(May 2, 2018 at 3:47 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 1:59 pm)johan Wrote: So where would the following response fall?
FU. It might not be your intention, but I think your statements make you sound like a homophobic dickwad. furthermore I find your position to be bigoted and ignorant. 

Is that over the line or under the line? Who gets to decide? And if its over the line, how is that dealt with?

Do you think telling someone "FU" and calling them a "homophobic dickwad" is civil?

Yes. So I ask again, who gets to decide where the line is. Because your line and my line might not be in the same place.

(May 2, 2018 at 5:13 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 5:08 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: No, it's perfectly reasonable.

These people all claim to know the "truth" but often can't agree on even the most basic tenets if their beliefs and are often willing to kill others, even those of their own religion, who disagree or believe differently.

Why should we accept these beliefs in those circumstances?

And, meanwhile, you have believers, priests included, who are faking "miracles" to try to convince people of the "truth" of their beliefs.

If you have to lie for your beliefs, your beliefs are a lie.

And, surely, the real truth should be apparent and speak for itself without the need for interpretation?

You shouldn't accept them or their beliefs, doesn't mean a holy book or it's complimentary guides can't be given attention.

The "why" would be best explained by the book and it's representatives, not by people making a mess out of it.

And because the proof provided is best provided by those who are in the essence the proof itself by which all proofs point to,  then you shouldn't not give them a chance, just because people took the religion as a pastime and game... and took manipulators and deceivers as leaders and equated their authority to God's authority vested in his names, images, and chosen words, the true Kings and guides.

But, once again, we fall into the traps of "the book" which, being an addition to the previous works that gave birth to Judaism and Christianity, is still contradictory if it falls back on the myths of the earlier works.

So the foundations upon which Islam is built are not the best from this perspective.

Then there's the trap of the "representatives" of the book. Even the most highly respected Islamic scholars can't agree on the tenets.

So I find none of this convincing.

(May 2, 2018 at 5:32 pm)johan Wrote:

(May 2, 2018 at 3:47 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Do you think telling someone "FU" and calling them a "homophobic dickwad" is civil?

Yes. So I ask again, who gets to decide where the line is. Because your line and my line might not be in the same place.

The mods would get to decide, just as they decide on whether or not any rule is broken. 

I do question whether you're being honest when you say you think it's civil to tell someone FU and call them a dickwad, though... or whether you're just saying you think it's civil to try to make a point. I guess if the civility subforum were to exist, and if there would need to be an explicit rule saying "don't call people nasty names and don't cuss them out", so be it I suppose. I just don't think most grown people need to have it explicitly explained to them what it means to keep a discussion civil. If someone pushes the boundaries, I think they would be doing so on purpose.

Religious Forums was mentioned, what they do is have a section where theists/believers can post about their faith/beliefs, but atheists or people who are not believers of that faith (not necessarily atheists), can only post in those sections, if the intent is to ask questions that aren't designed to turn into a heated debate. The idea is to have something similar to what CL is talking about. Now, out of those sections, anything goes, but name calling/ad homs are considered breaking the forum rules. I always thought that was a general rule here too, you can't just go off the rails and start calling people names simply because you don't agree with what they're posting. I see nothing wrong with posting ''I think "x" religion is stupid,'' as long as you're not insulting the poster. If everyone stays topic focused, I could see a section working out okay, like CL is suggesting.

Eh, what will happen to my martyr complex if you do this.

(May 2, 2018 at 6:08 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The mods would get to decide, just as they decide on whether or not any rule is broken. 

I do question whether you're being honest when you say you think it's civil to tell someone FU and call them a dickwad, though... or whether you're just saying you think it's civil to try to make a point. I guess if the civility subforum were to exist, and if there would need to be an explicit rule saying "don't call people nasty names and don't cuss them out", so be it I suppose. I just don't think most grown people need to have it explicitly explained to them what it means to keep a discussion civil. If someone pushes the boundaries, I think they would be doing so on purpose.

I am being honest. I feel the word fuck is a valuable part of our language and when used genuinely and appropriately, makes a statement that few other words are able to make as effectively. As for calling people names, let me ask you this. If I said to someone whom I knew to be athiest that I thought what they were saying made them sound like a christian, would I be accusing them of being christian?

Catholic_Lady, I need my Martyr complex. Please don't this.

(May 2, 2018 at 3:47 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Do you think telling someone "FU" and calling them a "homophobic dickwad" is civil?

If someone is going to get all bent out of shape because an internet stranger tells them FU (especially when they are too lazy to spell it out), then perhaps that person should stay away from forums where intense exchanges are bound to happen. If their skin is so thin that they get that offended, they can leave and find a forum that will soothe their fragile egos.

Joods, as I explained, it has nothing to do with having thin skin. Name calling and cussing out just don't do for a productive, inviting discussion. And it would be beneficial, I think, to have a place where interested parties could engage in honest discussion without having to comb through the name calling, shit posting, etc.

It was just an idea of what I thought might be a good addition to the forums. It was not a complaint.

(May 2, 2018 at 8:21 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Joods, as I explained, it has nothing to do with having thin skin. Name calling and cussing out just don't do for a productive, inviting discussion. And it would be beneficial, I think, to have a place where interested parties could engage in honest discussion without having to comb through the name calling, shit posting, etc.

It was just an idea of what I thought might be a good addition to the forums. It was not a complaint.

I didn't say you were complaining. However, it is redundant to start yet another sub-forum when we already have a sub-forum for the purpose that you are stating. You want to be able to have civil discussion without all of the fluff, take it to the debate section because that's precisely what you are asking for: A debate. 

In this whole time of discussion, have you actually ventured in there to read the rules and what it's about yet? If not, I suggest you take a peek. It's not a rigid as you think and you can implement many of the things you are asking for in a sub-forum.