It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Lantian
...And the second thread linked to is mine.
The thread title is Creationists will Destroy ATS. In it, I did not call for banning creationists, or anyone else, from ATS. I do not approve of censorship.
By who and according to what criteria. Yours. Then we also have to apply it to every other Topic. Conspiracy, UFO-Alien etc. Ortherwise it is just a restriction on Creationist or Evolutionist.....and so discriminatory. What about new posters that have not used ATS before.
What I am calling for is a moratorium on:
- posts whose content has already been dealt with sufficiently on earlier threads
- re-statement (without new information or evidence) of statements and assertions that have already been disproved
Again, this is my point, any individual whose main source of belief and interpretation, of any topic ,that stems from religion is excluded. This also means they are not exposed to your arguments also. So not only do they have their expression denied, they do not get the chance to have an alternative offered. Regardless of weather they accept an alternative as possible or not.posts that pull threads off topic and turn them into believers-vs.-unbelievers shouting matchesI believe it is within the capacity of the staff to implement this without doing violence to the objectives and ethos of Above Top Secret.
then why not close the forum down.
And of course, such a moratorium would apply equally to both believers and unbelievers.
Well how would you know if anything new was raised, when you have already refused to accept any ideology already, what possibility of you accepting any other information or beliefs, interpretations or arguments in the future given your own beliefs. See it has works both ways. That is my whole point. My post is not about who is right, but that simply suggesting that because one group of people think they are, a belief which can not be proven, or totally debunked by either side(creationism) is no grounds what so ever to call for any limitations or restrictions on that belief, its content or the frequency with which it appears.
I am aware, however, that if such rules were implemented, supporters of creationism may end up having precious little to contribute to the board.
Have you proved that there is no creator. Have evolutionists shown any new data that says that there is no divine intelligence. Other than the same arguments. These are the questions that you would have to expect. Are your answers not as old. This is why you will keep getting these posts. Did you read my entire post. I think you will find that people who hold religious beliefs find this form of science as an attack in general, That is my point, that is why we have to let people post, and why i have urged people to also think about why it is that creationist/religious people ignore science when the weight of evidence is blindingly overwhelming, and on the same token, why is science so exclusionary in regards to religion. Which you are asking ATS and its members to be also.
In fact, they've already run out of things to say. Look at my thread, or any of a dozen others in these forums. The creationists aren't posting anything new -- most of their posts are just attacks on posts by others who don't share their views. It's getting really old.
I think you have seen the replies from one of the site owners on your thread. I think you need to go back and read it. As i think he may have been saying that you might be exaggerating.
I hope the staff is taking note of how many ATS members -- religious ones as well as atheists -- are getting sick and tired of these antics.
Originally posted by atlasastro
I am simply saying that people are going to post for religious reasons on any number of topics, especially creationism. I am offering reasons why it should be expected, accepted and encouraged.
Originally posted by Astyanax
What I am calling for is a moratorium on:
* posts whose content has already been dealt with sufficiently on earlier threads
* re-statement (without new information or evidence) of statements and assertions that have already been disproved
By who and according to what criteria. Yours.
Then we also have to apply it to every other Topic. Conspiracy, UFO-Alien etc.
If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.
What about new posters that have not used ATS before.
Any individual whose main source of belief and interpretation, of any topic, that stems from religion is excluded. This also means they are not exposed to your arguments also. So not only do they have their expression denied, they do not get the chance to have an alternative offered. Regardless of weather they accept an alternative as possible or not.
Well how would you know if anything new was raised, when you have already refused to accept any ideology already, what possibility of you accepting any other information or beliefs, interpretations or arguments in the future given your own beliefs.
Have you proved that there is no creator. Have evolutionists shown any new data that says that there is no divine intelligence.
I hope the staff is taking note of how many ATS members -- religious ones as well as atheists -- are getting sick and tired of these antics.
I think you have seen the replies from one of the site owners on your thread. I think you need to go back and read it. As i think he may have been saying that you might be exaggerating.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
People have different interests. Religion is one such interest. When it's brought into every thread, it gets old. If, every time a thread was started on various subjects, a person came in and started posting about dogs and how dogs related to the subject, it would get old and be considered off-topic.
Then why not post that, and an index on the Theory of Evolution and leave it at that. No discussion. No expression. This site is not just a forum for "hey look at what science says." As it is the scientific model which demands evidence, where as those of "Faith" require a totally different model. So your criteria is subjective as this arguement is not about what science says religion can prove using science. Can you understand where i am coming from, and why i believe it is biased. That is why you have to let it play out on the threads. Just get over it. Can you link me to any truely ground breaking threads within this topic here on ATS. That was then destroyed by creationist input. Have you noticed the Ignore feature on individual posts, rather than calling for people to be ignored in general.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Not at all. These are objective, not subjective criteria. Indeed, I recommended using a stickied thread in the O&C Forum, 'Index to Creationist Claims' by Nygdan, as the benchmark.
If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.
What about the Anonymous post. Dismantle the Anonymous feature too? What other restrictions apply then. Can you see how this site is geared for input, discussion, expression. Can you really believe that the Mods/Owners would put restrictions on debates of this nature as its very nature requires one side to defend its faith while the other side holds up its evidence and says, but look at this.
A moderator would politely direct them to the relevant existing thread, and close the thread they started. Don't tell me you haven't seen that happening on ATS already.
Again you are applying the scientific model to any religious ideology, this is the point i make about exclusion. Is being religious an automatic admission of ignorance in your eyes.
What we want is evidence in support of a statement. Religious authority is not evidence. Quoting the Bible or the Koran or the Bhagavad-gita is not an acceptable contribution to debate on ATS. It's acceptable in this BTS forum, however.
I think you mis-understood my point. It was in relation to the specific Ideology of Creationists, which i am pretty sure you refuse to accept(hehe...i hope you can have a chuckle). Otherwise we would not be on this thread. I appologize, if you felt this was an attack on your over all view or character.
Is this a faith-based argument? How do you know I refuse to accept any ideology?
As a matter of fact, I'm a liberal and have outed myself as one several times on this board. Liberalism is an ideology.
I would hope so. I hope you can see why questions like this though will continuously be asked by both science and religion and so will always be discussed in relation to many topics.
If someone does come up with new evidence for a creator -- or against the existence of one -- we can discuss it in the Faith, Spirituality & Theology forum -- this forum -- on BTS. I have no problem with that.
You are mistaken. No site owner has posted on my thread, unless Crakeur qualifies. Crakeur's posts were simply interventions to bring some of the unrulier members to order. At no point did he engage with the subject-matter, except to disprove Conspiriology's assertion that the O&C forum is one of the most popular on ATS.
Originally posted by atlasastro
Religion is far more than an interest, i think to label it as such is ridiculous.
It is a belief, an intrinsic element of an individual believer which they use to explain, relate to, and interact with the world, a world that raise many questions on many topics.
Why should they be treated differently simply because others don't believe or perscribe to that same religious influence to help explain certain topics or questions.
I think you exaggerate when you say it appears in every thread. And if it is getting old than that is your problem, not the entire forums.
I love dogs too, i have a 13 year old kelpie cross collie, her name is Atlas BTW. My girlfriend found her abandoned as a pup, she's a beauty and such a soft natured creature, anyway, how does your interest in dogs provide a moral and ethical framework, how does your interest in dogs help you quantify your existence, does your interest in dogs offer you an explanation for the universe, how do your dogs offer you an explanation of the afterlife, UFO, conspiracy, 9/11? Should i dismiss your reply all together for bringing up your interest in dogs to help you express your beliefs in regards to this thread? An interest that i would consider is off topic but helps you make a point or arguement. I think you are deliberately down playing the significance of religion to support your point of view, but i do concede that, yes ,people are interested in religion, but because it offers them such impotant resources to cope with life, as no doubt our beloved pets do to.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To you (and some others) it is more than an interest, I'm certain. Dogs are my life. I could talk about them all day long. Some days I do. They are more than an interest to me. My dogs are my passion in life.
To some of us, religion isn't a "special" topic that should be treated as sacrosanct.
I can't recall asking anyone to accept religion in deference of their own beliefs, i am asking that it be respected, as i am sure you would ask the same. Wether or not this happens is another matter, i am not so naive or unworldly as to dismiss the intolerance that the history of humanity has displayed in relation to personal beliefs. But to accept it is another matter. You are specifically addressing my point in your above quote, you are saying it is nothing special to, and that isabsolutely fine, but there are others that do hold it special, that do use it to help interpret, explain and communicate on many, many topics. Why should people be upset by this, or deem it as destructive to this site and then start threads about this. Which mine is a reply to.
Everyone has beliefs. Everyone is at the center of their own universe. Religion isn't some "special" subject that everyone must respect and accept. You can certainly believe that and think of it in those terms, but you're probably going to be disappointed when you come across outspoken people like me, to whom religion is nothing special. I'm sure there are religious and theological boards where no one would complain about religion in every topic.
You have yet to show where they are being treated differently. I have yet to see a staff request to keep quiet about religion. CAN YOU SHOW ME where religious people are being treated differently?
I'm a little discouraged by this.. It can be any type of thread from UFO's to Contaminated food.. But some people cannot leave religion out of it.
The OP in this thread is simply saying, because Creationist/ID advocates cannot prove their theory through science( the opposing arguement) this debate should not continue. Religion has to use science or be ignored. That is being treated pretty differently if you ask me. That religious opinion is not valid on our grounds.
Creationism & Intelligent design share the fundamental idea of an omni-present being as their reason for all existence, which currently, cannot be proved or disproved scientifically. Because of this, it cannot yet be considered an area for scientific debate.
So the OP is ok with their beliefs as long as they are not expressed as he deems them pointless when offered against a scientific Theory that other believe in and accept. I don't want to turn this into a debate over "but science says this etc. My point is that wether you believe it or not, place any value in the theory or idea, why can you not say so. What if religious people claimed, that as it is evident the overwhelming majority of humans (see below)believe in some divine entity or God, science should desist in trying to explain that devine being or entitys creation?
Please understand that I have no objection to people following the religious explainations as to humanity's and everything elses origins, just their continued and pointless opposition to evolution or any other scientific theory or facts. One can neither prove or disprove the other.
BTW...that is a lot of interested people. geography.about.com...
1) Christians - 2,116,909,552 (which includes 1,117,759,185 Roman Catholics, 372,586,395 Protestants, 221,746,920 Orthodox, and 81,865,869 Anglicans)
2) Muslims - 1,282,780,149
3) Hindus - 856,690,863
4) Buddhists - 381,610,979
5) Sikhs - 25,139,912
6) Jews - 14,826,102
Originally posted by atlasastro
how does your interest in dogs provide a moral and ethical framework, how does your interest in dogs help you quantify your existence, does your interest in dogs offer you an explanation for the universe, how do your dogs offer you an explanation of the afterlife, UFO, conspiracy, 9/11?
Should i dismiss your reply all together for bringing up your interest in dogs to help you express your beliefs in regards to this thread?
I think you are deliberately down playing the significance of religion to support your point of view,
but i do concede that, yes ,people are interested in religion, but because it offers them such impotant resources to cope with life, as no doubt our beloved pets do to.
I can't recall asking anyone to accept religion in deference of their own beliefs, i am asking that it be respected, as i am sure you would ask the same.
but there are others that do hold it special, that do use it to help interpret, explain and communicate on many, many topics. Why should people be upset by this, or deem it as destructive to this site and then start threads about this.
If you read some of the replies on this thread you will find comments from the OP of This thread
That is being treated pretty differently if you ask me.
You believe i am trying to peddle religion to those that rely on other systems of belief.
I am saying that regardless of what you believe, religion is a very important part of a very large group of individuals, and that they rely on religion for many things. Some of which are discussed here. To say that this content that they offer is unacceptable due to science, or any other reason is wrong. Period.
Perhaps he's calling for censorship (I don't know, I haven't read the thread as I have no interest) but are the staff responding?
I brought up your references to dogs as being off topic to make a point and i have to say your reply is superb.Why can I not ask others to approach religious posts this way.Who cares, get over it, move on, let them post what they believe. I accept your advice gladly. Unfortunately we are discussing the fact that my thread is a reply to Three threads. All started around the same time. All calling for or suggesting religious posts stop or be policed. I am well within my rights to reply to those threads, hopefully, in a constructive manner.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's totally up to you. And I personally wouldn't care if you did. It doesn't take away from my thoughts and my ability to post here. Even if you said, "Stop bringing up your dogs all the time! I'm sick of hearing about them and I don't think they're relevant to every discussion"! I would still speak of them when I wished, not allowing your opinion to bother me. Only when staff told me directly that dogs are off topic and I need to stop talking about dogs all the time am I going to act any differently. And that's what I advise you to do.
Can you tell me where i have stated how impotant religion is to me personally, I have only said that i am interested in it as a topic. You are downplaying it. You are also assuming it is important to me. AGAIN i will say that I am argueing that: it is important to people, that is why they use it and that is why they use it here on ATS. You don't believe it has any importance so you downplay it to make a point that it has no real significance. When you know that we are not discussing your beliefs, but that of others. And , please,You can not, in all seriousness, expect me to believe that you cannot see the importance of religion in the world and how significant it is. Tell me, how special and significant are terrorists, politicians who claim they are doing Gods works, Islamic religious states,Isreal(jewish state), Middle eastern theocracies, How many world leaders ignore the pope/dalai llama when he visits, how evil do people percieve Godless States(communism)....Former USSR, China, North korea. You say you live without religion, i could argue you cannot avoid living in its prescence. Govt. policy, media, entertainment, music, art, philosophy, poetry, war. ATS.
I am not downplaying the significance of religion TO YOU. I understand that it's significant to you, but I disagree that it holds some kind of special place in the world of things that are significant.
Have you seen any personal religious, posts from me. Other than highlighting the features of religion, its importance to individuals, the cultural influence, its difference to science in terms of specific Ideas and broad concepts. I do this to offer an alternative arguement to the threads i link in my OP. You seem to have a real poblem with me doing this WHY? The belief i have stated over and over is that we just have to let people post. I am not asking for control of anything, in fact i am asking for no control. Read my OP. Let them Post, let the Threads Play out. Get over it. If people don't like replies, bad luck, like you say....."you can't control what they say anymore than then they can, me".
I do have my belief system that I share here now and then. And I bring it into discussions when I see fit. I suggest you do the same. And when people tell you they are sick of hearing about it or or that it isn't relevant or whatever, carry on. You can't control what they say any more than they can control what you say.
I agree. And if people who are religious were to start threads saying that "people who come on threads and argue from a non-religious perspective should not be allowed to post as i am sick of all the non-believe posts", i would hope that we would still be having a discussion over why people should be able to post what they believe.
Some do respect it and some don't. That's life. Not everyone is going to be happy to hear about it time and time again and they are going to speak up about it. They have as much right to do that as you have to talk about it in the first place.
Once again i totally agree. And i started this thread to discuss those threads as i feel they are wrong in suggesting that it should not be allowed. Is it is ok to suggest that a certain group who use religion should not be allowed to post religiously. But it is not ok for me to convey my feelings that these types of post are a normal form of expression and a basic right of free speech? And should be allowed. I also provide some supportive information so that those who i disagree with may gain some insight into to why i feel this way.
Because that's how they feel. Why SHOULDN'T they start a thread talking about the way the feel and the thoughts they have? That's what we do here.
My thread was directed at threads from members, read my OP. Why do you have a problem with me addressing issues raised by other threads. I started this thread after Three threads appeared, all around the same time, all attacking religious posts.
The examples you gave are of members asking staff to police religion in threads. People are allowed to ask for that. That DOESN'T mean they're going to get it.
Why should I. I never claimed they are, or are threatening too. I did however send a u2u to the Mods concerning a reply that has put forward some suggestion on how the creationist conspiracy threads be policed. I have not had a reply.
You have yet to show me where STAFF is trying to censor you.
Using this logic, everyone should then expect religious posts, which is one of the original points of my OP. I am asking for members to respect the right to post religious content, it is not an appeal to believe that content.
They're just members. Do you honestly think you're going to get a group of people this large to not voice their opinions? On a discussion board? Do you think militant atheists are going to respect religion?
Read my OP, and replies. Let 'em post, stop complaining. Get over it. Use the Ignore feature. Don't reply. learn to Understand why people post like this. There are a couple of choices. Can i not argue why we should have these posts while others argue why we shouldn't. You can do that here right
But what do you want to happen? You still haven't told me what you would like to happen.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by atlasastro
So... special pleading.
'This is my favourite dolly and she tells me that volcanoes are really golden sheep who take care of my stamp collection when tornadoes attack. How dare you not respect my beliefs?'
just respect the right to express a belief, what you do with it after that is up to you.
Of course we respect your beliefs.
Well accept it for what it is, how much luck have you had convincing them....or they you!, Are all posts with religious content of this nature. remember, I am merely stating my belief that we cannot restrict a persons ability to post with religious content. I am not advocating what they post. That is up to the Individual to decide. I also thought that in light of the other threads that had similar themes to yours that i would discuss why it is we see people posting in this manner, to open the discussion up on this topic. But hey, thats what you get here at ATS right.
But when someone tries to advance their beliefs in the guise of factual proof, that's another story entirely.
Does respect of ones belief purely rely on the scientific model of proof Astyanax? Do they have to gain respect to the have the right of expression respected. Who sets the bench mark. Basic human respect first. Didn't the old saw alo say..opinions are like.....!
Respect ends, as the old saw has it, where my nose begins.
Originally posted by atlasastro
Why can I not ask others to approach religious posts this way.
Who cares, get over it, move on, let them post what they believe.
I am well within my rights to reply to those threads, hopefully, in a constructive manner.
You don't believe it has any importance so you downplay it to make a point that it has no real significance. When you know that we are not discussing your beliefs, but that of others.
And , please,You can not, in all seriousness, expect me to believe that you cannot see the importance of religion in the world and how significant it is.
You say you live without religion, i could argue you cannot avoid living in its prescence. Govt. policy, media, entertainment, music, art, philosophy, poetry, war. ATS.
You seem to have a real poblem with me doing this WHY?
The belief i have stated over and over is that we just have to let people post.
Let them Post, let the Threads Play out. Get over it. If people don't like replies, bad luck, like you say....."you can't control what they say anymore than then they can, me".
And i started this thread to discuss those threads as i feel they are wrong in suggesting that it should not be allowed.
Is it is ok to suggest that a certain group who use religion should not be allowed to post religiously.
But it is not ok for me to convey my feelings that these types of post are a normal form of expression and a basic right of free speech?
Why do you have a problem with me addressing issues raised by other threads.
I never claimed they are [trying to censor], or are threatening too.
I am asking for members to respect the right to post religious content
Let 'em post, stop complaining. Get over it. Use the Ignore feature. Don't reply. learn to Understand why people post like this.
Can i not argue why we should have these posts while others argue why we shouldn't.
Originally posted by BenevolentHeretic
Astyanax and others are asking for special discrimination where religious content is involved.
Originally posted by atlasastro
How do you know about my Petunia, and she's not a doll, shes a small plastic person with polyester hair... So i would have to say that there is no stamp collection.
You know that by using such an extreme example you are suggesting that the majority of the posts that you are complaining about are of this nature.
Does respect of ones belief purely rely on the scientific model of proof Astyanax?
Do they have to gain respect to the have the right of expression respected.
Basic human respect first.