of thin air.


The first thing, I would do is not moderate in hot areas I post in. As a moderator in p/r for example, I would not be there period. It is just too hot.

Secondly, I would not as a moderator be in posts to play or make sarcastic comments – ladies and gents (which do exist?). I would instead set a good example. Are you getting this?

Thirdly, I do not need a miracle, I just need a little common sense. You know in one way, I hate to even state this because it might actually help frihost and maybe it would be better to see it go down the tubes which is where it is going. Right so far?

Fourthly, now in the thin air I will tell you because who knows it might do some good in this world and be 100% better than what I see here now. I would let everyone post opinions, views, points and even debate (without the current binding policies) and I would only step in when members were picked on, insulted, criticized or called names - in other words disrespected. I simply would ask people to post to the topic and not disrespect members and I would keep out of the topics completely.

I would discourage disrespect of person, group, or religion.

That is not how it is done here or supported. Once one person (moderator) starts name calling, playing around sarcastically with members rudely or telling a member that their posts are silly or whatever the insults start going back and forth. That is why I debate so strongly about frihost staff management. I do not consider it an untouchable topic though I can see how it does not belong inside forum topics.


Ankhanu wrote
Quote:
I can't say I've ever seen an instance where someone's right to believe anything they want has been questioned or denied.
My religious belief is such that I will not provide - arguments concerning religious evidence – this right is denied using current forum policy by not allowing anything but. (I do agree, I still have a choice not to post here) – Bikerman already stated there are “no rights here” that should be clear by now.

God is good. Proof not required.
Bluedoll on Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:27 am
Quote:
The first thing, I would do is not moderate in hot areas I post in. As a moderator in p/r for example, I would not be there period. It is just too hot.

Bikerman has mentioned many times that he has agreed to not moderate in forums he posts in unless totally necessary. Instead, he posts in the staff forum and asks another mod/admin to handle the situation. Which he has done on several occasions.

I obviously have been absent from the ongoing issue, so I'm assuming this wasn't directed to me, as this is really the only time I've made an appearance (this blog post) in the whole discussion.

Quote:
Secondly, I would not as a moderator be in posts to play or make sarcastic comments – ladies and gents (which do exist?). I would instead set a good example. Are you getting this?

Are you implying I'm not setting a good example? I simply offered to hear your views on what you would do. I feel I do quite well setting a very good example. For both users and other staff members. Dean himself would even seem to agree, as seen here: http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-25249-21.html Not sure how asking to see what you would do is seen as sarcastic.

So far, you haven't given any thougts as to what would solve this so called issue, that the entire staff and the majority of the users on Frihost fail to see.

Quote:
Thirdly, I do not need a miracle, I just need a little common sense. You know in one way, I hate to even state this because it might actually help frihost and maybe it would be better to see it go down the tubes which is where it is going. Right so far?

Wrong. Statistics show Frihost has in fact been improving.

Quote:
Fourthly, now in the thin air I will tell you because who knows it might do some good in this world and be 100% better than what I see here now. I would let everyone post opinions, views, points and even debate (without the current binding policies) and I would only step in when members were picked on, insulted, criticized or called names - in other words disrespected. I simply would ask people to post to the topic and not disrespect members and I would keep out of the topics completely.

For the most part, this is (was) being done. Currently, this long discussion has went absolutely nowhere. Dean has posted something he sees as an issue on the forums. If you went to get really strict about Frihost TOS and rules, the rules clearly state to NOT take matters into your own hands and to report and/or PM a mod/admin.

This thread alone has gone on for quite a long time with a large amount of replies and I'll say again, it has so far done absolutely no good at all. It's in question to close all these topics, but we've been doing exactly what you're asking, we've let the thread go on and on, to possibly see some sort of conclusion come out of it. However this thread has failed to do so.

On another note, the replies in this thread do indeed question the actions of some of the staff here at Frihost, so some staff members should feel obligated to reply and defend themselves or one another.

Overall, your idea of what you would do would most definitely not solve this issue, as you didn't say what action you would take to set the matter right. Which I don't believe you can, as the issue you guys seem to be complaining about is non-existent to me.
Ghost Rider103 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:48 am
Ghost Rider 103 said,

Quote:
Wrong. Statistics show Frihost has in fact been improving.
I stand corrected then, congratulation Dean, I think you did this.

Quote:
For the most part, this is (was) being done.... is non-existent to me.
I do not post in the p/r forum. The p/r forum when I was there was an unfriendly, religiously intolerant forum that was being controlled exclusively by Bikerman but he had a lot of help from members that would support him. This statement can be confirmed by reading all of Dean’s blogs including this one. I see very little ‘debate’ to counter anything here coming from anyone except denial statements like yours ghost.

Quote:
Not sure how asking to see what you would do is seen as sarcastic.
I do not see what you wrote as just asking yes, I see it as a question with sarcastic. In short, I do not see the question as sincere. You are not saying, “if you have a suggestion, I am willing to take it in to consideration, if fact we would be willing to implement it” – that is asking.

What you wrote I do not consider sincere in fact you proved this by your comment set below, it seems your mind is already made up and not willing to take anything that might be stated under consideration. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
So far, you haven't given any thoughts as to what would solve this so called issue, that the entire staff and the majority of the users on Frihost fail to see.
First, that is not exactly true.

    My thoughts even previous to my last post suggests that the “atheist stickups in p/r” be removed.

    I suggest a separate section be made for philosophy and one section made for religion.

    I believe I said so but if not will now, that if you want to improve this forum, what you are referring to as an “issue”, then remove Bikerman as a moderator of the religion section completely. Although, science and possibily philosophy if religion topics were sent to religion would be Bikerman specialty.

    Non-biased moderation is needed for religion would solve this issue. I think a staff should not rule in any situation here or anywhere in the world but that justice for all and honour should.

    I would bet my bottom dollar that if Dean was a moderator in a section called RELIGION he would bring the whole thing under control very quickly as he is fair and able to grasp the meaning of discriminatory.


_________________________________________________________


If your attitude is not sarcastic, what is it? You are stating there is non belief concerning religious intolerance not just for yourself but for the entire staff? I might be inclined to belief this too but do see little proof of this. The majority of membership I believe are the active atheist posters or am I mistaken on this too?

You asked the question!
Bluedoll on Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:34 pm
@Truespeed:
Quote:
I think this will always be your stumbling block dean,you think religion should be respected,never criticised,just accepted,no matter what it says or does,what harm it causes,who it harms,we should all just accept it and its believers because?

You got it wrong again Truespeed. There is NOTHING wrong with criticism, but there IS definitely something wrong when that is done with mocking, belittling, with being condescending, with acting superior with knowledge, with trying to push that person's view onto the other person as the only truth there is. I.e. along the lines I'm superior in knowledge, I'm a scientist, and you are a dumb-dumb, you don't know what you are talking about, you are young and inexperienced, or you're a troll, or YOUR God does this that and the other or you better listen to me or else, or you are a clown. That kind of discussion is hardly constructive critical discussion. Critical is when X person makes X statement and another person rebuts that statement critically, not criticize the person who made that statement. And accusing him of being a liar, a bigot, a troll, etc. Or mocking or being condescending. That is not being critical.
deanhills on Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:08 pm
Ghost Rider103 in response to Bluedoll wrote:
Are you implying I'm not setting a good example? I simply offered to hear your views on what you would do. I feel I do quite well setting a very good example. For both users and other staff members. Dean himself would even seem to agree, as seen here: http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-25249-21.html Not sure how asking to see what you would do is seen as sarcastic.
I'm almost certain you must know that I have a great respect for you as Moderator. My views on that have been plentiful, especially over the last few weeks, as anyone who works on getting more posts and posters and has limitless suggestions for improving Frihost is tops as far as I am concerned. I'm grateful for that.

With regard to your comments about the Phil&Rel Forum I appreciate that you don't post there often and that most of the information you get is from discussion in the Staff Forum. Hopefully you will keep an open mind from people like me who do care about Frihost and would like to continue posting here.

Ghost Rider103 wrote:
Bikerman has mentioned many times that he has agreed to not moderate in forums he posts in unless totally necessary.
Not entirely true, it chops and changes. Refer his thread in the Phil&Rel Forum of end of last year below when he suggested that he had no choice but to moderate his own discussions. Then Ocalhoun became Moderator, and then both of them were Moderators even editing the same post at the same time in green and red, and then Bikerman was the Moderator again .... and Indi doing PLENTY of back-seat moderating. NONE of my reports have EVER made a difference in this regard:

Thread: Notification of Change
Bikerman wrote:
I agreed some time ago to not moderate threads in which I am active. Unfortunately I have had to reconsider this in light of developments. Certain posters have taken advantage of this goodwill to post in a manner which is unacceptable, using personal abuse, deliberate misquotes and deliberate misrepresentation. This is not acceptable and will stop.

I am therefore changing my policy starting today. I will, from this point on, be moderating threads - regardless of my involvement. I know that some people may have a problem with this, thinking that I would abuse moderator status to pick on theists particularly. If people think I have done so then they are free to complain to Bondings, or one of the other moderators, and I will answer to the team in such cases.

Henceforth postings which make personal attacks will be moderated. The same will apply to any posting which misquotes or deliberately misrepresents other postings.

Ghost Rider103 wrote:
Instead, he posts in the staff forum and asks another mod/admin to handle the situation. Which he has done on several occasions.
I obviously have been absent from the ongoing issue, so I'm assuming this wasn't directed to me, as this is really the only time I've made an appearance (this blog post) in the whole discussion.
We have heard about this as well. Except I see this in a different light. Bikerman is using this as a tactic to rally other Moderators behind his decisions in the most subtle of ways. So much so that you would feel almost compelled to defend this POOR Moderator who is continuously under attack by people like Deanhills, Bluedoll, Pentangeli, Dialogist, JMI etc. etc. We ALL are misguided. And trolls. Therefore a troll sticky is needed. I'm dead certain he would never say negative things about me as he is much too shrewd for that and would probably use reverse psychology. He'd drop compassionate suggestions like my posts in the Phil&Rel Forum not really cutting it and why not suggest to Dean to post in other Forums instead. Which brings me back to the old question I've asked. Why are my posts OK in other Forums and not the Phil&Rel Forum. What makes my posts so different? And what exactly is the qualification for posts in the Phil&Rel Forum as I see others making posts there that are far less quality than mine could ever dream to be! Bottomline of course, Deanhills has been successfully pushed out of the Phil&Rel Forum.
deanhills on Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:26 pm
I really don't think repeatedly insulting the integrity, intelligence and/or perception of the moderators is going to "open their eyes" to the machinations of Bikerman. The mods are hardly a cohesive unit, nor are they blind to the stories that are playing out within the threads. Give them some credit, man Razz
Ankhanu on Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:23 pm
I never realised how Machiavellian I was. Maybe I'm so cunning that I've even fooled myself, as well as fooling the rest of the staff with my 'reverse psychology'.

As for changing moderation policy in p&r - guilty. I change my mind quite frequently in response to changing circumstances. Whenever I do, I explain my reasoning quite carefully so there will be no misunderstanding (obviously this doesn't work in every case).
Bikerman on Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:20 pm
I can't Ankhanu. Those who are moderating in the Phil&Religion forum are doing a really bad job. I don't think Bikerman should be moderating the Phil&Rel Forum at all. He is much too intensely involved in the Forum. In fact, he should not be moderating any religious related posts as his strong anti-religion views are well known to everyone. Indi should be sorted out when he does back-seat Moderating. And the practice of making coloured comments INSIDE people's posts should stop. It is offensive for posters and get their backs up, and it just makes things worse. Not better.

This is supposed to be a post to host Forum. There is no need for Moderators to make public comments about the quality of people's posts. They can easily sort that out in a PM or just spam can the post. I'd imagine one would want to encourage people to post. Not chase them away. Bearing in mind too that they are here to post for hosting. Not to jump through the hoops to meet stringent rules that apply to the Phil&Rel Forum only. Nowhere in the TOS does it say we are supposed to post to a certain standard in the Phil&Rel forum. If people feel that serious about the Phil&Rel forum to the extent of imposing additional rules that transcend post to host rules, maybe they should start a Forum outside Frihost?

Here is an excellent example of how moderating should be done:

Thread: Scientific analysis of religion...possible?
Bondings wrote:
We're planning to not allow anything related to personal comments in this forum (sort of zero-tolerance kind of thing). This doesn't mean that before this is implemented, you should go ahead and write as many off-topic personal remarks as possible, considering this has never been allowed anyway.

So please, pentangeli, Indi and others, please calm down and get back on topic. Very Happy

1. I have never seen Bondings inside any person's post in a censure capacity. His style is not a judge, jury and executioner style. I have not seen him making a single personal comment about any poster EVER. His are all arms length posts, as it should be in a Moderator capacity.

2. He did not give a long explanation of all the sins that have been committed by each of the above. He simply asked all of the participants to stop period. Short and simple. No harm done.

3. There is no forcefulness in his writing. Just firm. It does not feel like an "us" the Moderators with the power versus "you" the trolls and offenders comments that get people's backs up.

4. I'm certain Bondings has never submitted any of his decisions for peer-review. There should not be a need to submit peer-review reports on moderating. Moderating is not supposed to be a big deal at all. Particularly in a Forum like this.
deanhills on Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:24 pm
You and I both see some poor moderation, but our reasons for holding our opinions differ quite greatly.  Your complaint is that not every viewpoint is respected, that moderators are active components of the community and that there is some expectation of quality and well thought out arguments within a forum that is, intrinsically, based on having well thought out arguments... My complaint is that too many posts that don't meet a decent quality standard are allowed to persist; complete opposite ends of the spectrum, really.  Personally, I'd like to see stricter moderation and higher standards.
Yes, the overall forum is here to encourage discussion and activity, and in most of the forum you can get away with some pretty lax content.  That's fine.  At the same time, there are forums where the quality of contributions are more important, for example Philosophy & Religion, Science and the various coding/programming forums.  I would argue that in these forums the idea of quality and accuracy or strength of a discussion point actually encourage use, rather than drives people away.  I wouldn't bother with these sorts of sections if I thought the contributions were of too weak a content.  This is why I advocate stronger, stricter moderation of content in these sorts of forums.  Believe it or not, continual praise of other users can drive them away, be seen as unnecessary and sycophantic.  Believe it or not, sometimes things are just wrong.

Having been and administrator and moderator of a few forums, past and present, some of which having greater traffic and as diverse an user based as Frih, I can't say that I fully agree with your views of what a moderator should and shouldn't do.  Your at arms length concept of moderation can work, but, it also leads to moderators who are not engaged or involved with the community; these moderators subsequently lose interest in the entire forum, as it become unpaid work, rather than an effort of love.  This leads to high staff turnover and somewhat inconsistent moderation.  It also tends to generate a sense of aloofness, a detachment from the community, of being uninvolved...  If you think there's an aire of moderator elite now, just imagine if they weren't actual personal entities within the community.  Bondings is a good fella, but I think the forum could use less arms length involvement from him.  Your complaints are with moderation style, and not with moderation itself, correct?  That seems like a pretty minor point to me.  As long as the right decisions are being made (and, as users, we don't often get to say what was the right choice), who really cares how it was presented.  We should all get our panties a little less twisted about personality differences.

Peer review is also an absolutely critical part of moderating a moderate to high traffic forum.  The administrator (I.e. Bondings) is the only one exempt for this sort of process, unless they wish to include others in their decision making process.  Outside of that, a cohesive stance on moderation choices is important to maintain control and respect within the community.  Unilateral moderation decisions lead to dissent and schisms, which do no one, especially the forum community, any good.
Ankhanu on Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:37 pm
deanhills wrote:
You got it wrong again Truespeed. There is NOTHING wrong with criticism, but there IS definitely something wrong when that is done with mocking, belittling, with being condescending, with acting superior with knowledge, with trying to push that person's view onto the other person as the only truth there is. I.e. along the lines I'm superior in knowledge, I'm a scientist, and you are a dumb-dumb, you don't know what you are talking about, you are young and inexperienced, or you're a troll, or YOUR God does this that and the other or you better listen to me or else, or you are a clown. That kind of discussion is hardly constructive critical discussion.
Critical is when X person makes X statement and another person rebuts that statement critically, not criticize the person who made that statement. And accusing him of being a liar, a bigot, a troll, etc. Or mocking or being condescending. That is not being critical
.


I don't really know where to start with all that,yes everyone should respect everyone else,and separate the person from their opinions,but i can see how when explaining that atheism isn't a religion for the 100th time that it can become a tad frustrating or when someone starts a topic like "god is good" and then refuses to engage in conversation when examples of god not being good are presented.

I don't know if this is unique to the theists in frihost,but they don't seem to want to discuss religion,they just want to either preach it or defend it when they see it being "attacked" but they won't discuss it,for example,dean,i don't know any of your views on any aspect of Christianity because you have never shared/discussed them,do you believe in the devil? I don't know,do you think God was justified in killing millions of people during the flood? I don't know,you see my point? If the theists of frihost want discussions then discuss,don't just attack atheists for pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies in religion.



bluedoll wrote:

I suggest a separate section be made for philosophy and one section made for religion.


You would still have the same topics discussed by the same people,i don't really see why separating them makes you think that religion would get an easier ride?
truespeed on Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:13 am
truespeed wrote:
I don't know if this is unique to the theists in frihost,but they don't seem to want to discuss religion,they just want to either preach it or defend it when they see it being "attacked" but they won't discuss it...

No, it's not unique to the theists of Frihost, it's unique to a couple theists on Frihost. It's an important distinction. There have been many theists on Frih who are fully capable of reasoned discussion of their beliefs. The stances of the theists who won't discuss religion aren't really unique to Frih either, they're everywhere... it's just most forums don't really tackle religion because of how messy it can become, so they're not as apparent as they are here.
Ankhanu on Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:20 pm
Atheism is a religion. A churchless religion that does apply evangelism
see http://www.frihost.com/users/deanhills/blog/vp-131150.html
To say atheism is not a religion is a false claim and no evidence or proof has been put forth to substantiate that it is not.

Truespeed wrote,
Quote:
I don't know, do you think God was justified in killing millions of people during the flood?
Can you proof that God does exist? Provide evidence that millions of people were kill during a flood. Where is the evidence there was a flood?
Quote:
..defend it when they see it being "attacked" but they won't discuss it..
Obvious admission that attacks of religion do take place by atheists in friforum

Ankhanu wrote,
Quote:
..most forums don't really tackle religion because of how messy it can become..
Not all forums show religious intolerance
@watersoul
Plenty of evidence has been supplied by Deanhills concerning religious intolerance within his blog. What has those that called for such evidence done? Nothing! Obviously, they are unable to support their side of the argument in the debate because they have only weak arguments.
Bluedoll on Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:27 am
Deanhills:
Quote:
Bluedoll and I am talking about debate that follows rules of decorum of being civil and respectful of others views, whether you agree with them or not. You can still have a rigorous debate, but you don't have to knock the other person down in the process of doing it. Or make personal comments.

Quote:
Critical is when X person makes X statement and another person rebuts that statement critically, not criticize the person who made that statement.


I do see personal comments here from time to time. I think it is unneccesary. Comments to the effect of 'if you think that you must be a loonie' or whatever are both disrespectful and don't contribute to the debate.

They are purely emotive arguments and can't be substantiated by simply saying it, and hence are bad arguments.

If I picked up on such an argument being used in my direction I would be quite clear in my response of how the emotive language was being employed in a futile attempt to strengthen a weak argument.

I don't, however, find any of that as evidence of religious intolerance, but typical of common discussion and personalities and frustrations.

truespeed:
Quote:
I don't really know where to start with all that,yes everyone should respect everyone else,and separate the person from their opinions,but i can see how when explaining that atheism isn't a religion for the 100th time that it can become a tad frustrating or when someone starts a topic like "god is good" and then refuses to engage in conversation when examples of god not being good are presented.


Well said.



Bluedoll:
Quote:

My thoughts even previous to my last post suggests that the “atheist stickups in p/r” be removed.


Everyone needs to have common terminology otherwise how can you proceed with a debate?

Bluedoll:

Quote:
I suggest a separate section be made for philosophy and one section made for religion.

truespeed:
Quote:

You would still have the same topics discussed by the same people,i don't really see why separating them makes you think that religion would get an easier ride?


Exactly. What is the distinguishing feature between religion and philosophy? In which do atheists discuss religion? Both? Which philosophy does religious people have no religious opinion about? None? What does this solve that the faith forum does not?

Quote:
I think a staff should not rule in any situation here or anywhere in the world but that justice for all and honour should.


Bah. I've been socialist leaning for most of my life. What I think should happen in this world clearly holds no sway on reality.

And in reality, staff rule a forum. That is pretty straight forward.
Hello_World on Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:06 pm
Bluedoll wrote:
@watersoul
Plenty of evidence has been supplied by Deanhills concerning religious intolerance within his blog.

Oh, sorry, I must have missed all the 'evidence' which supported his claim.

Bluedoll wrote:
What has those that called for such evidence done? Nothing! Obviously, they are unable to support their side of the argument in the debate because they have only weak arguments.

Urm, the weakest argument has just left the building, can I assume that you will now be carrying the torch of truth and tolerance in future? lol
watersoul on Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:48 pm
Bit dramatic or maybe Dean wanted to give some kind of ending?
Watersoul wrote,
Quote:
Urm, the weakest argument has just left the building, can I assume that you will now be carrying the torch of truth and tolerance in future? Lol
Are you talking to me? Oh yes, no the answer to that question is Dean and I have different agenda’s. He wanted to resolve something I think but it would be better to ask him this. I just want to tell you off.

When you are able to debate perhaps then we will see a debate not useless comments without proofs.

Hello_World says,
Quote:
Bah. I've been socialist leaning for most of my life. What I think should happen in this world clearly holds no sway on reality.

And in reality, staff rule a forum. That is pretty straight forward.
Are we able to stop with the who rules the forum – everyone knows. I agree with what you said by the way just saying integrity should be everywhere, obviously it is not. You are right a fact of life.

Quote:
I do see personal comments here from time to time. I think it is unnecessary. Comments to the effect of 'if you think that you must be a loonie' or whatever are both disrespectful and don't contribute to the debate.
I am glad you agree but I think it is more than occasionally. Yes, occasionally if we are talking about what goes in perfume bottles. The subject is much more intense than that and it is seldom addressed respectfully when there are two opposing arguments is more accurate I think, at least when I was on the ‘boards’.

Quote:
Everyone needs to have common terminology otherwise how can you proceed with a debate?
That might be true but would you say it is across the board or mostly atheist terminology – be honest.

Quote:
What is the distinguishing feature between religion and philosophy?
I will answer this question.

Quote:
Religion is a specialized sub set of Philosophy. When a philosophy is codified into rituals and faith, it becomes a religion. Religion tends to back away from rational discourse, as opposed to Philosophy, which is all about rational discourse and critical thinking. - http://www.experts123.com/q/what-is-the-difference-between-philosophy-and-religion.html



Quote:
Clearly, then, there are enough similarities that religions can be philosophical (but need not be) and philosophies can be religious (but again need not be). Does this mean that we simply have two different words for the same fundamental concept? No; there are some real differences between religion and philosophy which warrant considering them to be two different types of systems even though they overlap in places. - http://atheism.about.com/od/religionnonreligion/a/philosophy.htm


The real distinguishing feature is that a true religion deals with the religious aspects of a discussion in a way that is different than philosophy.

The faith section in fri-forum can never be a true religion section unless it is agreed that it is acknowledged that for that forum atheism is a religion which it is not and therefore it is just another p/r section called faith with special conditions applied.
Bluedoll on Sat Nov 19, 2011 7:12 pm
That last sentence broke my word processor. MS Word has, I think, gone into grammatical shock and is displaying:

Error, Translator_dll out of metaphor workspace at concept FF49, please redo from start........................Error, Translator_dll out of metaphor workspace at concept FF49, please redo from start........................Error, Translator_dll out of metaphor workspace at concept FF49, please redo from start.........................Error, Translator_dll out of metaphor workspace at concept FF49, please redo from start.........................Error, Translator_dll out of metaphor workspace at concept FF49, please redo from start...........................Error, Translator_dll out of metaphor workspace at concept FF49, please redo from start....
Bikerman on Sat Nov 19, 2011 7:34 pm
I've, uh, actually had this happen Razz

Ankhanu on Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:01 pm
The faith forum is not a religion forum. It is a fake religion forum called faith. What is wrong with just naming it religion instead of faith?

The faith forum is another p/r forum but with special conditions applied and that is all. Because of this, it does not solve the problem.
Bluedoll on Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:54 pm
@hello_world

Lets, look at the description of the faith forum.
Quote:
Forum for religious topics, like a (dis)belief in one or more gods.


Does it not seem odd, if you are creating a forum for religious topics, you might want to leave it just at that, A forum for religious topics?

The idea of adding “ a (dis) belief in” is the oddest approach for any kind religious topic. This right at the onset is a atheist definition. It is impossible to have a disbelief. You either belief there is a God or you belief God does not exist.

The idea that someone can have a non-belief will never work for religious topics. It is better suited to philosophy and even their is odd.

There should be a forum for religious topics. Leave at that. Call it Religion. It is very obvious that in order to accommodate atheists into a religious forum, certain constraints had to be meant.

Faith forum was actually an insult to religious discussion. The description said, in the making of the faith forum that you can not have a religious forum, another example of religious intolerance. Since I expect to have so little debate on this, I will assume in advance, that I am right, in connection with a forum classification of this kind.

Rolling Eyes
Bluedoll on Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:24 pm
No, there should not be a topic called "Religion" in which atheist can't talk in.

That is unfair and would be worthless. If this happens, then we better create a "News" and a "Disbelief news" section too. This way, the people who disagree about the news can post in one forum, and the believers (or perhaps agree/disagree) can post in the other.

Even if P&R was renamed to Religion, atheist would still be allowed to post there (in other words, debate). So this still wouldn't solve anything.

You can't really get away with the praise the lord type of topics and not expect an atheist to jump in it.

If you can't handle having an atheist try to debate on you praising the lord, then I suggest you not post any such content nor should you read it.

This is kind of like eating something very hot. If it's extremely hot, don't put it in your mouth yet - common sense.

However this isn't exactly how it's done, seeing as we have a "Faith" forum.

Also, just in case anyone seems to have gotten confused here, this post is coming from a theist! I don't express my beliefs. If you're offended easily about religion, then I suggest you do the same. (This isn't meant to be directed at anyone specifically).
Ghost Rider103 on Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:52 pm
@Ghost Rider103
If you were to create a “News” section people would post “News” if people did not agree or did not believe the news was true would still post to that effect. Providing they did so while respecting other members, what is the problem with that? That is the main problem really and can exsist in any Forum.


Anyway, back to an atheist posting in the religion forum. A religion forum is not about debate, philosophy is, (see above post, even atheist agree with this), religion is different – “back away from rational discourse, as opposed to Philosophy”.

It is not required that evidence and proofs be given or demanded they be given. If it was enforced then it would again not be a religion forum. There is something else and I might be inclined to agree with you somewhat, as far as ‘fair’ to atheists go. Without the restrictions that are applied now in forum policy in p/r, an atheist would be aware they would be posting on a religious level. True. Therefore an atheist might feel more comfortable posting under philosophy but still not required to post in either just that the rational would be very different. Demanding that someone prove that God is real for example would not be forced in religion as it is in p/r and it would also stand to reason that bible studies in philosophy would be sent over to religion.



______________________________________________________





For me, personally Ghost Rider103, I have never done these praise lord type posts I hear so much about and as far as someone debating religion goes, I view that as someone elses business. It has little to do with an offense from that perspective. As I said, so many times before, I refuse to follow forum policy, as it is against my religious belief for I will not aggressively debate religious topics to the point of hostile arguments and refuse to comply to that.

However, when I was posting into the p/r forum and I read, as I read here in Blog of Dean for example truespeed going on about “..do you think God was justified in killing millions of people during the flood?”... I do not feel obligated to answer this kind of statement from someone that states they do not believe in God, nor what the bible says. I might comment as I do now that I believe God is good and that I think the teaching of atheism as a church less religion is causing people to believe in an untruth.

I might even repeat this several times in different ways but I never went around tasting hot lies. No, what I did do, was bring a lie (atheism’s) to the front of the discussion.

This was always in the thread and in connection to the topic but it was construed or misunderstood to be declared as trolling or derailing. What I was actually doing was debating, not about scripture in the bible to an atheist, which is the one thing that is useless, but about atheism itself.

Some seem not to understand that when a religious belief (atheism belief = Do not believe in God) is debated to the extent of evangelizing, a call to the truth was very much required.
http://www.frihost.com/users/deanhills/blog/vp-131150.html

What the faith forum lacks is merely a definition. Change the word to religion and define it simply as religion and then atheism can take its’ role there as a religion.

The reason atheism is uncomfortable in that setting is because it was born from satan as discribed in the bible as antichrist. Like satan, atheism’s role (not all atheists) seeks to convince people not to believe in God and because of this atheism is very intolerant to other religions with much hostility.
Bluedoll on Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:42 pm
I find it almost surprising that some people can't grasp definitions of words (such as "atheist") when they've been stated and restated (directly for them) several times. Though, with that said, I do fall into this same category with Bluedoll's use of the word "religious" as it pertains to discussions, and "religion" as it pertains to atheism. I've tried to grasp it, but, I seem to falter.

But, that aside, I'll just wade into that water again and state that atheism isn't, in itself, denial of god(s). It's an answer to the question "do you believe in god(s)?" that is any position other than "yes". It does not state that gods cannot exist, do not exist, etc., it simply states "I don't believe"; all other avenues remain open, including the possibility of being wrong. There are atheists who believe that there definitely are no gods, but, from my experience, they're relatively rare.
Ankhanu on Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:21 am
LOL...fellow atheist, should we go and worship our...lack of God....in a non-church....
I like it - it can be used for 'let's go for a pint to the pub'.

So, since we are both atheists, we must both believe in something, otherwise bluedoll might sulk......err....I believe that the Lager-beer brewed in Nachod, in the Czech republic, is the finest brew known to mankind...do we agree? We could then have a Lager religion, though I'd rather drink it than worship it...

So, how many theists have you converted this month? Your quota is 13. Don't forget the technique - show them that their God is a silly idea, wrongly reported, physically and logically impossible, then hit them with our beliefs - that The Fonz is divine, heyyy, and that heaven consists of a leather jacket, Harley softail classic and early 60s rock and roll on an infinite jukebox...
You do believe that, don't you? Isn't that in the small-print for being an atheist?
Bikerman on Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:48 am
I, uh... I prefer a bitter to a lager...

We can no longer speak, sir. GOOD DAY!
Ankhanu on Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:00 am
Right, this, of course, means war. It shall be called the Great Ale War, and many this day will die....

But hang on, I don't believe in an afterlife, so if I get killed that's game over. I don't think I want to get killed over a lager/ale dispute.

Game of RISK instead?

(All secular countries now settle their differeces over the RISK board. This is a well kept secret, of course, and the Americans must never find out that our Trident missiles are, in fact, papier-mache replicas - the real missiles were converted to power sources and provided enough electricity to run Nick Clegg's force-field for a whole year, with enough left to power Katy Price's mouth for nearly a week).
Bikerman on Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:26 am
Risk, eh? That takes a long time... what about some Settlers of Catan? Could make it last a little longer with the Seafarers expansion...


Either way, we really should just settle out with the superior brew; a fine stout!
Ankhanu on Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:35 am
The last four posts were exactly my point with this Blog Category of mine. In spades. I would be grateful if this kind of discussion can stop now. Particularly since I have made a decision to leave Frihost and I am no longer around to respond to comments in my Blog.
deanhills on Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:55 am
Nah, I'm enjoying the natter, thanks anyway. If you are going then why are you bothered?
Bikerman on Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:43 am
DeanHills:

You post a lot in many other forums, why not just take a break from the p/r and faith forums for a while? I for one will miss your contributions.




Bluedoll:
Quote:
What the faith forum lacks is merely a definition. Change the word to religion and define it simply as religion and then atheism can take its’ role there as a religion.


The only difference I can see in this proposal is to achieve your quest to define atheism as a religion. Which is your personal vendetta against atheism and not one which I think the moderators should take seriously.

You can insist as much as you like the atheism is a religion, it doesn't mean the mods should re-design the forums for your personal whims.

The faith forum is not an insult to religion but the very embodiment of religious inclusion.


Peterssidan:
Quote:
I fully understand if some people think Bikerman's avatar is considered provocative. What other purpose does it serve?


I for one think Bikerman's avatar is quite clever and thoughtful. Devil's advocate? In a forum? And writing a lot about religion and philosophy? It's a great avatar.
Hello_World on Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:55 am
Don't worry. The moderators know that not train-spotting and not-stamp collecting are not hobbies and that not believing in God is not a faith position (necessarily) and certainly not a religion.
This is a longstanding misconception of BD's - one which has been corrected numerous times and one, therefore, that I now generally treat as a troll and ignore.
Bikerman on Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:03 am
bikeman wrote,
Quote:
This is a longstanding misconception of BD's - one which has been corrected numerous times and one, therefore, that I now generally treat as a troll and ignore.
A big joke?, troll. - http://www.frihost.com/users/Bluedoll/blog/vp-131237.html

This being not some classroom where you reside as the god of darkness. Laughing I think you actually thought you would annoy me with your avatar and laughed at that consequence but your foolish jester, foolish jester makes me laugh too Laughing to think of someone so foolish. Bikerman are you so delusional to think that once you establish a correction, it is automatically a truth. Laughing



Hello_World
I told you I would be reasonable with you if you were reasonable with me - if you become rude then that time is past!

I said, “Faith forum was actually an insult to religious discussion.” , not religion. The policies which are set forth in the forum and how the forum is managed is non of my business. My religious concerns are however mine and mine to keep.


Hello_World wrote,
Quote:
The only difference I can see in this proposal is to achieve your quest to define atheism as a religion. Which is your personal vendetta against atheism
I said I wanted to tell people off in this forum. As for defining atheism remember that my relationship with it – is the same relationship I have with satan – I am opposed to it. My belief is not a vendetta against atheist’s though there are some people on this board who might be atheists who are rude and incapable of having a reasonable debate.
Quote:
...and not one which I think the moderators should take seriously.
What a member (including members who are moderators) believes about religious subjects is totally up to them. I never once, ever, condemned anyone by throwing out, “you will burn in hell” statements in fact I do not believe in hell. People can believe what they like.
Bluedoll on Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:58 am
Ankhanu said,
Quote:
But, that aside, I'll just wade into that water again and state that atheism isn't, in itself, denial of god(s). It's an answer to the question "do you believe in god(s)?" that is any position other than "yes". It does not state that gods cannot exist, do not exist, etc., it simply states "I don't believe"; all other avenues remain open, including the possibility of being wrong. There are atheists who believe that there definitely are no gods, but, from my experience, they're relatively rare.
Yes but it is not an opinion poll I am making as to what each and every atheist might “think” what atheism means to them or what other theist’s think what atheists mean.



It is atheism that does state very clearly “there is no God”.
What atheism is - is in the bible and observed in the world as the concept of atheism is evangelized to others.
- a religion.
Bluedoll on Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:02 am
The faith forum is a religious forum. What else can the word faith imply? The description just makes it clear that atheists are welcome too.

As I said, I can't really see the difference in your proposal for a religion forum, other than to adjust the description to call atheism a religion.

I don't see what this could possibly acheive in terms of religious tolerance, in my way of thinking it is towards the intolerant end... against atheists, who deny atheism is a religion.

I don't wish to get into a discussion on whether atheism is a religion or not. You think it is. I think it isn't. You don't want to debate it, so you keep saying, so I won't. Agree to disagree. Whatevs.

Quote:
As for defining atheism remember that my relationship with it – is the same relationship I have with satan – I am opposed to it.


That's fine. And I am opposed to God and Christianity, and all Gods. Yep, I'm one of the so-called rare atheists who simply do not think there is a God. I admit I could be wrong, but I think it is just as likely that we are all plugged into the Matrix as that God is real.

Which does not imply that all atheists are the same as me. But since we are sharing...

But that is fine too. It isn't about pretending to like one anothers philosophical standpoints. It is about you and I both being allowed to hold our own views, and express our views - for which we have, as far as I can see, the perfect set-up in terms of forum structure - to enable expression in various forms.

Quote:
...and not one which I think the moderators should take seriously.


I don't think they should take it seriously because I think the way it is set up is exemplary and because I think things should be judged on their merit, 'justice for all'. (Which I do believe in, yes, I was feeling a little cynical when I wrote what I did... lol).

Quote:
if you become rude then that time is past!


I would argue that what I wrote was not rude but it was blunt and straight-talking.

I did second-guess your motives but I think I had good cause to, because you do like to push that line that 'atheism is a religion' and because I don't see any other benefit from the proposal.
Hello_World on Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:36 pm
I'm not posting with a view to re-ignite this debate.

In the last post I stated that I am opposed to God, religion etc. I wanted to add that I hold the lack of freedom of religion as a greater evil, in my eyes.

I just wanted to add that in case someone who doesn't know me or chooses not to wade through the above 110 posts, doesn't get the wrong idea if they just look at the last couple of posts here.
Hello_World on Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:12 am



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