Is Atheism the official stance of boards.ie on religion?

Edit: Only noticed this now- the title should read: "Is Atheism the official stance of After Hours on religion?"

I questioned biko on this, and he said he was ok with Atheism being promoted in After Hours.

If so, then he must also be OK with the promotion of any other religious belief in After Hours.

I ask, what is the difference between using After Hours to promote the idea that "there is no god" and using it to promote the idea "there is a God/Allah/loads of gods/Buhdda/a ceiling cat"?

I would hope that *all* AH Mods leave their religious beleifs at the door when entering AH and moderate on the principle that "all beleifs (including atheism) are equally bullsh*t and will be put in their respective forums."

Religion is the most personal decision a person can make for themselves. I would hope that boards.ie is a welcoming place for all religions and none.

seamus

A mod is entitled to have their belief and to post in that vein. It's only the moderating decisions which need to be tempered objectively.

I understand that you feel that religions are coming in for "bashing" in AH, but if you look at the threads, atheism comes in for a similar bashing. So I don't see any evidence that moderating decisions are favour either side.

FWIW, all organisations which are not involved in religion are de facto atheist because an organisation is incapable of having a belief.

But that's a discussion for a different thread.

You're confusing agnostic with atheist there seamus, otherwise thank you.

So this marks the return of religious hamsterwheels to AH?

God/Allah/Ceiling Cat/the Devil/Bob/Vishnu/Ourselves help us all!

biko

It's not ok to start a thread to promote any religion.
It might be ok to start a thread to promote atheism.

But, once a thread is rolling you may use it to advocate/defend your religious point of view, just as other people can advocate theirs.
If someone posts "there is no god" or "there is a god" that's ok.
If someone posts "there is no god but Allah" or "there is no god but Jesus" that's ok too.
If the god/no god or Allah/Jesus discussion gets out of control the mods steps in.

Again, atheism isn't a belief, it's the lack of belief in supernatural beings.
Have you accepted Darwin?

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

You're confusing agnostic with atheist

Nope.
You can be both. My dog is atheist. She does not believe in any God. Except me, but then we know I exist.

cyberwolf77

Everyone is an atheist to some degree:
http://www.kontraband.com/pics/25595/Belief-In-Gods/

biko

biko wrote: »

Have you accepted Darwin?

Actually, that was just rude and I apologise for that.

biko

biko wrote: »

It's not ok to start a thread to promote any religion.
It might be ok to start a thread to promote atheism.

But that's it. It shouldn't be ok to start a thread that promotes atheism. That sets atheism apart from other beliefs and gives it preferential treatment. I see no difference between advocating "there is no god" and advocating "there is a god/gods/devil/bob".

They either all need to be ok (which I oppose, because if you let everyone spout whatever it is they blindly follow the place'd be unworkable) or atheism needs to be treated like it is, another answer to "The Big Question".

biko wrote: »

Actually, that was just rude and I apologise for that.

Original comment ignored, apology accepted.

biko

This seems to be the issue here?
"That sets atheism apart from other beliefs".
Atheism isn't a belief in the sense that atheists believe anything.

I understand your point of view but I disagree.
An atheist is empirical, s/he only puts value in what s/he can experience and what can also be experienced by others (and no, I'm not talking about some religious experience when the lord entered your body and made you a Christian). An atheist embraces the "now and here" and doesn't put stock in an afterlife.
Atheism is connected to empirical scientific study, religion is connected to what has been written in books by some guy(s).

And furthermore, anyone can replicate a scientific experiment to see for themselves that it is indeed true, not the same can be said for religious beliefs.

So, you explain the "favoured status" of Atheism by explaining the Atheist doctrine to a non-believer? I'd liken that to someone quoting Bible at me if I questioned a Christian bias.

Therefore, by your reasoning, Atheism is indeed the preferred stance in After Hours, because you, as a mod, deem that it is a different answer, the "one true" answer.

Morag

Have you visited the religion and spirituality section in the Soc Cat?
That is were that sort of serious discussion is held on the site.
As for AH if you were to look and make generalisations about that forum and apply it to the site you'd be doing both a disservice.

liah

What exactly do you mean by 'promoting'?

I see a lot of people talk about their own atheism and talk negatively about religion but I can't actually say I've ever seen anything along the lines of decided promotion. Atheism is kind of hard to promote, it has no doctrine or dogma, it has no rulebook or guidelines. It's simply not believing in one extra god than everyone else. How do you promote that? You can explain it, certainly, but it's hardly as if anyone's preaching it. There's nothing there to preach!

Can you be more clear with what you mean by that or give some examples?

tbh

biko wrote: »

Atheism isn't a belief in the sense that atheists believe anything.

Atheists believe that there is no God. They are as sure of that as Christians are that there *is* a god. Nobody can say for sure, so it's all about what you choose to believe. I'm with you on this one, btw, I believe there's probably no God, but I think the OP has a point here. IF it's ok to start a thread saying "hey guys, it's great to be an atheist isn't it?" then it should be ok to start similar threads about god or whatever.

Insect Overlord

Is this about the "Body of Christ" thread, or did I miss another atheism/agnosticism/religion thread this week?

liah

tbh wrote: »

Atheists believe that there is no God. They are as sure of that as Christians are that there *is* a god. Nobody can say for sure, so it's all about what you choose to believe. I'm with you on this one, btw, I believe there's probably no God, but I think the OP has a point here. IF it's ok to start a thread saying "hey guys, it's great to be an atheist isn't it?" then it should be ok to start similar threads about god or whatever.

Atheists have a lack of belief in God (e.g. it's not been proven so why believe in it), it's only a very arrogant one who claims to know, as a fact, there is no God, and is actually pretty rare..

biko

Deleted User wrote: »

I questioned biko on this, and he said he was ok with Atheism being promoted in After Hours.
If so, then he must also be OK with the promotion of any other religious belief in After Hours.

biko wrote: »

This seems to be the issue here?
"That sets atheism apart from other beliefs".
Atheism isn't a belief in the sense that atheists believe anything.

You seem to equate atheism with religious belief and I do not. Atheism is the lack of religious belief, hence "a-theism".
Religion is the belief in afterlife, heaven, prophets, hell, a holy book, satan, saints, 72 virgins, harps, nirvana, bliss, clergy knows best, papal infallibility...
Atheism means not believing in that stuff.

Besides, people slag religion every day in AH - that's what we do. Boards have special forums for religious discussion where the religious people can get away from that.

Can you elaborate on how this discussion started? It was a post in AH that triggered it?

Biko, this is how the discussion started, when you wrote in a PM:

Promoting atheism in AH is fine by me.
You can start a thread in Feedback if you think the admins will see it your way.

And here I am.

Every answer to the question "Do you think there is a God or anything similar?" is an opinion, is a belief.

I believe all beliefs *must* be treated equally in moderatorship, theist, non or unsure, otherwise there is a bias towards one belief.

I thought I made myself crystal clear in my first post.

Wolfe Tone

Why is it not ok to start a thread promoting belief in a god, yet is ok to start one promoting non belief?

pablomakaveli

I'd rather see no threads on AH about religion/atheism but thats wishing against fate.

gbee

Deleted User wrote: »

Religion is the most personal decision a person can make for themselves. I would hope that boards.ie is a welcoming place for all religions and none.

I can't really agree with this. Islam, radical Islam is known to organise the deaths of hundreds in the name of their religion, sorry but this simply cannot be tolerated.

Whilst we can consider other religions as crackpots, they generally don't advocate mass murder.

Religion of itself is a good thing and if everybody followed their religions [perhaps with the exception of the above mentioned], then there could be no war or crimes as you'd be occasioning an offence directly towards your creator.

But there is plenty of war and crime and violence, all that aside from the religious martyrdom, so it would presuppose that in fact a minority actually believe in their religion at fundamental levels.

biko

Deleted User wrote: »

Biko, this is how the discussion started, when you wrote in a PM

Yes but there was a discussion between you and me in PMs before this thread. And those PMs started when I wouldn't step in to officially clamp down on what you perceived was "evangelising" atheism in AH in the "communion wafer the actual body of christ" thread? What post(s) there were evangelising atheism?

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why is it not ok to start a thread promoting belief in a god, yet is ok to start one promoting non belief?

What I said was "It's not ok to start a thread to promote any religion. It might be ok to start a thread to promote atheism."
Here's one promoting atheism http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055840727

There has been a few attempts to spread The Word in AH, my favourite was this

liah

Oh jesus it just had to be one of my threads, didn't it. Thanks Biko.

Tallon

Like most catholics, i'm an atheist

liah

Actually, really, how was that thread of mine 'promoting' atheism? I didn't add any of my personal opinion to the original post, simply cross-posted an article with nothing of my own added with the intent of seeing where the discussion led.

Does this mean there's no difference between promotion and discussion points?

biko

Liah, saying/quoting that atheists are more intelligent seemed to me be promoting it?
Sure, a thread saying Christians are happier than atheists would be promoting religion but that wouldn't be locked. Just as long as there was facts/stats posted.

It's a case by case thing, but in essence: AH is a cross section of today's Irish society and tbh that society slags religion frequently.
If there is a miracle performed somewhere then by all means, post about it in AH.

Overheal

Biko wrote:

Besides, people slag religion every day in AH - that's what we do.

Are you actually trying to qualify religion-bashing as a policy in AH?

I don't see why Atheism deserves any special treatment, even if it is the antithesis of theism. Atheism, and Theisms, are discussable in the Religion and Spirituality Forums and one does not need special treatment over the other in After Hours. I say treat them equally or don't treat them at all, and move all discussions into the R&S family of forums.

We had this thread the other day

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056182694&page=2

I reported it, wondering if it was going to set a precedent. A couple mods agreed they wouldnt have had a problem with it if it were about Catholics or Atheists, etc. and let it go. It was later locked for Racism against Muslims, despite Muslims not being a race of people or a nationality, but a term for a follower of Islam. Note the thread was about Muslims, not the Arab people. Catholics are also not a race of people.

Personally I'm happy to let one have a debate with the other, but to give special status to one over the others isn't a policy I will support at all.

ISAW

biko wrote: »

You seem to equate atheism with religious belief and I do not. Atheism is the lack of religious belief, hence "a-theism".
Religion is the belief in afterlife, heaven, prophets, hell, a holy book, satan, saints, 72 virgins, harps, nirvana, bliss, clergy knows best, papal infallibility...
Atheism means not believing in that stuff.

Besides, people slag religion every day in AH - that's what we do. Boards have special forums for religious discussion where the religious people can get away from that.

Can you elaborate on how this discussion started? It was a post in AH that triggered it?

Bhuddism can be atheistic.
Some insist it must be.
Buddhism however is a religion.

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism#Atheistic_fundamentalism

The term "atheistic fundamentalism" is controversial. In an hour-long documentary entitled The Trouble with Atheism, Rod Liddle criticized atheism, arguing that it is becoming just as dogmatic as religion.[44][45][46] In The Dawkins Delusion? Christian theologian Alister McGrath and psychologist Joanna Collicutt McGrath compare Richard Dawkins' "total dogmatic conviction of correctness" to "a religious fundamentalism which refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged."[36]

liah

biko wrote: »

Liah, saying/quoting that atheists are more intelligent seemed to me be promoting it?
Sure, a thread saying Christians are happier than atheists would be promoting religion but that wouldn't be locked. Just as long as there was facts/stats posted.

It's a case by case thing, but in essence: AH is a cross section of today's Irish society and tbh that society slags religion frequently.
If there is a miracle performed somewhere then by all means, post about it in AH.

So quoting anything that could be positive towards a group is considered promoting it even if my personal viewpoint is left entirely out? What if I had been a Christian who wanted to tear apart the article for being invalid or something? Does that still qualify as promotion?

DeVore

Mentally chewing this and kicking it about with a few people. No decision but i do see a difference between atheism and religion in that religion seeks to foist itself alarmingly on others (children being baptised christian, islamic fundamentalism and sharia law, scientology... the whole thing, Intelligent Design instead of real science etc etc).

Atheism is simply the unacceptance of faith in a higher being. i dont see it is possible to prosletyse it in the same way.

interesting question though, but I feel the difficulty arises in the assumptions present in the question to start with, ie: that atheism is a sort of "religion".

(again, rambling thoughts, no decision as yet)


DeV.

Dav

First of all, cards on the table, I consider myself pagan and polytheistic - I acknowledge the existence of *many* gods - but I don't believe in them, that would only encourage some of them Prachett said it best with "believing in gods is like believing in the postman." I also firmly believe in currently accepted scientific theory that the universe was created in a big bang and that we have evolved from Primates

I know people who I would consider Fundamentalist Atheists - they simply cannot even entertain the notion that somehow, somewhere they too *might* be wrong. I consider them as pig headed as I do fundamentalist *anythings* be it Islamics or Christians or Fianna Fáil supporters. These are people who will see no wrong in their arguement/point of view. Fundamentalism is a bad thing. It gives us things like Sharia Law and Creationism being taught in schools as fact.

I would however take a dim view of pro-atheist topics being given more "preference" over pro-religious ones on AH. That is censorship and discrimination and that is *not* what this site is about.

Ultimately though, this once again annoys me because people are trying to use After Hours to discuss topics that we have a fairly substantial sub-section of the site for. If you want to inteligently and seriouly debate faith or religion and the rights and wrongs contained within, or indeed just shoot the breeze with like minded folk, we've already given you a place for that.

AckwelFoley

I dont believe in god.

I dont insist however because i dont believe in a god, that there is no god. I could be wrong.


I personally dont think that there should be a preferance shown toward the debate or the stance of the non believers over those of us that believe.

Should the people that do not believe in santa clause be allowed to start threads on santa discussing his non existance, while believers be denied?

I have to take issue with one point Dev has made:

religion seeks to foist itself alarmingly on others (children being baptised christian, islamic fundamentalism and sharia law, scientology... the whole thing, Intelligent Design instead of real science etc etc).

I have gone through phases, i never missed a weeks mass until was 23, i suddenly stopped going around the time the church decided to protect their clergy over the interests of their "flock" and justice due. I have however only recently mellowed in my stance, mainly brought about by seeing the comfort that religion brings to many millions of people. When people die, their comfort comes from in many ways the belief in a higher power, and personally i dont want to disrespect their beliefs because of that - i still dont believe in god, but i do see the comfort and solice it brings to so many.

Religion doesnt force itself on people, people force their beliefs on people, so in essance it the fundamentalism that is the problem, not the religion.

Most wars are fought over race or religion,but if there were neither, we'd still kill each other, we would just need to find another reason

If it is "ok" to perhaps start threads on the non existance of a god,in my opinion it would be of best practice to allow the same for those that hold a faith

DeVore

snyper, I know where you are coming from but I'm afraid the points about religions not forcing themselves on others is simply not true.

If you get married in a catholic church canon law says you must vow to bring your kids up catholic, regardless of the religion of your partner.
Sharia law says that regardless of your religion or not, you must live by their laws.
Jehovah Witnesses must take a year out and travel to "spread the word" at peoples doorsteps.
Most religions have this strategy, one Microsoft used to adopt, of "embrace and extend".

We are getting a little off topic, if you want to respond ok, but then we have to get back on topic.



[PROPOSAL OF SORTS}

At the same time I accept that we cant say "if you are religious you arent allowed to explain yourself".
I've been thinking about this on and off all day (while battling a bathroom mirror and drill).
I think the key point here is going to be "is there any new information being introduced by a thread to crystalise discussion around".

So:

1. "Study shows atheists have higher IQ <link>" is introducing new information. OK

2. "Arent religious people stupid, why arent you all atheists. atheism rocks". No new information. NOT OK.

similarly

1. "Vatican contemplates ordanation of women <link>" ... New Information. OK

2. "You must all follow Jesus your personal saviour, PM me for details". No new information. NOT OK.


How would that sit with people? Can we pick holes in that approach?

It neither equates atheism and religion, nor oppresses either imho.

DeV.

Thumbs up from me.

What about "So what's the story with you guys believing *insert certain aspect of of belief* then?" I say should be NOT OK. If they're genuinely interested in answering the question, then there's forums with people who know the subject far better than AH posters in R&S. If they're just there to chortle and argue "I don't understand you folk you should become *insert poster's belief*" then, well, that's just trolling, and unwelcome in any case.

AckwelFoley

DeVore wrote: »

snyper, I know where you are coming from but I'm afraid the points about religions not forcing themselves on others is simply not true.

If you get married in a catholic church canon law says you must vow to bring your kids up catholic, regardless of the religion of your partner.
Sharia law says that regardless of your religion or not, you must live by their laws.
Jehovah Witnesses must take a year out and travel to "spread the word" at peoples doorsteps.
Most religions have this strategy, one Microsoft used to adopt, of "embrace and extend".
.

My points on religion were more aimed toward the faith of a god, not the specific religion, its in the name of that god that people make those laws.

Look, dont misunderstand me, i more than dislike organised religion, but i think its important that were respect peoples right to hold a belief, while treating both sides the believers and the non believers with equal rights -

DeVore wrote: »

[PROPOSAL OF SORTS}

So:

1. "Study shows atheists have higher IQ <link>" is introducing new information. OK

2. "Arent religious people stupid, why arent you all atheists. atheism rocks". No new information. NOT OK.

similarly

1. "Vatican contemplates ordanation of women <link>" ... New Information. OK

2. "You must all follow Jesus your personal saviour, PM me for details". No new information. NOT OK.


How would that sit with people? Can we pick holes in that approach?

It neither equates atheism and religion, nor oppresses either imho.

DeV.

The above is what would be considered the common sence approach.

And of course we can pick holes in that approach... but picking holes in it doesnt necessarly mean its not the best approach

looksee

Atheism could not exist without theism, if you declare yourself an atheist you are making a statement about theism. In effect it is not possible to discuss atheism without involving theism, so apparently belief in (a) god is the default state, and atheism is a protest.

Its a bit like saying you can only discuss the union view (the protest), not the employer's (whatever it is that you are protesting about). Not sure that is the best analogy but it is all I can come up with at the moment. (I would consider myself to have atheistic tendencies).

strobe

Dav wrote: »

Ultimately though, this once again annoys me because people are trying to use After Hours to discuss topics that we have a fairly substantial sub-section of the site for. If you want to inteligently and seriouly debate faith or religion and the rights and wrongs contained within, or indeed just shoot the breeze with like minded folk, we've already given you a place for that.

There are substantial subsections of the site where every single thread posted in after hours could go. Politics, sport, celebrity etc. But because they are AHish (jokey or whatever) they go in AH. Most of the religious themed threads posted in AH would get locked instantly in the Christianity or Islam or Spirituality sections. Probably only A&A would let any of them run their course but lots of them wouldn't fit in A&A either. "Do you believe that the communion bread is the actual body of christ?"......"well no, obviously" {/thread}. Doesn't really have a point. After Hours is the best place for them.

Where are these threads promoting atheism in anyway? Lot's of ones pop up asking people what their beliefs are etc but I don't think I've ever seen a thread in AH entitled "Atheism is great, here's why", it never happens.


Although I'd agree that moderators shouldn't act biased towards atheism or anything else. Never seen any examples of that happening though personally. In any religious thread in AH the religious seem to be able to express their beliefs perfectly fine and no moderators tell them not to, or ban them, or delete their comments.

Seems like people are complaining about an issue that doesn't even exist.

eamo12

biko wrote: »

Have you accepted Darwin?

NO.

Junco Partner

some forums like ah and cool vids are used as a way of posting fairly vicious anti religious stuff. which would be all well and good if the other side were doing the same but they keep it to themselves. i believe there should be a bit of control on this.


speaking as a non-militant atheist whos sick of seeing this stuff.

Dudess

Theists are free to attack atheists on AH - and have done so, usually with precious little to back themselves up other than "Richard Dawkins is smug - lots of atheists are smug". As an atheist it's my right to take the piss out of the silliness of religion, once I can back myself up, and it is also the right of a theist to take the piss out of atheism - once they can back themselves up.

While I agree people have the right to be spiritual and to have faith without being personally attacked, I find the "I'm not religious but I'm really tolerant of the belief systems of religious people - so much so that I'll start being intolerant of the belief systems of atheists" trend quite tiresome at this stage... Yes there are militant atheists whom I find very aggressive too, but there are militant theists who are just as bad.

philologos

Dudess wrote: »

Theists are free to attack atheists on AH - and have done so, usually with precious little to back themselves up other than "Richard Dawkins is smug - lots of atheists are smug". As an atheist it's my right to take the piss out of the silliness of religion, once I can back myself up, and it is also the right of a theist to take the piss out of atheism - once they can back themselves up.

While I agree people have the right to be spiritual and to have faith without being personally attacked, I find the "I'm not religious but I'm really tolerant of the belief systems of religious people - so much so that I'll start being intolerant of the belief systems of atheists" trend quite tiresome at this stage... Yes there are militant atheists whom I find very aggressive too, but there are militant theists who are just as bad.

This is a lie. You know, I know, and most of the people in After Hours know that Christians have defended their case numerous times in there according to the principle that Christians should give a defence for the hope that is in them. I feel however, that this isn't really about arguments. Its about much more. People don't desire to follow Christ, therefore they won't. This is always something that underlies it.

A lot of people know that I became an evangelical Christian about 4 years ago. My account had been up 2 years beforehand. Everything about my perspective on life changed. What is more upsetting for Christians isn't so much that people don't believe, but that people can be so wholly ignorant about the Gospel. I've been asked to defend pseudo-gospels (such as a literal belief that God is a man sat up in a cloud) over the last few years on AH. People are Biblically illiterate, and don't even know what they are supposed to be attacking. 95% of the discussion about any form of faith on Boards.ie is total ignorance. (5% being the discussion on the A&A and other faith based fora). Most people haven't read the Bible before attacking it. Most people also expect you to defend the Catholic church, and assume that all Christianity is Catholicism. It's just ridiculous.

Recently, I've decided that off-line means of serving are much better. Indeed, even in an on-line case one can use social networks more to ones advantage to share something of the truth in a faithless world that prefers the comforts of lies. It's a disgrace that biko, and DeVore would even consider favouring atheism to any other worldview on this board. It's to be expected though.

Even if boards.ie is dominated by faithlessness, at least I can trust that God is faithful and that He will continue to work.

I wonder would the solution be to open up the R&S lobby into a forum as of itself? Or put a "religion wars" Thunderdome-type forum in there?

My issue (which I consider solved with DeVore's suggestion) was there being a perceived difference where preaching atheism would be treated differently than preaching whatever religion you're having yourself. Anyone making a decision on this kind of stuff has to take a step back from, put in the cupboard, lock out what they believe themselves and any insight they believe they have into it, and decide based on "all opinions are equally bullsh*t".

Dudess, you have no "right" to do anything here. We are all here as guests of the benevolent and mighty boards.ie, creator of all forums, seen and unseen (ALL HAIL! ALL HAIL! *prostrates self*)

Edit: Just read Jakkass's contribution. Hmm, didn't expect any evangenicals to be on boards. Very much disagree with his assertion the issue goes deeper on this thread. I started it because a mod said "atheism is different, it goes under different rules" and I disputed that. Nothing more. Solved by DeVore's suggestion that "religius/antireligious threads should have new information in it." Works for me.

Morag

The spirituality forum is meant to be the general forum for that subcat and inter discussions have happened there before.

It was a thread aimed at the biggest forum with the most amount of posters in a country were more people claim to be catholic then are, cos they dont know the dogma they are subscribing too. That type of person doesn't post in the Xianity forum.

There are many types of evangelicals on here and tbh no one like being preached at.
Also AH does not equal the whole site.

Sharrow

Sharrow wrote: »

It was a thread aimed at the biggest forum with the most amount of posters

Just to point out, that's not a good reason to post in AH.

From the Charter:

Do not post here to reach a larger audience.

Posting on After Hours to reach a larger audience is not allowed. If there is a more suitable forum for your thread, post it there. Threads to solicit votes for reality TV shows etc. are not allowed. Do not ask us to complete any surveys either. If you are unsure of the correct place to post you're probably not going to like the answers you might get here. You can query where the best place might be in the Newbies and FAQ forum. If you are unsure please private message any After Hours moderator for confirmation.

Morag

It is the general discussion forum, where else should a thread questioning the general knowledge of posters be put?

twinQuins

Jakkass wrote: »

This is a lie. You know, I know, and most of the people in After Hours know that Christians have defended their case numerous times in there according to the principle that Christians should give a defence for the hope that is in them. I feel however, that this isn't really about arguments. Its about much more. People don't desire to follow Christ, therefore they won't. This is always something that underlies it.

If people wanted to debate Christianity from a Christian perspective, it would best be done within the Christianity forum. I notice you often say to others you'd gladly discuss whatever issue it is in that forum.

That's great except it sort of leaves the other poster at a disadvantage. Discussions or points that would be considered trolling within that forum might not outside it.
There will always be threads in AH that would be better suited to other forums but people post in AH because they want to discuss them in a less serious manner. That doesn't mean you can't have serious threads but, IME, it does mean you're not beholden to certain points of view when doing so.

DeVore

It's a disgrace that biko, and DeVore would even consider favouring atheism to any other worldview on this board. It's to be expected though.

I'm not at all sure how you come to this conclusion. Please explain because I didnt see anything in my proposal to suggest I was favouring either side, in fact I thought it was quite neutral.


DeV.

Asiaprod

ISAW wrote: »

Bhuddism can be atheistic.
Some insist it must be.
Buddhism however is a religion.

I have had this one with you before:)
Not to every Buddhist.
Buddhist Atheist. (I'm one, no Gods...anywhere in sight, no super power...just me, and the now.)
Buddhist Agnostic
Buddhist I don't care
Buddhist (about any flavor you want)

ShooterSF

Deleted User wrote: »

You're confusing agnostic with atheist there seamus, otherwise thank you.

I think you might be confusing them. (A-)theism is looking at the issues from a belief standpoint.

(A-)Gnosticism is looking from a knowledge pov.

They are two seperate entities and you can be (and most atheists are) an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

It's a disgrace that biko, and DeVore would even consider favouring atheism to any other worldview on this board. It's to be expected though.

I seem to have missed those posts. You wouldn't mind giving the actual quotes and links....?

Wibbs

In all my years here I can recall only one example of a somewhat top down religious bias that did at times flavour a (non spiritual) forum. I and others noted and questioned it and things changed. It wasn't dramatically biased either though enough of an issue as it concerned a mod and we should have higher standards on that score. I've stuck my head in a fair few forums and that's the only example I can honestly think of.

Maybe much of the answer to this is, kinda yes. Not in the sense of anything official, but that the majority of the user demographic would be at most a la carte in their spiritual outlets, through the "meh" agnostics to atheistic in outlook. This would be more the case in After Hours as the general subject posting place on the site. The posting there is gonna reflect that.

EDIT I think non believers don't get or have forgotten how deeply held religious belief can be. It would be the spiritual equivalent of having the man/woman you love slagged off constantly for being a minger.

DeVore

DeVore wrote: »

I didnt see anything in my proposal to suggest I was favouring either side, in fact I thought it was quite neutral.
DeV.

It needs a bit of fleshing out, but the fundamental principle is fair to all. It should be designed to filter out misguided hatred and allow for reasonable criticism that the faith-oriented forums dont allow. Once a system like that is up and running, it's hard to argue prejudicial treatment from either point of view. 'Tis a fine compromise.