Proposal: Remove non-christians from FU

[ravenscape]

This thread has been moved from the Archived W/RD forum and put into Wiki format. The article portion should summarize the main points brought out in the attached discussion.

The OP: Proposal: Remove non-christians from FU

Since the announcement of the temporary rules by the new owner, moderators have begun ruling as violations and even blasphemy and statement claiming the non-existence of the christian god. Simple statements such as "God is fictional" are being called mockery and blasphemy and being edited or completely deleted.

See that atheist icon up by my name? It's very presence makes the statement that "God is fictional". For every single non-christian in these forums their faith icon is a statement that "The christian god is imaginary/non-existent". For an atheist, especially, this is the very bedrock of our position ... that there are no god/s whatsoever in any way!

How can we even be allowed to participate in these forums at all when our entire position, from which all our arguments stem forth, has been deemed mockery and blasphemy?

Considering that, the only proper thing to do is to make the forums christian-only and wish the non-christians a fond farewell and thanks for the time we spent here. To allow us to stay is to allow us to violate this rule with every single post we make here, anywhere. Even this one! Because of my icon up there, i'm saying that god is a fictional, imaginary character.

Please close the forums to christians-only. Thank you.



A Reply By Glass*Soul: We need to talk about two rules in order to address CY's concerns. (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40416127&postcount=69).

Sharing of information about one's beliefs, for instance by quoting Bible verses or witnessing, is encouraged. Honest debate and discussion regarding the existence and nature of God is allowed and welcome. Mockery of Christians, Christians beliefs, and the Christian God are not.
If you think you are being flamed, choose *not* to be offended, but instead take a break, and communicate, rather than escalating or accusing others.Summary: If we find ourselves parsing someone's wording to find and creating several steps of logic to explain why something just might be an insult we ourselves are in violation of the second rule above.

[CaptainYesterday]

Since the announcement of the temporary rules by the new owner, moderators have begun ruling as violations and even blasphemy and statement claiming the non-existence of the christian god. Simple statements such as "God is fictional" are being called mockery and blasphemy and being edited or completely deleted.

See that atheist icon up by my name? It's very presence makes the statement that "God is fictional". For every single non-christian in these forums their faith icon is a statement that "The christian god is imaginary/non-existent". For an atheist, especially, this is the very bedrock of our position ... that there are no god/s whatsoever in any way!

How can we even be allowed to participate in these forums at all when our entire position, from which all our arguments stem forth, has been deemed mockery and blasphemy?

Considering that, the only proper thing to do is to make the forums christian-only and wish the non-christians a fond farewell and thanks for the time we spent here. To allow us to stay is to allow us to violate this rule with every single post we make here, anywhere. Even this one! Because of my icon up there, i'm saying that god is a fictional, imaginary character.

Please close the forums to christians-only. Thank you.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

From the new rules (which were also part of the old rules) :

Sharing of information about one's beliefs, for instance by quoting Bible verses or witnessing, is encouraged. Honest debate and discussion regarding the existence and nature of God is allowed and welcome. Mockery of Christians, Christians beliefs, and the Christian God are not.


The key phrase here is "honest debate and discussion".

If what you say is true--and I'm not saying it isn't, only that I'm not aware of any specific incidents--then the Mods' decisions need to be reversed, and ASAP.

But if the posts were presented in a mocking or blasphemous manner, then the Mods were right on target.

[CaptainYesterday]

From the new rules (which were also part of the old rules) :




The key phrase here is "honest debate and discussion".

If what you say is true--and I'm not saying it isn't, only that I'm not aware of any specific incidents--then the Mods' decisions need to be reversed, and ASAP.

But if the posts were presented in a mocking or blasphemous manner, then the Mods were right on target.

And who decides what is mocking or blasphemous?

Is "because he's fictional" mocking or blasphemous? The mods certainly seem to think so. What about calling him an "imaginary friend"? Yep, that's mocking and blasphemous as well.

What about claiming that one hates him (a claim made against atheists and non-christians quite often here)? Yep, that ones being declared mocking and blasphemous as well.

So what can we say, exactly? I'm sorry, but isn't denial of the existence of god blasphemous right from the get-go? Remember, it wasn't too long ago that people were executed for simply saying "I don't believe in god" because it was deemed to be blasphemous.

What about the bible? Word of God and all, right? So isn't saying that it's just a book written by primitive tribesman rather than the inspired Word of your all-powerful creator somewhat blasphemous? And mocking?

I mean, I understand the only way christians can even have a chance to 'win' an argument is to make sure their opponents are hand-tied, gagged and blindfolded ... but at least be honest and say "we don't want non-christians and their opinions here" rather than pretending we are wanted and then using the rules to silence us whenever you don't like it.

Christians here get away with calling non-christians evil, perverts, abominations, satanic, cultish, murderers, pedophiles, sodomites, etc... and are allowed to intimate that non-christians are responsible for/intending to destroy christianity, our society, the world etc...

And we get silenced for saying "Your god does not exist". Let's be honest, we're not really wanted unless we shut up and let the christians feel good about themselves. So make it official. If you don't want 'blasphemy' you need to make this place christian-only. I have no problem with that happening, I do have a problem with being told "Come discuss with us, but you're not allowed to present your side".

[chaoschristian]

The rule is and always has been ridiculous. God cannot be blasphemed.

[CaptainYesterday]

The rule is and always has been ridiculous. God cannot be blasphemed.

Most christians seem to believe in a very powerless and weak god CC, one that can't handle the objections or disbelief of mere mortals. The mere thought of someone saying he doesn't exist seems to send him crying into a corner begging someone to please make the mean atheists stop saying he's not real.

Props to your god though, he's a big boy who can let it all slide off his back :)

[BelindaP]

Captain Yesterday, if you feel that the moderators are making unfair rulings, please PM a member of the Reconciliation Team with some links. We will be happy to look into it for you. :)

[Lel]

But first ;) and I hope you don't mind, please talk to the staff on that team. Really, we try not to bite. :)

I'm also going to be up front here. Look at not what your statements say, but what they don't say. Look at the connotations, rather than the denotations.

"God is fictional": there is a connotation of mocking God. That's against the rules.

Try this:

"No gods exist.": that statement has a much more factual and less mocking connotation, but the denotations of the two phrases are the same - making a statement that there is no higher deity.

What about calling him an "imaginary friend"?

Again, the connotation is mockery. Try "I believe God's comfort is actually people convincing themselves there is an external force in order to be comforted, but it is their own self-control that is causing comfort." I'm sure there is a more succinct way to put it.

What about claiming that one hates him (a claim made against atheists and non-christians quite often here)?

This carries a very strong anti-God connotation which isn't going to cut it here. However, you can say, "I would not respect God if He existed because..." as long as you have some evidence (and I've grappled with some of God's acts in the Old Testament, because I personally find some of this difficult). There are things that God has done that could lead one legitimately to that conclusion. If that is how you feel, put forth those arguments.

What about the bible? Word of God and all, right? So isn't saying that it's just a book written by primitive tribesman rather than the inspired Word of your all-powerful creator somewhat blasphemous? And mocking?

Yes, it is. Connotation again. Try "I believe the Bible was authored solely by ancient humans, and was not divinely inspired in any way." Same denotation, but not mocking.

Christians here get away with calling non-christians evil, perverts, abominations, satanic, cultish, murderers, pedophiles, sodomites, etc... and are allowed to intimate that non-christians are responsible for/intending to destroy christianity, our society, the world etc...

Those who do say that need to learn the same exact thing I'm pointing out above. If you use insulting language towards someone else, it starts a nasty feedback loop.

(Sideline) So many people misunderstand it when Jesus said you'll be blessed if you are persecuted. Jesus didn't mean that you should use language that carries a strong connotation of mocking, and then when those of different beliefs lash back as they are hurt, consider yourself blessed because you are persecuted. That's not how it works. (End sideline)

I will say that I have a hard time not being biased towards Christians because when they say those things, there is Biblical support for those positions. So if they're expressing what could be a fundamental tenet of their religion, it's hard to say that's against the rules without choking off Christians. I just realize some would tailor their language to the situation they're in and post accordingly. Most (of all religions) do, thankfully.

And we get silenced for saying "Your god does not exist". Let's be honest, we're not really wanted unless we shut up and let the christians feel good about themselves. So make it official. If you don't want 'blasphemy' you need to make this place christian-only. I have no problem with that happening, I do have a problem with being told "Come discuss with us, but you're not allowed to present your side".

Yes, the rules do in some ways make it a bit more difficult for the non-Christian to present their side. However, you still can do so with a bit of respect and paying attention to what you say. Think about how your words are going to come across before you post. (Which is in the rules anyway :P)

Go forth. A wild but respectful debate is a rather fun thing to watch!

[bill16652]

And who decides what is mocking or blasphemous?

Is "because he's fictional" mocking or blasphemous? The mods certainly seem to think so. What about calling him an "imaginary friend"? Yep, that's mocking and blasphemous as well.

What about claiming that one hates him (a claim made against atheists and non-christians quite often here)? Yep, that ones being declared mocking and blasphemous as well.

So what can we say, exactly? I'm sorry, but isn't denial of the existence of god blasphemous right from the get-go? Remember, it wasn't too long ago that people were executed for simply saying "I don't believe in god" because it was deemed to be blasphemous.

What about the bible? Word of God and all, right? So isn't saying that it's just a book written by primitive tribesman rather than the inspired Word of your all-powerful creator somewhat blasphemous? And mocking?

I mean, I understand the only way christians can even have a chance to 'win' an argument is to make sure their opponents are hand-tied, gagged and blindfolded ... but at least be honest and say "we don't want non-christians and their opinions here" rather than pretending we are wanted and then using the rules to silence us whenever you don't like it.

Christians here get away with calling non-christians evil, perverts, abominations, satanic, cultish, murderers, pedophiles, sodomites, etc... and are allowed to intimate that non-christians are responsible for/intending to destroy christianity, our society, the world etc...

And we get silenced for saying "Your god does not exist". Let's be honest, we're not really wanted unless we shut up and let the christians feel good about themselves. So make it official. If you don't want 'blasphemy' you need to make this place christian-only. I have no problem with that happening, I do have a problem with being told "Come discuss with us, but you're not allowed to present your side".Wording and attitude are everything. I have been in those kind of debates and many times no argument a Christian presents is good enough and I have yet to see proof that God doesnt exist and the real problem is that a non-christioan will not accept what they cannot see touch etc. It is called a faith for a reason and while much can be proven some things other than by your spirit being open to God cannot. I dont think anyone wants you to leave, I do think that for those that invade certain areas of the board where denoms feel safe etc that that is not welcome. Devate and honest questioning is good not only for you but also for the Christians as we have top dig deeper and look harder so in the process we grow as well.

[BlazeLight]

I agree with Lel.

"I don't believe in the Christian God." it's a statement of my beliefs. I wouldn't be in trouble for that.

If I said, "The Christian God is a fairytale believed by the deluded" that would be mockery/blasphemy.

There is a big difference.

[CaptainYesterday]

Hey Lel, going to comment on a few of your points :)

"God is fictional": there is a connotation of mocking God. That's against the rules.

Ok, how is that mocking your god? The only available record or even evidence of such a being is what is written in a book of stories, collectively known as "The Bible". If one does not believe in the existence of such a creature then it is absolutely accurate to state that they are fictional. Harry Potter is fictional. Huckleberry Finn is fictional. No mockery, simply a statement of observation. Is it a mockery of Huckleberry Finn to state that he is fictional? Of course not!

It doesn't even make a single value judgment about the being in question. It can't be mockery for that simple reason alone! It is only an assertion of the non-existence of a particular being. Again, by virtue of being an atheist this statement is central to every argument we make here.

"No gods exist.": that statement has a much more factual and less mocking connotation, but the denotations of the two phrases are the same - making a statement that there is no higher deity.

No, it is quite different. I cannot say, for example, that Quetzalcoatl is fictional. There is no written story about Quetzalcoatl that was used by those who believed in him.

And I note your use of the plural. Is that to make it seem less 'mocking'? The fact is, we are at a christian website discussing the christian deity. Why should I be required in each argument to stress that all the other supposed deities are non-existent as well?

Upset at the term 'fictional' is all in the christian's head. For whatever reason, you all seem to think that being 'fictional' is somehow worse than being 'nonexistent'. They are the same thing! The use of the term 'fictional' is more useful because christian apologetics makes great use of what is written about their deity. You can't use written work and then claim the use of the term 'fictional' is off-limits to describe that work.

Again, the connotation is mockery. Try "I believe God's comfort is actually people convincing themselves there is an external force in order to be comforted, but it is their own self-control that is causing comfort." I'm sure there is a more succinct way to put it.

You have got to be kidding me :D You really expect every non-christian to have to say that or something equally wordy to say "imaginary friend"? In our opinion, he is imaginary and you believe him to be your friend. It is accurate and succinct.

This carries a very strong anti-God connotation which isn't going to cut it here. However, you can say, "I would not respect God if He existed because..." as long as you have some evidence (and I've grappled with some of God's acts in the Old Testament, because I personally find some of this difficult). There are things that God has done that could lead one legitimately to that conclusion. If that is how you feel, put forth those arguments.

I would drop this issue completely if it weren't for the fact that christians are allowed to state ad nauseum that non-christians hate the christian god.

You all can't have it both ways. You can't assert that we hate your deity and then when we say "ok, I hate your deity" say "oh, you're not allowed to say that!".

Either both are acceptable or neither are. Either end the "atheists hate god" farce or allow us to answer "Yes, we hate him".

Yes, it is. Connotation again. Try "I believe the Bible was authored solely by ancient humans, and was not divinely inspired in any way." Same denotation, but not mocking.

Lol. Appeasement to make the christians feel better, eh? Because 'Ancient' sounds so much nicer and authoritative than 'Primitive'.

Essentially, make your assertation sound better for you. No, thank you. That's ya'll's job. It was written by primitive tribesmen. There is no doubt that the jewish people of that time were both primitive and tribesman. Don't force us to dress it up to make it sound reasonable for you.



Those who do say that need to learn the same exact thing I'm pointing out above. If you use insulting language towards someone else, it starts a nasty feedback loop.

The difference being, they are allowed to say it.

If you, collectively, are going to allow such things to be said then you should expect the result you speak of. So why not do something about it and actually expect the christians to behave a bit? Why allow them to spew all sort of nastiness but expect the non-christians to follow every jot and tittle of the rules?

It is unfair and hypocritical to say "you atheists MUST act this way" but then say "you christians SHOULD act this way".

Again, handcuff everyone or no one. I will not be called a pervert and be expected to respond kindly any longer.

Yes, the rules do in some ways make it a bit more difficult for the non-Christian to present their side. However, you still can do so with a bit of respect and paying attention to what you say. Think about how your words are going to come across before you post. (Which is in the rules anyway :P)

Respect is given to those that return it. If your rules demand respect only from us and none towards us then, for my part at least, I will show no respect whatsoever to those that have demonstrated themselves unworthy of it.

Christians claim a morality and ethics above non-christians. Yet you admit that your rules expect only morality and ethical behavior from non-christians while rewarding the christians for unethical behavior.

Go forth. A wild but respectful debate is a rather fun thing to watch!

Well Lel, when the christians insist on using insulting terms towards us but forbid them in return, when they make claims about our emotions but prevent us from stating those emotions, when they use written materials and demand we describe those materials in positive terms regardless of our opinion ... then there is no respect, no debate and no fun.

[CaptainYesterday]

I agree with Lel.

"I don't believe in the Christian God." it's a statement of my beliefs. I wouldn't be in trouble for that.

If I said, "The Christian God is a fairytale believed by the deluded" that would be mockery/blasphemy.

There is a big difference.

You loaded that second one as much as possible Sabre :) But again, what is truly wrong with it?

Do christians get to state that Allah is a fairytale? Yes, they do.
Do they get to state that Mormons are deluded? Yes, they do.
Do they get to state that Wiccans are evil and satanic? Yep again.
Do they get to call homosexuals perverts? I smell a theme here :)
Do they get to call non-christians deluded? Look at that, 5 for 5.

Until the christians here are willing to clean up their own act (log in their eyes), they have no reasonable point forcing everyone else to behave in a way that they, themselves, are unwilling behave.

And saying that "God is fictional" is nowhere near as bad of a thing to say as telling someone "Your lifestyle is perverted and evil and you're destroying our society".

[CaptainYesterday]

Wording and attitude are everything.

Well Bill, the problem is that all the wording and attitude is being interpreted for the non-christian side while the christian side is being let to say things that are utterly loathesome to the non-christians.

Respect travels both ways and until the rules reflect that it should, it shouldn't be expected at all.


I dont think anyone wants you to leave, I do think that for those that invade certain areas of the board where denoms feel safe etc that that is not welcome.

I have no problem with these things being expected in the denominational areas. I'm talking about the bottom fora, D&D, where all the non's hang out.

[CaptainYesterday]

Captain Yesterday, if you feel that the moderators are making unfair rulings, please PM a member of the Reconciliation Team with some links. We will be happy to look into it for you. :)

Belinda, in all honesty I have no interest or trust in getting christians to make other christians treat people with dignity and respect. The very rules of this website are so constructed as to make this the reality.

[CaptainYesterday]

I would like to reinforce, that my suggestion is make the forums christian-only, perhaps with a place for seekers to ask questions with no debate. That would entirely solve all the problems and all the rules.

And above all, it would be honest.

[bill16652]

Havent been to D&D for awhile as I got tired of the cirular debates and as you say the uncivilty. I do however respect honest questions. Just one point when you say promitive tribemen, Moses wrote the first five booksd of the bible and I would hardly call a society that came out of Egypt, the most advanced society at the time, as primitive. Now if you start talking oral tradition obviously there was a starting point.

[BlazeLight]

You loaded that second one as much as possible Sabre :) But again, what is truly wrong with it?

Do christians get to state that Allah is a fairytale? Yes, they do.
Do they get to state that Mormons are deluded? Yes, they do.
Do they get to state that Wiccans are evil and satanic? Yep again.
Do they get to call homosexuals perverts? I smell a theme here :)
Do they get to call non-christians deluded? Look at that, 5 for 5.

Until the christians here are willing to clean up their own act (log in their eyes), they have no reasonable point forcing everyone else to behave in a way that they, themselves, are unwilling behave.

And saying that "God is fictional" is nowhere near as bad of a thing to say as telling someone "Your lifestyle is perverted and evil and you're destroying our society".
All those things you mentioned count as flames.

They're all personal attacks.
"God is fictional" is OK.

The 'imaginary friend' comment implies the poster is childish....see?

[CaptainYesterday]

Havent been to D&D for awhile as I got tired of the cirular debates and as you say the uncivilty. I do however respect honest questions. Just one point when you say promitive tribemen, Moses wrote the first five booksd of the bible and I would hardly call a society that came out of Egypt, the most advanced society at the time, as primitive. Now if you start talking oral tradition obviously there was a starting point.

I would certainly call them primitive :) In fact, compared to the Egyptian society that they (supposedly, no evidence) came out of, they were primitive even to those around them.

Shoot, people were still fairly primitive a few hundred years ago. Strike that, one hundred years ago. Not allowing people a voice in government due to their skin color or gender is pretty darn primitive, wouldn't you agree?

It is an accurate assessment. It should not be taken to mean there was something wrong with them, simply that we today view them as primitive comparatively. That is all.

[CaptainYesterday]

All those things you mentioned count as flames.

They're all personal attacks.

Every one of them is allowed. Constantly. By the moderators. you're on the debate team Sabre, you should know this.

Right now there is a report thread against me for saying "imaginary friend" (well, among other things, but that was also singled out) yet no one has made even the slightest comment about the post I was responding to which called homosexual marriage a travesty.

Now tell me there's not different rules :)

[bill16652]

I would certainly call them primitive :) In fact, compared to the Egyptian society that they (supposedly, no evidence) came out of, they were primitive even to those around them.

Shoot, people were still fairly primitive a few hundred years ago. Strike that, one hundred years ago. Not allowing people a voice in government due to their skin color or gender is pretty darn primitive, wouldn't you agree?

It is an accurate assessment. It should not be taken to mean there was something wrong with them, simply that we today view them as primitive comparatively. That is all.lol ok, it is perspective, personally I consider a hundred years ago far more advanced. Today although technology has advanced how many could grow their own foor or survive without electric and heat> One ghood EMP would wipe oput all but what we call primitive. Then who would be advanced, lol?

[bill16652]

Every one of them is allowed. Constantly. By the moderators. you're on the debate team Sabre, you should know this.

Right now there is a report thread against me for saying "imaginary friend" (well, among other things, but that was also singled out) yet no one has made even the slightest comment about the post I was responding to which called homosexual marriage a travesty.

Now tell me there's not different rules :)Do youn agree that this is pretty much a Christian site? If you do then Christian values and rules and ideas should not surprise you. No different than being a visitor at someones home, it is their rules, not yours.

[CaptainYesterday]

Do youn agree that this is pretty much a Christian site? If you do then Christian values and rules and ideas should not surprise you. No different than being a visitor at someones home, it is their rules, not yours.

Is it a christian value to "Do as I say, not as I do" or is it a christian value to "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" and "whatever you have done to the least of these, you have also done unto me"?

If that is so, then I do not agree that this is a christian site. At least, not as christians try to present themselves being.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

You can usually tell by context how a statement is meant to be taken. There are times when "God doesn't exist", for example, is an appropriate argument. And there are times when it's off-topic at best, and an insult at worst.

A blanket determintation that it's always one or the other will never reflect reality, because language and human thought doesn't work like that.

What laws and punishments were in the past has no bearing here, though--in order to have progress, you must have a starting point.

[BlazeLight]

Every one of them is allowed. Constantly. By the moderators. you're on the debate team Sabre, you should know this.

Right now there is a report thread against me for saying "imaginary friend" (well, among other things, but that was also singled out) yet no one has made even the slightest comment about the post I was responding to which called homosexual marriage a travesty.

Now tell me there's not different rules :)
I always vote flame when I see such reports.

If I get shot down then nothing I can do.

[bill16652]

Is it a christian value to "Do as I say, not as I do" or is it a christian value to "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" and "whatever you have done to the least of these, you have also done unto me"?

If that is so, then I do not agree that this is a christian site. At least, not as christians try to present themselves being.I agree as to actions at times but we are all human and have faults and times of stress. I also see the buttons being pushed at times and none of us are God or without sin. We are all a work in progress and some are further thasn others. As far as what this site is about is Christian whether all of us can live up to it or not. I see room for improvement on both sides.

[Bombila]

Generally speaking, Bill, when I invite guests to my home I don't tell them they are welcome to visit, but since they are evil perverts, I'll feel free to revile them.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Ack! Misread the post.

[CaptainYesterday]

Generally speaking, Bill, when I invite guests to my home I don't tell them they are welcome to visit, but since they are evil perverts, I'll feel free to revile them.

Exactly! QFT.

It is unfair to harass us for the most ticky-tack of offenses ("imaginary friend") while allowing the most egregious of displays against us.

And Sabre, there be nothing you can do is kind of the whole point of this thread :)

[bill16652]

Generally speaking, Bill, when I invite guests to my home I don't tell them they are welcome to visit, but since they are evil perverts, I'll feel free to revile them.And I would hope that if those words were used towards you or anyone else that it would be actioned. If not I would take it higher.

[CaptainYesterday]

And I would hope that if those words were used towards you or anyone else that it would be actioned. If not I would take it higher.

It is not actioned. Sabre admitted as much. It is endemic and institutionalized as "ok against certain people" at these forums.

[SapphireAngel7]

Hey captain..there is always the IIBD board..full of atheists..maybe you would feel more at home there!

[CaptainYesterday]

Hey captain..there is always the IIBD board..full of atheists..maybe you would feel more at home there!

Actually, I recently self-banned from there for similar actions that have occured here at CF/FU. They didn't rise to the same level as the wrongdoings here in the present and past ...

but then, I hold my fellows to a higher standard. Unlike the rules here which hold the outsiders to a higher standard.

[Saucy]

hey there, we love ya and you're always welcome here. We can be friends and talk and have a good laugh without you or anyone else making fun of God. You don't even have to bring Him up! You know that this is a Christian forum, yet you choose to come here. So let's have some fun! If you only came here to cause problems and blaspheme God and break the rules, then of course we won't let it stand. But the fact is, we don't want to remove anyone from this place. It's a fun place to be! I for one am addicted to this place. If you want to hang-out with us...that's cool! But please respect the fact that we are Christians and believe in God. If you have been attacked for being an athiest, I apologize on behalf of everyone here at Christian Forums. We only want to promote peace and good tidings to everyone!

[CaptainYesterday]

Oh, sweet irony! :D

http://foru.ms/t6365143

My post in this thread, #5, is being called evil. And that post was even worded in similar ways to what Lel suggested lol. I never even specified that it specifically was the christian god, only what many christians seem to believe about him. Heck, I even said good things about the god that CC believes in.

[bill16652]

Oh, sweet irony! :D

http://foru.ms/t6365143

My post in this thread, #5, is being called evil. And that post was even worded in similar ways to what Lel suggested lol. I never even specified that it specifically was the christian god, only what many christians seem to believe about him. Heck, I even said good things about the god that CC believes in.I dont see a violation there simply an observation on how some view God

[CaptainYesterday]

I dont see a violation there simply an observation on how some view God

And you're right bill. But this is what the non-christians deal with constantly.

Honest discussion or statement of opinion is being pounced upon due to these new rules. The blasphemy police are having a field day. Because anything a non-christian says just takes the right moderator at the right time to turn it into blasphemy or mockery.

Which, in a way, is understandable. Our very existence is blasphemy to christianity. Our beliefs at their core should be considered mockery of christianity.

Which is why we should be removed from all discussion at these forums. It would solve every single problem in regards to non-christians at these forums. And then (just for Saucy) the christians can decide who will be allowed to call themselves christian at all :)

[bill16652]

And you're right bill. But this is what the non-christians deal with constantly.

Honest discussion or statement of opinion is being pounced upon due to these new rules. The blasphemy police are having a field day. Because anything a non-christian says just takes the right moderator at the right time to turn it into blasphemy or mockery.

Which, in a way, is understandable. Our very existence is blasphemy to christianity. Our beliefs at their core should be considered mockery of christianity.

Which is why we should be removed from all discussion at these forums. It would solve every single problem in regards to non-christians at these forums. And then (just for Saucy) the christians can decide who will be allowed to call themselves christian at all :)I dont believe that, I think discussion is good if it is civil and besides what would the Christians like me have to do since our primary command besides love is to go forth preaching and making disciples of the world? Seriously as much as you would like us Chrisyians to be open to what you are saying I wish that more athiests could be open to what we are saying as well and not trivialize what we have experienced and seen. Most of us do accept the bible and none of us deny God and for that we need to be taken seriously as well. My prayer is that more will see and feel the power and love of God so that many might be converted.

[Letalis]

If you have any concerns as far as enforcement of rules is concerned, my suggestion would be [1] contact the team you have concerns with, and if you are not satisfied [2] contact the Reconciliation Team to look into the matter.

By the way, I haven't had a chance to read the entire thread, so if this has been addressed, forgive me.

[kiwimac]

Frankly I am perfectly happy with the examples CaptainYesterday gives. We must be able to take upfront comments about God, it does God no damage why should it affect us?

[Bombila]

If you have any concerns as far as enforcement of rules is concerned, my suggestion would be [1] contact the team you have concerns with, and if you are not satisfied [2] contact the Reconciliation Team to look into the matter.

By the way, I haven't had a chance to read the entire thread, so if this has been addressed, forgive me.

Letalis, I'm not quite as up-in-arms as Captain Yesterday, but I do understand where he is coming from. I commented extensively in LeeD's new rules announcement thread about that nice new broad 'no mocking or blasphemy' rule. That rule is begging to be used to shut down any honest debate between Christians and everybody else. We will be exactly back where we were before 7/7/7, when a person could be infracted for suggesting, even in a polite manner, that OT genocide was just perhaps not one of your best examples of omnibenevoloence or even omniscience.

And he is correct, that non-Christians are accused of mockery at the drop of a hat, while some Christians are free to denigrate and call evil, vile, and perverted, the feminists, homosexuals, and atheists who post, by veiling their insults in 'scripture'. Some mods cave, because they cannot bring themselves to call a scriptural quote a violation.

And my dears, if I see that 'pearls before swine' quote again, I am going to remind the quoter that pearls are essentially composed of calcified oyster snot layered over an irritating bit of grit, and that swine are arguably more intelligent than dogs. Now that's mockery, but nonetheless true.

Unlike CY, I'd like to stick around, because there are plenty of Christian posters who do not act like that, and who earnestly try to practice apologetics in an honest manner, without first gagging their opposites. Also, C&E has trapped (er... tapped, I meant tapped!) an admirable collection of real live geologists, biologists, and other scientists who are really, really good at explaining aspects of their work - they are a priceless resource, IMO.

[Saucy]

hey, you love Jesus right? If I made fun of your husband or wife, would you shrug it off? Or would you confront me about it? I love God and I live my whole life for Him, so of course I'm not going to just shrug it off when someone makes fun of Him or belittles Him. See, I would be able to handle it if someone did it to me, but tear down someone I love...then we have a problem. Athiests know that this is a Christian board. They are always welcome here until they come in and start making fun of God...why don't they go somewhere else to do it.

[Lel]

Hey Lel, going to comment on a few of your points :)

Ok, how is that mocking your god? The only available record or even evidence of such a being is what is written in a book of stories, collectively known as "The Bible". If one does not believe in the existence of such a creature then it is absolutely accurate to state that they are fictional. Harry Potter is fictional. Huckleberry Finn is fictional. No mockery, simply a statement of observation. Is it a mockery of Huckleberry Finn to state that he is fictional? Of course not!

No, but nobody (barring perhaps those with mental health issues or young children) believes good ol' Huck Finn to be an actual person. There isn't as much personal investment there.

So while it's accurate, the connotation behind "fictional" will cause defensiveness because there is major personal investment in God by believers.

It doesn't even make a single value judgment about the being in question. It can't be mockery for that simple reason alone! It is only an assertion of the non-existence of a particular being. Again, by virtue of being an atheist this statement is central to every argument we make here.

It isn't an explicit value judgment, but there is a slight implicit value judgment, that one assumes that nobody would believe that God is real. This slight implicit judgment, combined with Christians' love for God, is going to get people defensive. If I slightly implicitly insulted a close family member, you would rightfully be protective of them and angry at me. So it is with God and Christians.

No, it is quite different. I cannot say, for example, that Quetzalcoatl is fictional. There is no written story about Quetzalcoatl that was used by those who believed in him.

And I note your use of the plural. Is that to make it seem less 'mocking'? The fact is, we are at a christian website discussing the christian deity. Why should I be required in each argument to stress that all the other supposed deities are non-existent as well?

You're not. I just assumed with an atheist icon that you didn't believe in any deity.

Upset at the term 'fictional' is all in the christian's head. For whatever reason, you all seem to think that being 'fictional' is somehow worse than being 'nonexistent'. They are the same thing! The use of the term 'fictional' is more useful because christian apologetics makes great use of what is written about their deity. You can't use written work and then claim the use of the term 'fictional' is off-limits to describe that work.

That claim does have some merit, but nonetheless, the implicit insult contained in 'fictional' seems to be fairly widespread. It seems like the connotation is widely known, and thus, if there is a word that is close that can be used, it's better to use the other word.

You have got to be kidding me :D You really expect every non-christian to have to say that or something equally wordy to say "imaginary friend"? In our opinion, he is imaginary and you believe him to be your friend. It is accurate and succinct.

There you go, your line (which I highlighted) is much more succinct. Thanks.

I would drop this issue completely if it weren't for the fact that christians are allowed to state ad nauseum that non-christians hate the christian god.

You all can't have it both ways. You can't assert that we hate your deity and then when we say "ok, I hate your deity" say "oh, you're not allowed to say that!".

Either both are acceptable or neither are. Either end the "atheists hate god" farce or allow us to answer "Yes, we hate him".

If there's somewhat reasonable Biblical evidence for something, I feel obligated to let it be put forth as a viewpoint. I think you could find somewhat reasonable Biblical evidence for that issue.

However, and this is a big however, I also find that to be simply a very poor argument. That's like a Christian saying that they hate Zeus. It doesn't make sense because I don't believe Zeus does or did exist.

I can hate how Zeus as a mythical character is portrayed, but I can't hate something I don't think exists.

Lol. Appeasement to make the christians feel better, eh? Because 'Ancient' sounds so much nicer and authoritative than 'Primitive'.

Essentially, make your assertation sound better for you. No, thank you. That's ya'll's job. It was written by primitive tribesmen. There is no doubt that the jewish people of that time were both primitive and tribesman. Don't force us to dress it up to make it sound reasonable for you.

I won't force it, but again, people may be defensive from a slightly negative connotation.

The difference being, they are allowed to say it.

If you, collectively, are going to allow such things to be said then you should expect the result you speak of. So why not do something about it and actually expect the christians to behave a bit? Why allow them to spew all sort of nastiness but expect the non-christians to follow every jot and tittle of the rules?

It is unfair and hypocritical to say "you atheists MUST act this way" but then say "you christians SHOULD act this way".

Again, handcuff everyone or no one. I will not be called a pervert and be expected to respond kindly any longer.

There's one big reason that constrains me somewhat. Basically, some Christian may say "homosexuality is abominable." Then they defend themselves with scripture. When we try to rule in a way that suggests that they use some kindness in phrasing objections, it's "you're censoring the Bible!" That's one that is really, really hard to defend.

Respect is given to those that return it. If your rules demand respect only from us and none towards us then, for my part at least, I will show no respect whatsoever to those that have demonstrated themselves unworthy of it.

Christians claim a morality and ethics above non-christians. Yet you admit that your rules expect only morality and ethical behavior from non-christians while rewarding the christians for unethical behavior.

Look at it this way: this means that the non-Christians that remain will look really moral and ethical and behave well in debate, while we get stuck with disrespectful Christians. Makes the non-Christians look much better.

Well Lel, when the christians insist on using insulting terms towards us but forbid them in return, when they make claims about our emotions but prevent us from stating those emotions, when they use written materials and demand we describe those materials in positive terms regardless of our opinion ... then there is no respect, no debate and no fun.

It's a Catch-22 for sure. What do you suggest with regards to using scripture to justify unkindness and disrespect? Can we moderate that without censoring the Bible?

[Lel]

Well Bill, the problem is that all the wording and attitude is being interpreted for the non-christian side while the christian side is being let to say things that are utterly loathesome to the non-christians.

Respect travels both ways and until the rules reflect that it should, it shouldn't be expected at all.




I have no problem with these things being expected in the denominational areas. I'm talking about the bottom fora, D&D, where all the non's hang out.

At the present time, I can onlly suggest being the bigger person and showing others a good example of a respectful atheist. It goes a long way towards respect overall towards non-theists.

Let me think on what we can do though and how to present ideas on it.

[Letalis]

Letalis, I'm not quite as up-in-arms as Captain Yesterday, but I do understand where he is coming from. I commented extensively in LeeD's new rules announcement thread about that nice new broad 'no mocking or blasphemy' rule. That rule is begging to be used to shut down any honest debate between Christians and everybody else. We will be exactly back where we were before 7/7/7, when a person could be infracted for suggesting, even in a polite manner, that OT genocide was just perhaps not one of your best examples of omnibenevoloence or even omniscience.
I hear you. Actually I believe that rule was taken directly from the Wiki discussion. I might be wrong on this point, but I believe they're the same.

The line between honest debate and mockery is fine. Finding the distinction is difficult.

Personally I'd be hesitant to rule "God is fictional" as flaming. Context is important in these instances, though. I might be less inclined to see "imaginary friend" as honest debate; I view it more as mockery. Young children have "imaginary friends."

Staff have a bit more discretion now as far as enforcing the rules. This allows staff to address problems without necessarily bumping into the strictest letter of the law. It also leaves more room for inconsistency. That's hopefully what we'll be able to address: inconsistencies in moderation.

[Lel]

Every one of them is allowed. Constantly. By the moderators. you're on the debate team Sabre, you should know this.

Right now there is a report thread against me for saying "imaginary friend" (well, among other things, but that was also singled out) yet no one has made even the slightest comment about the post I was responding to which called homosexual marriage a travesty.

Now tell me there's not different rules :)

In a report thread, you're gonna go crazy if you try to read each post in light of another post and address multiple posts in one report.

(Besides, truth be told, I wouldn't comment on the post being responded to because I don't see what the rules problem is with calling homosexual marriage a travesty. It's much kinder than calling it an abomination.)

[Lel]

I hear you. Actually I believe that rule was taken directly from the Wiki discussion. I might be wrong on this point, but I believe they're the same.

The line between honest debate and mockery is fine. Finding the distinction is difficult.

Personally I'd be hesitant to rule "God is fictional" as flaming. Context is important in these instances, though. I might be less inclined to see "imaginary friend" as honest debate; I view it more as mockery. Young children have "imaginary friends."

Staff have a bit more discretion now as far as enforcing the rules. This allows staff to address problems without necessarily bumping into the strictest letter of the law. It also leaves more room for inconsistency. That's hopefully what we'll be able to address: inconsistencies in moderation.

To toss in another monkey wrench, moderation should be consistent, but there are some times and some areas that call for slight variations in moderating. A post may be acceptable in debate, but not acceptable in recovery.

[GabrielWithoutWings]

I can hate how Zeus as a mythical character is portrayed, but I can't hate something I don't think exists.

Everyone would do well to remember what Lel has said here for it is an excellent lesson in empathy for theists regarding atheists.

Monotheists disbelieve in every god but their own.

Atheists do the same thing with one extra god.

[chaoschristian]

Let's review:

God, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe is really, really big, and cannot be blasphemed or insulted by our small, petty efforts.

The sensibilities of those who believe in God can be offended and affronted and insulted.

The question then is, are those of who believe willing to use the force of the moderation rules to protect our own delicate sensibilities and call it 'protecting God'?

God needs our protection?

I don't think so.

If we are to have this kind of rule, let's have the honesty to call it what it is, and not wrap it up in Jesus.

Let's call it something like 'The Anti Not Having to Deal with Adversity in a Mature and Reasoned Manner Rule.'

[E-beth]

Captain Y, you are one of my favorite people, and these forums would not be the same if you were not allowed to post here.

That being said, since I do care about you, I would not want you to be able to be here if you could not be guaranteed a fair shake and respectful treatment. Jesus walked among the unbelievers, but He did not keep them close by to use them as punching bags or to hone His skills at using Scripture to break their hearts.

It bothers me how it is OK to say some lifestyles are an abomination, but it would not be deemed OK to say obese people cannot be Christians or that people who do not believe in God are deserving of nothing but spit in the eye.

I hope that we can get these forums to a place where EVERYBODY feels respected and treated fairly. Because as my pastor says, an atheist could also be considered a pre-Christian.

[praying]

I would like to reinforce, that my suggestion is make the forums christian-only, perhaps with a place for seekers to ask questions with no debate. That would entirely solve all the problems and all the rules.

And above all, it would be honest.

Ohhh please. and giving the example God is fictional isn't an honest assessment either.

[Speculative]

I agree with Captain Yesterday's sentiment (although not the proposed solution) and chaoschristian's response.

What's God's response to atheists, Satanists, and whoever else says He's a fairy tale or whatever?

He continues to sustain them and allow them to partake of the marvelous wonders and bounty of the universe He's created.

I think we Christians should try to follow God's example.

[Bombila]

I see reports have been summarily closed. I am sorry about this being done, and possibly contrary to popular opinion, think this will be a cause for grief for mods, who will now have to defend themselves again for the things people think they are doing, as opposed to their actual deliberations and decision making, which, having been visible for awhile, were mostly an honest effort towards some fairness.

It will certainly place members again in the position of having to defend ourselves against mystery and invisible committees.

[encouraging loves animals]

I know

[encouraging loves animals]

I

[encouraging loves animals]

I know God is true! we all surivived a housefire that we had little chance of surviving. 99.99%chance of death in our doublestory housefire. all 5 of us got out alive&without burns! God is the reason we have escaped without burns&we are all alive and well today. Thank-You LORD for sparing our lives.

[Lel]

I see reports have been summarily closed. I am sorry about this being done, and possibly contrary to popular opinion, think this will be a cause for grief for mods, who will now have to defend themselves again for the things people think they are doing, as opposed to their actual deliberations and decision making, which, having been visible for awhile, were mostly an honest effort towards some fairness.

It will certainly place members again in the position of having to defend ourselves against mystery and invisible committees.

I know you're right in many ways, but there are advantages and disadvantages. Here's what comes to mind offhand.

Advantages:
*Cuts down on "spite reporting" a good bit.
*No having to moderate report threads. No report threads on report threads. ^_^
*Everyone who posts in the thread is a valid vote, so you don't have to go through the votes and comments to see how close you are to consensus.

Disadvantages:
*Posters will assume the worst when getting a warning or infraction and will attack staff based upon lack of knowledge of what's going on.
*Before, if you got busy, you could just delete a post and put in a link to the report thread as a reason. Now I can't do that. (That was really one of my major tricks for running debate reports quickly. :sorry: )
*Sometimes people were reporting things based on misinformation, and it was quite a bit easier being able to dialogue in the thread and correct mistaken perceptions.

It's a mixed bag. We'll have to see what comes. I hope we'll just keep trying to do things fairly as we have been trying to do.

[flicka]

If someone tells me I'm going to hell and that I KNOW god is real but I'm just in rebellion because I like to sin...I'm going to tell them they are deluded. If someone makes post after post of how god wants to those in hell to suffer and everyone in heaven will be happy about it I'm going to call them a troll. If people debate me using catch phrases and bumper sticker theology and lots of smilies I'm going to call them a POE. ANYONE who acts the fool, Christan or not, will hear exactly what I think. It's not blasphemy, it's the truth. Rules or no rules.

[ChildishFears]

hey, you love Jesus right? If I made fun of your husband or wife, would you shrug it off? Or would you confront me about it? I love God and I live my whole life for Him, so of course I'm not going to just shrug it off when someone makes fun of Him or belittles Him. See, I would be able to handle it if someone did it to me, but tear down someone I love...then we have a problem. Athiests know that this is a Christian board. They are always welcome here until they come in and start making fun of God...why don't they go somewhere else to do it.


So your God is a weak, flawed human being that can't take care of himself?
I don't see a problem with Atheists criticizing absurd concepts made by some Christians.
Anyway it doesn't seem like God is too offended by Atheists' commentary about It, so why should you be so offended?

[ChildishFears]

If someone tells me I'm going to hell and that I KNOW god is real but I'm just in rebellion because I like to sin...I'm going to tell them they are deluded. If someone makes post after post of how god wants to those in hell to suffer and everyone in heaven will be happy about it I'm going to call them a troll. If people debate me using catch phrases and bumper sticker theology and lots of smilies I'm going to call them a POE. ANYONE who acts the fool, Christan or not, will hear exactly what I think. It's not blasphemy, it's the truth. Rules or no rules.

:amen:

[Saucy]

I didin't say my God is weak. He endured more on the cross than any of us ever will. I'm saying is that the reason why I and many other Christians get up in arms when you belittle Him is because we love God. God can take it. He really can. But to us, it would be the same if you were to mock my children (if I had any) or my wife or anyone that I love. It's hard for ME to take. When you devote your life to someone and others redicule it, it doesn't make you happy.

[BlazeLight]

I didin't say my God is weak. He endured more on the cross than any of us ever will. I'm saying is that the reason why I and many other Christians get up in arms when you belittle Him is because we love God. God can take it. He really can. But to us, it would be the same if you were to mock my children (if I had any) or my wife or anyone that I love. It's hard for ME to take. When you devote your life to someone and others redicule it, it doesn't make you happy.
Exactly so.

I get infuriated when someone mocks my Gods......you should see my responses to some people on other boards!

flicka has a point though. But, of course, when someone mocks you, report them! Don't flame back. :sigh:

[ChildishFears]

Reported for what? I didn't "flame God" I asked a question since he compared his love for this God figure to his loved ones. If you can't debate about the concept the whats the point of a GA section if some Christians view every disagreement or criticism of a idea as a direct attack on their God, it doesn't make any sense.

[Amoranemix]

I mean, I understand the only way christians can even have a chance to 'win' an argument is to make sure their opponents are hand-tied, gagged and blindfolded ... but at least be honest and say "we don't want non-christians and their opinions here" rather than pretending we are wanted and then using the rules to silence us whenever you don't like it.I agree. Christians do badly in apologetic debates and I think they feel that too. It probably is a motivator for censorship.

Most christians seem to believe in a very powerless and weak god CC, one that can't handle the objections or disbelief of mere mortals. The mere thought of someone saying he doesn't exist seems to send him crying into a corner begging someone to please make the mean atheists stop saying he's not real.The Bible says somewhere that the worst sin is to blaspheme God. The reason is I think that God is weak and therefore unable to defend himself and the lies spread in his name. He therefore orders his followers to silence those who oppose him. Since they can’t do that with reason and evidence, censoring other points of view is the Christian thing to do. Dictatorial humans use the technique too. God and humans are very alike. It suggests that one of them created the other.

Captain Yesterday, if you feel that the moderators are making unfair rulings, please PM a member of the Reconciliation Team with some links. We will be happy to look into it for you. :)It is hard to believe you’d be happy about that, considering how staff opposed anything but bans being appealable.

"God is fictional": there is a connotation of mocking God. That's against the rules.That saying God is fictional is against the rules is precisely the problem. That is censorship. ‘God is fictional’ may in the context be more appropriate than ‘God does not exist’. Besides, there seems to be little reason for an atheist to say that as anyone participating in the debate should already know that that is his/her belief.

Again, the connotation is mockery. Try "I believe God's comfort is actually people convincing themselves there is an external force in order to be comforted, but it is their own self-control that is causing comfort." I'm sure there is a more succinct way to put it.Your suggestion is too long and not substitutional. People write OBOB often because apparently whatever it is is too long to write out full.

Yes, it is. Connotation again. Try "I believe the Bible was authored solely by ancient humans, and was not divinely inspired in any way." Same denotation, but not mocking.Why does the statement have to be started with ‘I believe’ ?

I will say that I have a hard time not being biased towards Christians because when they say those things, there is Biblical support for those positions. So if they're expressing what could be a fundamental tenet of their religion, it's hard to say that's against the rules without choking off Christians. I just realize some would tailor their language to the situation they're in and post accordingly. Most (of all religions) do, thankfully.I hardly have a problem with Christians attacking my belief because it is better supported by reason and evidence. Christians don’t have that and often rely on the report button as their only way of retaliation. In my apologetics career I only reported someone once for being rude against me because it was off topic : http://foru.ms/t2605025&page=13 (http://foru.ms/t2605025&page=13). My thread was permanently closed, perhaps to teach me not to report Christians.

Wording and attitude are everything. I have been in those kind of debates and many times no argument a Christian presents is good enough and I have yet to see proof that God doesnt exist and the real problem is that a non-christioan will not accept what they cannot see touch etc. It is called a faith for a reason and while much can be proven some things other than by your spirit being open to God cannot.From what I remember, I didn’t so much mock the Christian worldview but their arguments. The most common Christian argument I have seen is the following :

[nothing]

Presenting that argument over and over again and pretending that somehow it supports your belief is baiting. That is asking to be mocked. If that’s the best I had to support my beliefs I would be quick to abandon them. It is rare for Christians to admit that they don’t know and when they do I respect them for that, not because that is worthy of respect, but because with such an admission (s)he rises above the standard of the average Christian. However, admitting you don’t know is the first big step to admitting you are wrong and most Christians don’t want to go there.

Havent been to D&D for awhile as I got tired of the cirular debates and as you say the uncivilty. I do however respect honest questions. Just one point when you say promitive tribemen, Moses wrote the first five booksd of the bible and I would hardly call a society that came out of Egypt, the most advanced society at the time, as primitive.That Moses wrote the Pentateuch is controversial. I don’t believe he did.


You can usually tell by context how a statement is meant to be taken. There are times when "God doesn't exist", for example, is an appropriate argument. And there are times when it's off-topic at best, and an insult at worst.Are there also times that “God exists” is off-topic at best and an insult at worst ?

I agree as to actions at times but we are all human and have faults and times of stress. I also see the buttons being pushed at times and none of us are God or without sin. We are all a work in progress and some are further thasn others. As far as what this site is about is Christian whether all of us can live up to it or not. I see room for improvement on both sides.You said skeptics should be discriminated because we should respect Christian values. If those are not Christian values but Christian weaknesses, then skeptics should not be discriminated.

[Amoranemix]

Hey captain..there is always the IIBD board..full of atheists..maybe you would feel more at home there!I have been reading some articles of the internet infidels, but not joined a secular forum. I was hoping there would be stronger debate opposition on a Christian site.

Oh, sweet irony!
http://foru.ms/t6365143 (http://foru.ms/t6365143)
I would have asked you for links to the inappropriate reports, but apparently reports have been made secret. What happens there does not support the light of day anymore.

If you have any concerns as far as enforcement of rules is concerned, my suggestion would be [1] contact the team you have concerns with, and if you are not satisfied [2] contact the Reconciliation Team to look into the matter.I was not informed of the elections for the reconciliation team and thus could not participate in them. I have participated in writing the rules regarding such matters that are being ignored by staff though. What is the step after contacting the reconciliation team ?

hey, you love Jesus right?[1] If I made fun of your husband or wife, would you shrug it off?[2] Or would you confront me about it?[1] No. [2] Since they don’t exist, yes I would. A difference between real husbands and wives and a real god is the latter is supposed to be able defend himself. Apparently God wants you to be offended so that others do the dirty work for him.

Athiests know that this is a Christian board. They are always welcome here until they come in and start making fun of God...why don't they go somewhere else to do it.Because we don’t believe he exists.

So while it's accurate, the connotation behind "fictional" will cause defensiveness because there is major personal investment in God by believers.Is that a good enough excuse for them attack and censor ?

It isn't an explicit value judgment, but there is a slight implicit value judgment, that one assumes that nobody would believe that God is real. This slight implicit judgment, combined with Christians' love for God, is going to get people defensive. If I slightly implicitly insulted a close family member, you would rightfully be protective of them and angry at me. So it is with God and Christians.It doesn’t stop just at the Christians being angry. They are having posts edited also.

That claim does have some merit, but nonetheless, the implicit insult contained in 'fictional' seems to be fairly widespread. It seems like the connotation is widely known, and thus, if there is a word that is close that can be used, it's better to use the other word.Using a variation of words improves the style of a narrative.

There's one big reason that constrains me somewhat. Basically, some Christian may say "homosexuality is abominable." Then they defend themselves with scripture. When we try to rule in a way that suggests that they use some kindness in phrasing objections, it's "you're censoring the Bible!" That's one that is really, really hard to defend.You are citing the Bible as a reason to discriminate. I believe the Bible is a bad book, but Christians usually try to interpret it in a morally acceptable way. Do you mean they fail as far as debating is concerned ? Calling negros abominable is unacceptable because it is racist, but calling homosexuals abominable is apparently acceptable because the supports that.

Look at it this way: this means that the non-Christians that remain will look really moral and ethical and behave well in debate, while we get stuck with disrespectful Christians. Makes the non-Christians look much better.Do you think that is LeeD’s plan, make Christians look bad ? I’m willing to cooperate then. If Christians are such bad people then you can expect others to complain about it, what we are doing now.

It's a Catch-22 for sure. What do you [Captain Yesterday] suggest with regards to using scripture to justify unkindness and disrespect? Can we moderate that without censoring the Bible?I am fine with the Bible not being censored, but then books that are less flattering about God should not be censored either.

At the present time, I can onlly suggest being the bigger person and showing others a good example of a respectful atheist. It goes a long way towards respect overall towards non-theists.[1] Let me think on what we can do though and how to present ideas on it.[2][1]That was my plan in the long run, but with the recent power grab I don’t know. [2] Thank you. Are you going to use the secret staff forums for that ?

Staff have a bit more discretion now as far as enforcing the rules. This allows staff to address problems without necessarily bumping into the strictest letter of the law. It also leaves more room for inconsistency. That's hopefully what we'll be able to address: inconsistencies in moderation.People have already written rules to address inconsistencies in moderation. Rules are there to be followed, not to be ignored.

In a report thread, you're gonna go crazy if you try to read each post in light of another post and address multiple posts in one report.That is what I did when I helped out in debate and I didn’t go crazy.

flicka has a point though. But, of course, when someone mocks you, report them! Don't flame back. Then you risk being accused of spite reporting.

[SoulFrost]

I know you're right in many ways, but there are advantages and disadvantages. Here's what comes to mind offhand.

Advantages:
*Cuts down on "spite reporting" a good bit.
*No having to moderate report threads. No report threads on report threads. ^_^
*Everyone who posts in the thread is a valid vote, so you don't have to go through the votes and comments to see how close you are to consensus.

Disadvantages:
*Posters will assume the worst when getting a warning or infraction and will attack staff based upon lack of knowledge of what's going on.
*Before, if you got busy, you could just delete a post and put in a link to the report thread as a reason. Now I can't do that. (That was really one of my major tricks for running debate reports quickly. :sorry: )
*Sometimes people were reporting things based on misinformation, and it was quite a bit easier being able to dialogue in the thread and correct mistaken perceptions.

It's a mixed bag. We'll have to see what comes. I hope we'll just keep trying to do things fairly as we have been trying to do.


Oh, just pick a side, already.

[Glass*Soul]

Do youn agree that this is pretty much a Christian site? If you do then Christian values and rules and ideas should not surprise you. No different than being a visitor at someones home, it is their rules, not yours.

Would it surprise you to know that the rule being referenced was worded by an atheist as a result of consensus building among Christians and non-Christians. It was our rule. :(

When exactly did ownership of that rule revert to Christians only? How was such a thing accomplished?

[Glass*Soul]

I hear you. Actually I believe that rule was taken directly from the Wiki discussion. I might be wrong on this point, but I believe they're the same.

It is exactly the same.

[ravenscape]

This thread has been moved from the Archived Wiki/Rules Discussion forum by request.

Someone will need to update the article with a summary of the discussion points if you would like for LeeD to have an at-a-glance review of the thread discussion.

Thanks,

Raven
Support Team

[constance]

Hi Capn,

I for one want you here and I want you to be comfortable...'cause I've got something you don't even know you want yet....and I'm going to be respectful of your thoughts and beliefs until you figure it out.

:)

[Glass*Soul]

I think it would be helpful to point out that we are actually needing to talk about two rules here:

Sharing of information about one's beliefs, for instance by quoting Bible verses or witnessing, is encouraged. Honest debate and discussion regarding the existence and nature of God is allowed and welcome. Mockery of Christians, Christians beliefs, and the Christian God are not.
If you think you are being flamed, choose *not* to be offended, but instead take a break, and communicate, rather than escalating or accusing others.May I humbly suggest that if an atheist applies the first rule I've quoted and debates the existence of God in such a fashion that a Christian wonders, "Hmmm. Was that an insult?" that the second rule I've quoted requires making the assumption wherever possible that it was not an insult.

So, if we find ourselves parsing someone's wording to find and creating several steps of logic to explain why something just might be an insult we ourselves are in violation of the rules.

Therefore if someone says, "God is your imaginary friend," and we have to add on the steps of: 1.) Children have imaginary friends, 2.) He must be implying I'm childish -- in order to tease out the insult, that in itself violates the second rule. We would be more in line with the rules to simply ignore the statement or to do the harder job of skillfully refuting it rather than to report it.

[BlazeLight]

Glass*Soul, you're right.

I think that it's a low tactic but that's it really.

Non-Christians shouldn't be auto-banned just because of this. :sigh:

Can we please just stop fighting?

[constance]

I think it would be helpful to point out that we are actually needing to talk about two rules here:

Sharing of information about one's beliefs, for instance by quoting Bible verses or witnessing, is encouraged. Honest debate and discussion regarding the existence and nature of God is allowed and welcome. Mockery of Christians, Christians beliefs, and the Christian God are not.
If you think you are being flamed, choose *not* to be offended, but instead take a break, and communicate, rather than escalating or accusing others.May I humbly suggest that if an atheist applies the first rule I've quoted and debates the existence of God in such a fashion that a Christian wonders, "Hmmm. Was that an insult?" that the second rule I've quoted requires making the assumption wherever possible that it was not an insult.

So, if we find ourselves parsing someone's wording to find and creating several steps of logic to explain why something just might be an insult we ourselves are in violation of the rules.

Therefore if someone says, "God is your imaginary friend," and we have to add on the steps of: 1.) Children have imaginary friends, 2.) He must be implying I'm childish -- in order to tease out the insult, that in itself violates the second rule. We would be more in line with the rules to simply ignore the statement or to do the harder job of skillfully refuting it rather than to report it.
I see those two rules this way:

1) you will get cut off on the expressway. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's not.
2) you decide whether you pull out your pistol and shoot the driver down, pull out your cellphone and call the cops, or pull over and take a deep breath/thank God you are OK.

[BlazeLight]

I see those two rules this way:

1) you will get cut off on the expressway. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's not.
2) you decide whether you pull out your pistol and shoot the driver down, pull out your cellphone and call the cops, or pull over and take a deep breath/thank God you are OK.
Well put.

Reps coming up.

[Glass*Soul]

Glass*Soul, you're right.

I think that it's a low tactic but that's it really.

Non-Christians shouldn't be auto-banned just because of this. :sigh:

Can we please just stop fighting?

I'm actually optimistic that we can.

With the infraction system the way it is, we must not only take care that we ourselves do not rack up infractions but that we protect one another from doing so. We must love those whom we are debating in good faith as we love ourselves, and rue each and every infraction we may press on another in the same way we would rue it if it were pressed on us.

(((Sabre)))

[Glass*Soul]

Does the little yellow triangle at the bottom of the OP mean that the OP has been reported? :(

[BlazeLight]

I'm actually optimistic that we can.

With the infraction system the way it is, we must not only take care that we ourselves do not rack up infractions but that we protect one another from doing so. We must love those whom we are debating in good faith as we love ourselves, and rue each and every infraction we may press on another in the same way we would rue it if it were pressed on us.

(((Sabre)))
Exactly.

I have never, not even once, reported someone unless it was just, fair and reasonable to do so.

That means that something as minor as CY's post wouldn't be something I would report.

[BlazeLight]

Does the little yellow triangle at the bottom of the OP mean that the OP has been reported? :(
Yes.

This isn't good.

[Teshi]

I am opposed to the mocking of any belief system or group of people. Honest and even blunt debate and discussion about religion is healthy. Making fun of a person's beliefs is not. Beliefs are often key to a person's self-identity, and to jeer at them or misrepresent them is often a grave insult to the person who holds those beliefs.

Personally, I try to moderate with this in mind, whether the group insulted is Christian or not.

I would add that it is possible, however, to be quite starkly oppositional without flaming or mocking. But one must choose one's words carefully.

[Amoranemix]

I disagree with non-christians being removed from the forum.
If you think you are being flamed, choose *not* to be offended, but instead take a break, and communicate, rather than escalating or accusing others.May I humbly suggest that if an atheist applies the first rule I've quoted and debates the existence of God in such a fashion that a Christian wonders, "Hmmm. Was that an insult?" that the second rule I've quoted requires making the assumption wherever possible that it was not an insult.I find that a bad rule. Like Christians think belief is a choice it suggests that taking offense is a choice too. The interpretation in the blasphemy case may favour skeptics, but most of them won’t be aware of it and neither will the staff members editing their posts.

Does the little yellow triangle at the bottom of the OP mean that the OP has been reported? :(The post appears to have survived the report. Also not all reports are aimed against the post or poster, which of course the common plebs should hence forth remain ignorant of.

I am opposed to the mocking of any belief system or group of people. Honest and even blunt debate and discussion about religion is healthy. Making fun of a person's beliefs is not. Beliefs are often key to a person's self-identity, and to jeer at them or misrepresent them is often a grave insult to the person who holds those beliefs.God is a public figure. George W. Bush is also ridiculed. Having millions of fanatics praise you into Heaven while being a jealous, vindictive, homophobic, genocidal bully and the world failure record holder is asking to be ridiculed by those who try not to rely on faith to judge him. Respect is earned, not given away and so is disrespect. If God is as wise and powerful as some people claim then earning that respect should be a peace of cake for him, but he can’t. The god described in the Bible deserves ridicule and if that is not the real god then the Bible is blasphemous. The real god may be an honourable fellow, but then he probably understands the criticism is not directed at him but at the non-existing (apparently fictional or imaginary is too condescending) entity portrayed by Christians. Satire is a weapon you use against the powerful. You don't use satire against the weak.