Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 17th November 2017, 18:52

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question about latest forum rule
#21
RE: Question about latest forum rule
I was not offended. The shoe didn't fit so I chose not to wear it. But it is flat out wrong to say the OP was a "reasoned case". It was a polemic.
#22
RE: Question about latest forum rule
(14th November 2017, 15:08)LastPoet Wrote:
(14th November 2017, 14:54)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I wouldn't want to see that either. Personally, that is why I think the prime directive is problematic. I don't have to read or participate on any thread (or the forum on a whole) if I don't want to. I can see banning obscenity, inciting violence, and topics that could subject AF to legal scrutiny, such as child-you-know-what. However, administration is getting into the business of divining the intentions of posters. As a result we are having these kinds of discussions about where to draw the line in censoring members.

It is not divining. Any member here (including you and me) does generalizations. From time to time, even without noticing. If the OP said that, it is up to you and other theists to prove her wrong, and pointing out that faulty generalization would do just the trick.

There is a difference between "theism is literally childish" and "theists are retarded". The OP did made a case and it offended you. I also get offended by many things, to witch I retort or go somewhere else. not bothering.

About the issue, the staff is thinking about it, despite your casual ribbing at our attempt to remain objective.

Right. We're not retarded, we just weren't "raised properly", among many other things. :eyeroll:

No one is objecting the thread title. It's the content. The content is all unflattering generalized claims about all thesists.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly." 

-walsh
#23
RE: Question about latest forum rule
(14th November 2017, 15:17)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't see why/how that thread is not provocative, and you're not really explaing why. Every theist here felt provoked by it. As I carefully described on the OP, it seems to fit all 3 criteria that would make a thread be against the rules. If I made a thread titled "atheism is childish" and went on to make rash, unflattering generalizations about all atheist people without asking for clarification, or specifying that this is merely my personal observation, you better believe it would be plenty provocative.  

When the rule was first made, I specifically pointed out that whether or not a thread is provocative depends on who it's targeting, because a thread here against liberals is going to be much more provocative than one against conservatives, for example. I was assured that this would not change anything.

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue, but the thing is you're not really answering the question I'm asking on this thread. You're merely saying "I don't think it's provocative" but not explaining why or addressing my points.

Well, I have answered your question precisely before, if you do not grasp the concept, its your handicap. Pretending to be blind is not something I personally like anyone. If someone posted "atheism is childish", with a post supporting this, I would do the same, nothing. I would Popcorn and watch what would happen in hope no rule is broken.

Are you trying to be obtuse here? The rule is not about sweeping generalizations and even you and I do them from time to time.

Too bad it offends you. The Prime directed is not there to avoid people getting offended, it is to prevent blatant provocative posts that shut down any discussion. You don't agree with the OP? Good, grab your wits and show her how its wrong, Not pretending you haven't been clarified.

But perhaps if I let other staff member explain it to you, because I seem to be not clear to you.
#24
RE: Question about latest forum rule
(14th November 2017, 15:30)LastPoet Wrote:
(14th November 2017, 15:17)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't see why/how that thread is not provocative, and you're not really explaing why. Every theist here felt provoked by it. As I carefully described on the OP, it seems to fit all 3 criteria that would make a thread be against the rules. If I made a thread titled "atheism is childish" and went on to make rash, unflattering generalizations about all atheist people without asking for clarification, or specifying that this is merely my personal observation, you better believe it would be plenty provocative.  

When the rule was first made, I specifically pointed out that whether or not a thread is provocative depends on who it's targeting, because a thread here against liberals is going to be much more provocative than one against conservatives, for example. I was assured that this would not change anything.

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue, but the thing is you're not really answering the question I'm asking on this thread. You're merely saying "I don't think it's provocative" but not explaining why or addressing my points.

Well, I have answered your question precisely before, if you do not grasp the concept, its your handicap. Pretending to be blind is not something I personally like anyone. If someone posted "atheism is childish", with a post supporting this, I would do the same, nothing. I would Popcorn and watch what would happen in hope no rule is broken.

Are you trying to be obtuse here? The rule is not about sweeping generalizations and even you and I do them from time to time.

Too bad it offends you. The Prime directed is not there to avoid people getting offended, it is to prevent blatant provocative posts that shut down any discussion. You don't agree with the OP? Good, grab your wits and show her how its wrong, Not pretending you haven't been clarified.

But perhaps if I let other staff member explain it to you, because I seem to be not clear to you.

So if its not about generalizations, what is this supposed to mean then?:

"Avoid false equivocation. Making generalized statements about a person or groups of people almost never goes well. Rather than making blanket statements like "all X are Y", make an argument for why "X has some attributes of Y" and present it for discussion."

As for provocation, it is described here:


"Add some discussion to your post. Rather than just posting a link and your opinion, try to encourage discussion. Ask whether people agree or disagree, pose questions, ask for clarification from people rather than assuming something. In short, be open about discussing a subject rather than being provocative from the get go."

My bold.

The OP post itself does nothing of what was bolded. So by this definition, it was "provocative from the get go."

What am I misunderstanding here?

.
Well, I'm done arguing. It was never my intention with this thread to get into a fight with a staff member. I'll wait for someone to be more clear as to why this doesn't violate the new rule, and if not, I'll just have to accept not understanding and not bring this up again.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly." 

-walsh
#25
RE: Question about latest forum rule
(14th November 2017, 12:12)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So I've been very hesitant to ask about this because I don't want to come off as whiny or complaining. I get that this is an atheist forum, this is yall's place, and I'm a guest here.

(14th November 2017, 13:59)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: As I understand it, Atheist Forums is meant to be a forum about atheism and not just a forum for atheists.  And unless I am mistaken, theists are every bit as much full members of AF as atheists, agnostics, and anti-theists, etc. Theists are not party-crashing second-class members that are tolerated at best or here for the sport of atheist members.

I'm going to have to side with Neo on this one (with a slight qualification), even though I still think you, C_L are cuter in every way. In fact, this is Tib's site and all of us are here at all due to his skills, efforts and generosity. Hopefully we're more nearly self sufficient in terms of not costing him out of pocket now, but it is still true.

I think this is or does try to be a place where everyone willing to discuss ideas can meet. The only difference its being an atheist site should make is that the standard of what counts as civil will be far different from what one can expect at any Christian site. Many Christian members, Neo included, have mentioned this as being an attraction at least in some regards. (So I only disagree with Neo that it is a site about atheism. It isn't always, hell half of Cath-y's threads are poop based.) Still, I see the site and its team as trying adjust the civility thermostat so as to make conversation possible for all stake holders without so crimping variation personal expression as to lose anyone on that account. It isn't a trivial problem to solve and I applaud them for the earnestness with which they address it even when it fails. Non trivial problems are very resistant to smooth solutions.


(14th November 2017, 13:59)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The OP  of "Theism is childish" is a good example of the blanket insults and false characterizations theists endure as contributors.

It certainly is a good case for discussing the issues. Especially since Mathilda is an exemplary member in terms of the seriousness with which she addresses interesting questions. (I'm not at all sure where she stands on poop.) I wonder how much the title of that thread influenced the degree to which it has rubbed some of you the wrong way. On a personal note, I too perceive the Christian faith as infantilizing as it is practiced in most (but not all) of the denominations of which I'm aware. At one Christian site I visited, one fellow described closing his eyes and letting go of the handles while riding his bicycle and thereby feeling validated in his belief. There is something about the idea of "turning it all over to God" which smells like self abnegation to me. Other Christians report feeling literally like an infant in relation to God. I feel Mathilda has brought up something that deserves discussion. I'm not sure exactly how it needs to be couched to have that discussion. Ideas? Or do our theist members feel it should not be discussed at all?
Khem Wrote:If all you have is mere god meaning, then you don't have any super ultra mega ultimate meaning, so it's all meaningless. Cutting to the chase, the claim that apart from god there is no meaning is as ridiculous as claiming that unless you had Coke Zero you didn't have a soda.
#26
RE: Question about latest forum rule
(14th November 2017, 15:33)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So if its not about generalizations, what is this supposed to mean then?:

"Avoid false equivocation. Making generalized statements about a person or groups of people almost never goes well. Rather than making blanket statements like "all X are Y", make an argument for why "X has some attributes of Y" and present it for discussion."

As for provocation, it is described here:


"Add some discussion to your post. Rather than just posting a link and your opinion, try to encourage discussion. Ask whether people agree or disagree, pose questions, ask for clarification from people rather than assuming something. In short, be open about discussing a subject rather than being provocative from the get go."

My bold.

The OP post itself does nothing of what was bolded. So by this definition, it was "provocative from the get go."

What am I misunderstanding here?

And I added bold of my own.
#27
RE: Question about latest forum rule
(14th November 2017, 13:59)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: As I understand it, Atheist Forums is meant to be a forum about atheism and not just a forum for atheists.  And unless I am mistaken, theists are every bit as much full members of AF as atheists, agnostics, and anti-theists, etc. Theists are not party-crashing second-class members that are tolerated at best or here for the sport of atheist members. The OP  of "Theism is childish" is a good example of the blanket insults and false characterizations theists endure as contributors.

The problem is, is that more often than not - the "socks" that flood the forums, are disgruntled theists that were banned because they broke forum rules. So in all honesty, the individuals banned have set that precedence up. 

Quote:Not that I care all that much. I'm a big boy. I participate by choice. I enjoy sportsmanlike trading of barbs every bit as much as a nuance philosophical discussion. Creative vulgarities and clever insults make me laugh even when they are directed my way. At the same time, many of us long time theists are growing very tired of the anti-religious bigotry that is so very common.

You do understand what the name of the forum implies, correct? I know - you and a bunch of other theists that post here, would rather us atheists just shut up and let you be all preachy. It doesn't work that way and theists who come here, have a hella lot more freedom to speak their minds than an atheist has on say a christian forum. The second an atheist is discovered on a theist forum, they are treated with disdain and banned for the slightest infraction. Be honest. You don't see that happening here unless a sock or poe is caught in the act. 

Quote:Many of atheist members object to characterizations of atheism/atheists saying “Atheism is simply the lack of belief is God(s).”

Please point out where this is true. How do we object to that when it is the very argument we make? Atheists aren't a "group" of people and you know this. We are individuals who share a singular commonality: the lack of believe in a god or gods. You are simply taking those words and twisting them to suit your own needs. This place is called Atheist Forums, yes. It is a place for atheists and theists alike to come together to share and discuss atheism, religion and other topics as are listed in the sub-forums. 

Quote:In return, I would appreciate if atheistic members return the favor by recognizing theism as “Simply holding the belief in God(s)”.

The difference is that some theists come in here with the specific intent of trying to convert atheists or trying to preach to them. No one here wants that. There are religious forums that fit that purpose. Those wishing to be all preachy, can go to those forums and do that stuff. Being preachy and telling us we're going to go to hell is indicative of someone who is not interested in meaningful debate or discussion.  

Quote:If you are going to ask theists to mind the distinctions between gnostic and agnostic atheism, anti-theism and deism, then it is only fair for atheists (of whatever stripe) to at least acknowledge that lumping all kinds of theism, from Scientology to Hinduism to Roman Catholicism to Sufi,  together is inaccurate.

Nice strawman. It is known that Catholics, Christians, Jews and Muslims all follow the same Abrahamic god. So it is only fair that those religions get lumped in together. If you had four different gods, naturally and logically, we wouldn't lump them in. I don't see where buddhism or hinduism ever gets lumped in with the Abrahamic god. 

Quote:And to do so with mockery is just rude.

And your kind threatening us with hell for not loving your magical sky daddy isn't rude? We constantly put up with theists here mocking atheists all the time. Turn about is fair play. If you want to engage in something meaningful, how about starting threads that don't encourage insulting dialog to begin with?

Quote:Even within the Christian tradition there are important distinctions. Not all Christians are Evangelicals. Very few Christians believe in biblical infallibility. More, though still a minority, think Scripture is literally true throughout. Not all are creationists. Not every Christian denomination believes in free will, eternal conscious torment, or infant baptism. While I believe that the main doctrines are generally accepted throughout the church universal, these doctrinal differences matter.

But you all still believe in the same god and that's one of the main points. Your bible is the same bible that 40,000 other types of "Christianity" use. How is it fair that you can pick and choose which parts of your religion you find pleasing but we aren't allowed to bring up the hundreds of unpleasantries in the bible.
If you start a "christian" based thread, but you yourself make no distinction as to why your topic shouldn't be lumped in with other types of Christianity, then that's on you. It is up to the original poster to make their points clear. To fail to do so, opens up a wide range of dialog that you may or may not like. 

Quote:Nor is it right or proper to describe all believers as irrational, delusional, or ignorant. That’s just bigotry plain and simple. It should not be tolerated. For every idiot like Ken Ham, there are ten or more serious thinkers like David Bentley Hart. Likewise, for every theological moron like Richard Dawkins, there is slightly more thoughtful Pinker.

Now some will say that it is unreasonable to qualify which type of Christians (or Muslims, etc.) are being discussed when there are so many sects. Perhaps. But I would point out that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Within atheistic philosophies there are nearly as many combinations of ideas from Hume’s radical skepticism, Sartre’s existentialism, Schopenhauer’s idealism, Derrida’s post-modernism, etc. etc.  

So I say, if the tone of this forum is to improve it is not up to the 5 or 6 active theists to “call-out” the bigotry or correct the hostile mischaracterizations directed our way. Our respected atheistic members, that are legion, need to step up to the plate and do a little more self-enforcement rather than making apologies for such...bullshit...or giving it a pass just because the offending party is a fellow atheist.

You know, I have taken up for quite a few theists here. I generally stick to the off topic forum because it's where I prefer to hang out. However, I do see where CL has a point in her initial post here. She raises fair points and perhaps they do need to be addressed. But for you to come in here and create a few straw-mans just to bring home your own agenda, isn't necessary. 

As theists - you knowingly come to a forum where the majority of the members are atheist.  
As theists - you are welcomed warmly, until we find out that your agenda is either to preach, convert atheists, troll, flame or are a sock of someone who has been banned from here. 
Theists on these forums are generally accepted better here than if they were to go elsewhere.
But theists also come in here making claims that their god exists. And when those engaging with the theists, ask for proof that their god does indeed exist, we are the ones met with insults and threats that we're going to hell. You can't expect us to just accept what you say is true without us asking for some sort of reasonable evidence to that. To think otherwise is just foolish.
Religion is bullshit. 

#28
RE: Question about latest forum rule
(14th November 2017, 15:51)LastPoet Wrote:
(14th November 2017, 15:33)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So if its not about generalizations, what is this supposed to mean then?:

"Avoid false equivocation. Making generalized statements about a person or groups of people almost never goes well. Rather than making blanket statements like "all X are Y", make an argument for why "X has some attributes of Y" and present it for discussion."

As for provocation, it is described here:


"Add some discussion to your post. Rather than just posting a link and your opinion, try to encourage discussion. Ask whether people agree or disagree, pose questions, ask for clarification from people rather than assuming something. In short, be open about discussing a subject rather than being provocative from the get go."

My bold.

The OP post itself does nothing of what was bolded. So by this definition, it was "provocative from the get go."

What am I misunderstanding here?

And I added bold of my own.

But the thread post in question didn't say "some theists have some attributes of _______". It literally said "theists weren't raised properly". "Theists were taught that consequences are irrelevant."

(14th November 2017, 15:48)Whateverist Wrote:
(14th November 2017, 12:12)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So I've been very hesitant to ask about this because I don't want to come off as whiny or complaining. I get that this is an atheist forum, this is yall's place, and I'm a guest here.

(14th November 2017, 13:59)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: As I understand it, Atheist Forums is meant to be a forum about atheism and not just a forum for atheists.  And unless I am mistaken, theists are every bit as much full members of AF as atheists, agnostics, and anti-theists, etc. Theists are not party-crashing second-class members that are tolerated at best or here for the sport of atheist members.

I'm going to have to side with Neo on this one (with a slight qualification), even though I still think you, C_L are cuter in every way. In fact, this is Tib's site and all of us are here at all due to his skills, efforts and generosity. Hopefully we're more nearly self sufficient in terms of not costing him out of pocket now, but it is still true.

I think this is or does try to be a place where everyone willing to discuss ideas can meet. The only difference its being an atheist site should make is that the standard of what counts as civil will be far different from what one can expect at any Christian site. Many Christian members, Neo included, have mentioned this as being an attraction at least in some regards. (So I only disagree with Neo that it is a site about atheism. It isn't always, hell half of Cath-y's threads are poop based.) Still, I see the site and its team as trying adjust the civility thermostat so as to make conversation possible for all stake holders without so crimping variation personal expression as to lose anyone on that account. It isn't a trivial problem to solve and I applaud them for the earnestness with which they address it even when it fails. Non trivial problems are very resistant to smooth solutions.


(14th November 2017, 13:59)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The OP  of "Theism is childish" is a good example of the blanket insults and false characterizations theists endure as contributors.

It certainly is a good case for discussing the issues. Especially since Mathilda is an exemplary member in terms of the seriousness with which she addresses interesting questions. (I'm not at all sure where she stands on poop.) I wonder how much the title of that thread influenced the degree to which it has rubbed some of you the wrong way. On a personal note, I too perceive the Christian faith as infantilizing as it is practiced in most (but not all) of the denominations of which I'm aware. At one Christian site I visited, one fellow described closing his eyes and letting go of the handles while riding his bicycle and thereby feeling validated in his belief. There is something about the idea of "turning it all over to God" which smells like self abnegation to me. Other Christians report feeling literally like an infant in relation to God. I feel Mathilda has brought up something that deserves discussion. I'm not sure exactly how it needs to be couched to have that discussion. Ideas? Or do our theist members feel it should not be discussed at all?

For me, it wasnt the title. The title is within the rules as far as i can tell. To me it was the entire content of the actual post. All the claims that were made about all theist people across the board, without the invitation to discussion by asking us to clarify, or by specifying that this was a personal interpretation. I don't understand why it wasn't against the rules.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly." 

-walsh
#29
RE: Question about latest forum rule
I'll have to reread it.
Khem Wrote:If all you have is mere god meaning, then you don't have any super ultra mega ultimate meaning, so it's all meaningless. Cutting to the chase, the claim that apart from god there is no meaning is as ridiculous as claiming that unless you had Coke Zero you didn't have a soda.
#30
RE: Question about latest forum rule
As stated previously there is now a report thread for this and no need for further input from non-staff. Closing this thread.



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Alternative to "click bait" rule: block threads robvalue 40 1242 6th February 2017, 01:38
Last Post: rexbeccarox
  Trolling rule Excited Penguin 61 2944 19th November 2016, 08:40
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  "Forum team" groups question. Hammy 21 1952 8th March 2016, 17:30
Last Post: Whateverist
  R'lyeh rule Excited Penguin 54 3062 17th February 2016, 19:34
Last Post: Hammy
  Report System Abuse Rule Excited Penguin 20 1691 15th February 2016, 12:21
Last Post: Brian37
  A question about the mafia sub-forum The Gentleman Bastard 8 1252 12th September 2015, 20:33
Last Post: Shining_Finger
  30/30 Rule Pyrrho 31 4007 22nd February 2015, 14:21
Last Post: Cthulhu Dreaming
  Suggested Rule Revelation777 197 17157 6th May 2014, 01:39
Last Post: Esquilax
  Forum logon question zebo-the-fat 4 762 8th March 2014, 10:23
Last Post: Tiberius
  Am I breaking a forum rule? Something completely different 2 1289 20th August 2013, 11:44
Last Post: CleanShavenJesus



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)