A&A Feedback

smacl

Turtwig wrote: »

Colour is a subjective thing. Let's put this simply: describe the colour green. What does green 'look' like. My 'green', your 'green' might actually be different. How do I even describe my 'green' to you.

What we individually perceive to be green may vary subjectively, but what we collectively agree to refer to as green is objectively reliable to a very high degree of confidence. For example, if I were to show a large number of people an object, such as a green field in Ireland in spring during daytime, and ask them what colour it was, I could be highly confident that the vast majority would say 'green'. They would say the same of any object that returned or emitted light at a wavelength of 560–520 nm because that is what we mean when we say green. Conditions such as lighting or impaired vision may effect our ability to perform this task, but those are exceptions and interference factors, the object remains green. e.g. if you got pulled over for breaking a red light, suggesting that you actually saw a green light because you're of the opinion that red is in fact green, you would get prosecuted. Subjectively, as we grow older, how we individually perceive colour will change, so we continually revise our understanding of how our perception matches the world we live in using reference objects, such as our green field. The colours don't fade, we do. Green remains green.

Note that when dealing with the physical world, we don't talk in absolutes, we talk in degrees of confidence on measurements that always contain errors and are subject to interference.

In simplest terms do triangles exist

Triangles are an abstract piece of two dimensional geometry, they don't exist in any independent physical sense. Objects on paper, or in the real world when viewed from a certain position may appear roughly or precisely triangular.

It doesn't change the colour but what matters a hell of lot is whether the colour is same to everyone and everything.

Why? If we can reliably differentiate light in the 560–520 nm range from other parts of the spectrum, and understand that is what we collectively call green, why is our subjective experience of that important? Where this gets interesting is that if I can't differentiate light in the 560–520 nm range and an artificial sensor can, we have the basis for solution to this vision impairment. There's currently massive work going on in the field of computer vision that involves mapping vision based sensory information onto other senses to allow those with sight defects to overcome them. This, among many other things, demands we understand what 'green' means from an objective sense.

Calina

Faith wrote: »

I would say that

1. report the posts that you find objectionable (it’s much easier to moderate when several people report posts for the same reason - but please don’t abuse the reported post function)

and

2. Please have patience while we add new moderators. Robindch is awesome, but cannot be online 24/7 reading every post of every thread here, and he’s currently the only active moderator on a day-to-day basis.

Actually I am choosing not to report any posts any more having reconsidered robindch's accusation that reporting posts could be seen as spamming the moderators backed up by ypur comment about not abusing the reported posts.

We have had an exceptionally disruptive poster who just was not moderated at all and the series of posts from another which led to my comments are not a reasoned discussion. They were specifically designed to disrupt discussion and they godwinned the thread. In my view this is not good faith discussion from either of the two posters concerned. One developed over months and months and one is playing havoc in the context of changes within the forum.

What do you expect readers to do? Report but not too much? Tolerate non moderated posts and sigh?

smacl

Turtwig wrote: »

It's important to point out stating atheists haven't objective standards to be moral, doesn't mean they can't or aren't moral.

While I'd argue that you could infer any such thing from the term atheist, the post I quoted said nothing about morality. It read;

What I mean by athiest is that you haven't an objective standard to point to for basic human rights

This is simply wrong and has nothing to do with moral relativism as we're talking about standards for basic human rights. These are not derived from religion. They derive and evolve from social consensus in a predominantly secular fashion.

It is important to point out that atheists, by definition, have no more in common than a lack of belief in a god or gods. Making negative, inaccurate statements about atheists collectively that goes beyond this on an atheist forum displays obstinate intolerance.

While I appreciate the mods are keen to keep things cordial on the forum, I would suggest that if you're going to ban specific words you consider incendiary, you might also consider a rule that other words are used in accordance with their well understood definitions. Words such as 'homophobic' and 'atheist' have such meanings. Using them to mean something entirely different and lacking in any broad consensus should be treated in a similar manner.

smacl

Just with respect to what we mean when we say 'green' I thought I'd do a quick sanity check and look in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster gives us this

MW wrote:

green noun
Definition of green (Entry 3 of 6)
1 : a color whose hue is somewhat less yellow than that of growing fresh grass or of the emerald or is that of the part of the spectrum lying between blue and yellow

From this we can say that colours of grass other than green, for whatever reason, are the exception and need qualifying when brought into discussion. I'm all for contextualism but we also need clarity in a discussion.

ohnonotgmail

smacl wrote: »

Just with respect to what we mean when we say 'green' I thought I'd do a quick sanity check and look in the dictionary. Merriam-Webster gives us this



From this we can say that colours of grass other than green, for whatever reason, are the exception and need qualifying when brought into discussion. I'm all for contextualism but we also need clarity in a discussion.

It has already been made clear by the mods that dictionaries no longer define what words mean.

smacl

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It has already been made clear by the mods that dictionaries no longer define what words mean.

Which is something I'd strongly suggest would make a useful change to the charter given we're a community with disparate views and positions communicating in written form.

ohnonotgmail

smacl wrote: »

Which is something I'd strongly suggest would make a useful change to the charter given we're a community with disparate views and positions communicating in written form.

what, put it in the charter that dictionaries define the meaning of words? the mods have made it clear that that is not the case.

Bannasidhe

Turtwig wrote: »

I don't think the poster was talking about the properties of grass, rather the properties of colours themselves.

The argument goes something like the this:

Put on a pair of orange tinted glasses:
What colour is grass? Now put on a purple tinted pair? Assuming you never take off the glasses the colour green will always look the same to you. You can easily recognise it, see it, interpret all visible wavelengths of it but how you interpret it is markedly different from someone else wearing a different tinted pair. Or at least, that would seem a fair assumption to make.

But the actual colour of the grass doesn't change - the difference is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore, I put it to you (:pac:) that the correct post should read "although the grass is generally agreed to be green, I see it as more of a burnt ochre due to my perception of it being highly influenced by an external source."

And tell any painter that colour is subjective and the air will turn Klein Blue fairly quickly. It's akin to telling a musician that musical notes are subjective.
The colours/notes are objective - the perception is subjective.
Must we now parse for subjectivity?

Tacklebox

smacl wrote: »

Is saying that "an atheist is someone who hasn't an objective standard to point to for basic human rights" a religious idea or merely an opinion intended to raise ire from atheists in an atheist forum? Aside from being expressed by someone who is religious, is there anything to suggest the idea is religious? My opinion is that the post is clearly prejudiced against the intended audience in this forum. If this is intentional, which I believe seems likely, it constitutes trolling. This is why I think it deserves sanctioning, not because I am, or would, seek to prohibit religious ideas.

Who are the intended audience of this forum?

I myself used to frequent A+A back maybe 8 years ago and I was very confused with religion and new age spirituality.

I didnt realise at times I may have been tooling or upsetting people with my reactions and strident ideas and concepts.

I was absolutely brainwashed and very vulnerable so I knew no better, because all my peers and friends were spiritual and religious people.

Id be listening to people saying anyone without a god in their life is savage and they need our prayers, but stay away from the "others"

I was probably naive and depressed.

I hit a wall around 5 years ago and had enough so went on a journey to Agnosticism and I have to say its a better place to be.

I think my madness helped me to come back to a better place in my being.

Only for being on here and reading a lot of books watching the likes of Hitch and Dawkins I probably would be still away with the fairies...

smacl

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what, put it in the charter that dictionaries define the meaning of words? the mods have made it clear that that is not the case.

It is interesting that the mods talk about improving the quality of posts. From the point of view of objective standards we often see quality defined as

"Say what you mean. Mean what you say. Be able prove it"

Personally, I go with Jerry Weinberg here who says that

"Quality is value to some person", later extended to
"Quality is value to some person, at some time, who matters"

This of course is entirely subjective and context dependent. The problem with Jerry's definition, which I was lucky enough to discuss with him some years back, is that it demands consensus to work. If we have more than one group with different fundamentals, who are in disagreement, we need to apply a degree of objectivity to arrive at this consensus, and thus apply the former definition.

smacl

Tacklebox wrote: »

Who are the intended audience of this forum?

From the charter

This may be at its heart a forum for those who share atheist or agnostic views, but those of all faiths or beliefs are welcome in any discussion. Also welcome are any questions/comments relating to religion, morality, ethics or the origins of life in general. (Just don't hold out for a definitive answer).

That said, the majority of the posts in recent times seem to relate more to secular issues, primarily interference by religious authorities in running our society and the the historical and ongoing abuses committed in the name of religion. And humour, good funnies section here too

robindch

smacl wrote: »

[...] the majority of the posts in recent times seem to relate more to secular issues, primarily interference by religious authorities in running our society and the the historical and ongoing abuses committed in the name of religion.

We agree entirely on that - but if the expression of commonly-held (if clearly barmy) religious views is to be restricted, then would it be worth opening up a separate forum or thread over in the politics corner of boards, call it the "Secular Forum/Thread" and use that to discuss church/state relations and point anybody with an interest in theology back here?

After all, A+A is in the "religion + spirituality" zone, so it's not unreasonable to continue to allow religious people to express religious ideas here - and, ideally, show them for the foolishness they are, as has been a tradition here.

robindch

Tacklebox wrote: »

Only for being on here and reading a lot of books watching the likes of Hitch and Dawkins I probably would be still away with the fairies...

I'm really happy that posters here in A+A, and the forum generally, have been able to help you.

Personally, as above, I believe that religion in general is not a force for personal or societal good and that the best way to counter its influence is to debate it robustly, but fairly, with as much good humor thrown in as possible.

Thanks for posting this and the best of luck in the future

robindch

Folks - moderator discussions are continuing as the issue is complex and, at the time of writing, is awaiting the outcome of a longer review of poster activity here in A+A.

Helpful comments regarding the charter and any updates to it remain welcome. Comments which add nothing to the discussion will be deleted and the posters posting them may be carded or banned.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

Folks - moderator discussions are continuing as the issue is complex and, at the time of writing, is awaiting the outcome of a longer review of poster activity here in A+A.

Helpful comments regarding the charter and any updates to it remain very welcome. Comments which add nothing to the discussion will be deleted.

Has there been any update or remarks around my initial suggestion here regarding the wording of "unsupported opinions", robin?

robarmstrong wrote: »

I would still say unsupported claims as that's what has stemmed this whole debate. The individual has not acknowledged that it is their opinion but they are still making the unsupported claim that *the grass is blue*, so they are claiming (using definitive terms, such as "it is" rather than "I think/I feel/I believe", it's because of this particular instance, or instances as you may, that has just degenerated high standards of discussion.

I am not a moderator of this forum, nor a CMod of this forum, but I would strongly support the rewording to "unsupported claims" rather than "unsupported opinion" simply for the reason being that for it to be an "opinion", the individual has to utilize "I think/I believe/I feel" type-language/phrases for it to qualify as such.

Facts are definitive, opinions unfortunately, are not.

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

Has there been any update or remarks around my initial suggestion here regarding the wording of "unsupported opinions", robin?

This was addressed below and moderators have no plans at this point to revisit this suggestion.

robindch wrote: »

A statement may be an opinion, and marked as such, or a fact, and marked as such, or it may - much more likely - fall somewhere in between. If the statement is challenged and supporting evidence is not found, then regardless of what it started out as, it becomes an "unsupported opinion" as "unsupported facts" do not exist.

Thank you for your suggestion.

robarmstrong

Do you really not see that there might be confusion between the phrases? Making unsupported claims rather than unsupported "opinions" suits the charter better, no? As it all depends on the person who is asserting the statement and how it's worded.

Can we have a CMod chime in with input too? I've only seen input from yourself commenting on that particular issue, though there has been a lot of posts in between that may be off-topic.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

We agree entirely on that - but if the expression of commonly-held (if clearly barmy) religious views is to be restricted, then would it be worth opening up a separate forum or thread over in the politics corner of boards, call it the "Secular Forum/Thread" and use that to discuss church/state relations and point anybody with an interest in theology back here?

After all, A+A is in the "religion + spirituality" zone, so it's not unreasonable to continue to allow religious people to express religious ideas here - and, ideally, show them for the foolishness they are, as has been a tradition here.

I have no problem with people expressing religious ideas, but a statement such as "What I mean by athiest is that you haven't an objective standard to point to for basic human rights" is not a religious idea. It is an ill-informed, prejudicial and objectionable statement about atheism which cannot be defended as religious purely on the basis that the poster is religious.

As for the relationship with secularism and atheism, both deal with religion in the negative. Atheists do not believe in god, secularists do not believe religion should have undue influence in society. A+A is in the "religion + spirituality" zone which in turn is in "society and culture" zone. Secularism relates to religion and society, so I'd suggest this is the correct place for discussion.

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

Do you really not see that there might be confusion between the phrases?

Nope. I think most posters will be clear enough on what an "opinion" might be in the context of the modifier "Unsupported". One could argue that the word "statement" might be better, and it certainly might be in some cases. As might be the word "claim" which would encompass a different set of meanings from the word "statement" (or the word "opinion"). And the words "fact", "comment", "note", "post", "sentence", "thought" or "phrase" could work as well, though each word will have its own areas where it might work better or worse than the word "claim" and/or "opinion".

However, the word "opinion", when used together with "unsupported", seems to provide the greatest degree of coverage, and it seems to do it in a relatively calm fashion, so it seems the best one to use for the time being.

The charter's use of this term can be reviewed in the future and word "opinion" swapped out for the word "claim" (or any of the other words listed) should the general consensus arise that the use of the word "opinion" over another similar word is, on balance, detrimental to the ongoing life of the forum.

Catmods are continuing to watch this thread and will be able to step in with any additional advice or recommendations as they see fit. The local mod team welcomes such input. Should the catmods not comment on this issue, then I think it's fair and reasonable to assume that they are satisfied with the charter's use of the term "unsupported opinion" for the moment.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

[...] astatement such as "What I mean by athiest is that you haven't an objective standard to point to for basic human rights" is not a religious idea.

I disagree - it's the kind of statement which a religious person from an authoritarian religion might make, and as previously, it's view which is relatively widely held amongst the religious and therefore, imho, needs to be rebutted firmly for the rubbish it is any time it comes up.

smacl wrote: »

It is an ill-informed, prejudicial and objectionable statement about atheism which cannot be defended as religious purely on the basis that the poster is religious.

Yes, it certainly is ill-informed, but - without wishing to incentivize outrage - are there many people who really find it offensive to the point that it should be removed from sight? I believe not. The best way to get the view to disappear in the longer term is to rebut it or satirize it, so that everybody can see that it's just silly.

Neyite

robarmstrong wrote: »

Do you really not see that there might be confusion between the phrases? Making unsupported claims rather than unsupported "opinions" suits the charter better, no? As it all depends on the person who is asserting the statement and how it's worded.

Can we have a CMod chime in with input too? I've only seen input from yourself commenting on that particular issue, though there has been a lot of posts in between that may be off-topic.

Robarmstrong, I'm still reading this, though not commenting, this is your feedback thread, my role here as I see it is to see what both sides are saying, and see if there's a way that we can get this forum back to one that's enjoyable for all.

I'm seeing a lot of too-and-fro over specific wording. Does the forum need that level of detail? I mean, if I come on here and say it's a fact that the moon is made of cheese, then the first step is for another poster to say to me "prove it then" and when I can't or sidestep the challenge, the poster can decide that I'm talking out my arse and not bother wasting his time on me, or if it's becoming irritating, report the post where you asked for proof and then the mod will ask for it. Fact, claim, assertion, opinion whatever. It doesn't matter - once a mod has looked into it and labelled my post as unsubstantiated it should be enough for the rest of the posters to treat it accordingly. If I have a lot of unsubstantiated posts to the point it's affecting the discussion then I get a warning. Then a card, and so on. And either I cop on and start posting factual information or I start saying "in my opinion" / "I think this way" making it clear it's a person opinion of mine or I will find I can no longer post in A&A.

Yes, certain inflammatory words or phrases should be prohibited. It's up to the forum to decide what those will be - within reason. Abortion = murder is one I could see as being one of those for example. But there can't and wont be a comprehensive list of them because there will always be a word not on the banned list used in place of a banned one so mod discretion comes into play there.

Regarding potential mods, I'm hoping that admins come back to us as soon as they can, and then we contact those to ask. It's worth noting though that if new mods come on board then we can't expect them to hit the ground running, and a bit of understanding as they get to grips with the new buttons and all that from all of us is expected.

When we were first alerted to this issue, it had gotten to the point were if we had to start issuing cards and bans a lot of model posters would have incurred one - and this is a forum that usually ticks along nicely with everyone being civil and mature to each other. To me, cards and bans are a last resort for posters who are usually sound so instead we took on board the suggestion from Robindch that we don't issue cards etc and that we draw a line and make changes from that point on.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

I disagree - it's the kind of statement which a religious person from an authoritarian religion might make, and as previously, it's view which is relatively widely held amongst the religious and therefore, imho, needs to be rebutted firmly for the rubbish it is any time it comes up.

They might, but I don't believe it is a religious argument. We agree it is ill-informed and prejudicial. We also agree it is made by a religious poster, and that there may be other religious people out there with a very similar prejudice. There are also however as many if not more religious people without such a prejudice so attributing the prejudice to religion seems dubious. Your assertion that this is an example of religious prejudice also runs the risk of polarising people based on nominal religion, which in turn gives more ammo for those seeking to have a moan about uppity atheists. I would say the poster's statement is an example of either flat out ignorance, or an attempt to inflame opinion, and should be treated as such.

One reason I try to clearly differentiate the terms atheism and secularism, is that the former has a very narrow definition and the latter does not exclude religious people nor seek to polarise society around religion

robarmstrong

Neyite wrote: »

Robarmstrong, I'm still reading this, though not commenting, this is your feedback thread, my role here as I see it is to see what both sides are saying, and see if there's a way that we can get this forum back to one that's enjoyable for all.

I'm seeing a lot of too-and-fro over specific wording. Does the forum need that level of detail? I mean, if I come on here and say it's a fact that the moon is made of cheese, then the first step is for another poster to say to me "prove it then" and when I can't or sidestep the challenge, the poster can decide that I'm talking out my arse and not bother wasting his time on me, or if it's becoming irritating, report the post where you asked for proof and then the mod will ask for it. Fact, claim, assertion, opinion whatever. It doesn't matter - once a mod has looked into it and labelled my post as unsubstantiated it should be enough for the rest of the posters to treat it accordingly. If I have a lot of unsubstantiated posts to the point it's affecting the discussion then I get a warning. Then a card, and so on. And either I cop on and start posting factual information or I start saying "in my opinion" / "I think this way" making it clear it's a person opinion of mine or I will find I can no longer post in A&A.

Yes, certain inflammatory words or phrases should be prohibited. It's up to the forum to decide what those will be - within reason. Abortion = murder is one I could see as being one of those for example. But there can't and wont be a comprehensive list of them because there will always be a word not on the banned list used in place of a banned one so mod discretion comes into play there.

Regarding potential mods, I'm hoping that admins come back to us as soon as they can, and then we contact those to ask. It's worth noting though that if new mods come on board then we can't expect them to hit the ground running, and a bit of understanding as they get to grips with the new buttons and all that from all of us is expected.

When we were first alerted to this issue, it had gotten to the point were if we had to start issuing cards and bans a lot of model posters would have incurred one - and this is a forum that usually ticks along nicely with everyone being civil and mature to each other. To me, cards and bans are a last resort for posters who are usually sound so instead we took on board the suggestion from Robindch that we don't issue cards etc and that we draw a line and make changes from that point on.

The reason why I'm making it as detailed as possible is purely because there is a difference between a claim and an opinion in a discussion, if someone isn't using that language you mentioned "I think, I feel, etc" I just am wary that it might turn into another shield for posters that will try to take advantage of going on for posts and posts and posts riling people up only then to turn around and say "well it's just my opinion".

Whereas if it's an unsupported "claim" they're hitting the thread straight away, making definitive and unless proven otherwise "factual" statements. It's the lack of "i think" language is what allowed a certain poster to get away with the crap they said as long as they did (the whole abortion is murder, it's not murder, I didn't mean it generally, i didn't say all abortion is murder debacle). It does frustrate people and turn people away from a genuine discussion, at least in this updated charter people can't turn around and say oh well sorry Mr/Ms Moderator, did I not mention it was my opinion?

EDIT: the reason why I'm being so granular on this is because this forum (asides from the obvious cases) has had an exceptionally high level/standard of discussion where people have made excellent and coherent debates/discussions/points. Because of a particular posting style (which has been banned from everywhere else across this site for the topic of abortion) that standard has dropped. I've looked through the forum posts and it's a more refined and open/engaging forum from an intellectual standpoint than many other across Boards.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

I would say the poster's statement is an example of either flat out ignorance, or an attempt to inflame opinion, and should be treated as such.

Ignorance or inflammation? I'm going with ignorance - suggesting the best response is a calm, factual rebuttal.

smacl

robarmstrong wrote: »

The reason why I'm making it as detailed as possible is purely because there is a difference between a claim and an opinion in a discussion, if someone isn't using that language you mentioned "I think, I feel, etc" I just am wary that it might turn into another shield for posters that will try to take advantage of going on for posts and posts and posts riling people up only then to turn around and say "well it's just my opinion".

Whereas if it's an unsupported "claim" they're hitting the thread straight away, making definitive and unless proven otherwise "factual" statements. It's the lack of "i think" language is what allowed a certain poster to get away with the crap they said as long as they did (the whole abortion is murder, it's not murder, I didn't mean it generally, i didn't say all abortion is murder debacle). It does frustrate people and turn people away from a genuine discussion, at least in this updated charter people can't turn around and say oh well sorry Mr/Ms Moderator, did I not mention it was my opinion?

To be fair, replying with a line such as "can you substantiate that or is it just an opinion?" takes next to no time and something I'd do regularly.

robarmstrong

smacl wrote: »

To be fair, replying with a line such as "can you substantiate that or is it just an opinion?" takes next to no time and something I'd do regularly.

That's difficult when a particular individual is well known across the site for not actually doing that, even with moderator intervention e.g "back up what you're saying or don't post here again", there's still no joy, they've just gone from thread to thread (abortion & 8th amendment related ones) until they found somewhere that wouldn't/haven't threadbanned them for doing what they've doing elsewhere.

I would always ask someone to back up what they say when they use definitive language, absolutely.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Ignorance or inflammation? I'm going with ignorance - suggesting the best response is a calm, factual rebuttal.

That's rather generous of you, but given that the poster in question has in excess of two thousand posts in the A&A forum, very many of which are of a similar nature and have met strong rebuttal in the past, I wouldn't agree.

smacl

robarmstrong wrote: »

That's difficult when a particular individual is well known across the site for not actually doing that, even with moderator intervention e.g "back up what you're saying or don't post here again", there's still no joy, they've just gone from thread to thread (abortion & 8th amendment related ones) until they found somewhere that wouldn't/haven't threadbanned them for doing what they've doing elsewhere.

I would always ask someone to back up what they say when they use definitive language, absolutely.

Yep, in another forum I was involved in we used to call this "drive by posting" which really just amounts to spam, stifles discussion and frustrates other posters. It gets wearisome and a bit boring for others involved in the conversation and eventually drives them away as I think we're seeing here. Can't see it being a bundle of laughs for the mods either.

Tacklebox

smacl wrote: »

To be fair, replying with a line such as "can you substantiate that or is it just an opinion?" takes next to no time and something I'd do regularly.

The problem with asking someone to substantiate let's say the existence of God can be futile.

They believe it, they look at it from a mystical or philosophical aspect.

Being religious or new age woo is very deep and there is a lot of layers of why they are believers or practicing their lifestyle of choice.

I had to go through a process of studying theology and different beliefs, I suppose I know how religious and spiritual people think and their agendas, which adds advantage and I suppose some empathy to their convictions.

Its the perfect storm @smacl

smacl

Tacklebox wrote: »

The problem with asking someone to substantiate let's say the existence of God can be futile.

They believe it, they look at it from a mystical or philosophical aspect.

Being religious or new age woo is very deep and there is a lot of layers of why they are believers or practicing their lifestyle of choice.

I had to go through a process of studying theology and different beliefs, I suppose I know how religious and spiritual people think and their agendas, which adds advantage and I suppose some empathy to their convictions.

Its the perfect storm @smacl

Futile as it may be, it remains a valid question and probably one that needs asking if a religious person comes to an atheist forum looking for answers. They've either trotted along to this forum to explain to us filthy heathens why they're right and we're wrong, or they've already started the process of questioning some of their own fundamental beliefs.

FWIW, I believe there is plenty of value in holding to a traditional philosophy and considered myself a taoist at one point in time (while still being an atheist and secularist). These days I find myself borrowing ideas from other philosophies that I find useful and see no problem whatsoever with individuals holding personal religious and spiritual beliefs. The bit I find objectionable are those who try to force their beliefs on others and those who try to dictate how others should live their lives on the basis that they're in breach of some whacko religious laws they don't subscribe to. So if someone tells me that they're going to burn in hell for their sins, I'll offer them my condolences. If they try to tell me that I'll burn in their hell because of my refusal to join their cult they will get an altogether less sympathetic response. If they say all gay people are going to burn in their hell unless they stop being gay, I might just refer to them as homophobic bigots, hurtful and all as it may sound.