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.

 

Religion has a place here at ATS, we need to get over it and let people post with religious content

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 


thanks,
Sorry if i have posted to much info, but i thought that it was necessary to show that many ideas can exist on this forum.
From reading other threads i thought it best to support my arguements. But it appears that if you post to much info people are down on you, If you don't provide enough....people are unhappy. I thought the point of this site was to deny Ignorance. To Learn.



SR

posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Everything has a place in the universe just not total dominance in my opinion i think that's the problem, the fear of dominance of one topic over the others promotes the troubles and anger of both sides.

For example;

For some to see their escapism polluted by what they try to escape from in day to day life will cause understandable anger and outrage.

While on the otherside for some to see their beliefs tarnished and trodden is an insult for it's what they believe so of course it will cause anger and outrage.

Moderation is the key.

There is also the dangers of elements within BOTH sides fuelling the fires of this current situation to achieve a 'war' of sorts to achieve dominance and cenorship.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


my experience has taught me to stay away from the religious conspiracy threads forum.
apparently i just can't get it right to stay exactly within the confines of the 7 deadly sins:1pride2envy3gluttony4lust5anger6greed7sloth that break the golden rule and are supposed to be the only topics that can be discussed there------so i was told.
anyway the moderators haven't complained to me since leaving there----yet.

i use "my members ats column" to look for the faith/spirituality&theology threads and the religion in government issues where i do discuss religion with others------and i also have the breaking alternative news forum in there but i do not discuss religion in that----or i try hard not to.

if you ever see me in the religious conspiracy forum again it will be because i made a mistake



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
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.

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
  • posts that pull threads off topic and turn them into believers-vs.-unbelievers shouting matches
I believe it is within the capacity of the staff to implement this without doing violence to the objectives and ethos of Above Top Secret.

And of course, such a moratorium would apply equally to both believers and unbelievers.

I am aware, however, that if such rules were implemented, supporters of creationism may end up having precious little to contribute to the board.

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 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.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

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.

I did not say that you are calling for censorship or banning, you are attacking religious posts. 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. There are now three threads attacking religious posts. Yours is one.


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. Ortherwise it is just a restriction on Creationist or Evolutionist.....and so discriminatory. What about new posters that have not used ATS before.

  • 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.
  • 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.


    And of course, such a moratorium would apply equally to both believers and unbelievers.
    then why not close the forum down.


    I am aware, however, that if such rules were implemented, supporters of creationism may end up having precious little to contribute to the board.
    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.


    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.
    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.


    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.

    Thanks for replying to the thread, you make some great points about the stale nature of some arguments. which is why i wanted to show a different angle on the dynamic of this debate, rather than just attacking one side. I just can't see how complaining or calling for any kind of policing will improve ATS without skewing the debate in favour of one side because tht side is tired by the beliefs of the other.

    [edit on 2-6-2008 by atlasastro]



    posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:27 AM
    link   

    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.


    While I agree that it should be expected (as there are a number of religious members on ATS and talking about religion is something many religious people like to do), AND that posting religious content on a creationism topic would be a reasonable thing to do, I don't agree that religious discussion fits into EVERY topic and should necessarily be accepted without argument and I definitely don't think it needs any encouragement.


    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.



    posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:42 PM
    link   
    reply to post by atlasastro
     



    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.

    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.


    Then we also have to apply it to every other Topic. Conspiracy, UFO-Alien etc.

    And why not? It would result in fewer threads, which would free up server space, and the threads would be of higher quality, making the site more attractive to real fringe theorists. Topics and posts would be easier to find. Best of all, members would be challenged to make more original and meaningful posts, improving the quality of the discussion. All round, I think the idea of issuing some formal guidelines on subject matter would be a good idea. There are forums that do it: the Bad Astronomy & Universe Today Forum, for example.


    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.

    See?


    What about new posters that have not used ATS before.

    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.


    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.

    This site is for denying ignorance. 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.


    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.

    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.


    Have you proved that there is no creator. Have evolutionists shown any new data that says that there is no divine intelligence.

    No, but these are not subjects appropriate for discussion on ATS. It is a conspiracy theory board.

    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.



    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.

    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.

    [edit on 2-6-2008 by Astyanax]



    posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:26 AM
    link   

    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.


    If you read my post i address this point you bring up. 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 would that approach be any different here on ATS. 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.



    posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:19 AM
    link   

    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.
    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.


    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.

    See?

    Well for this to apply to the Creationist/Evolution debate, you would have to totally debunk the Idea of God/Divine creator. Which you and i both know is impossible to do at the moment. We can suggest the ToE points to a more credible explanation than the Bible etc, but the same old arguements will then apply.



    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.
    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.


    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.
    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.
    Can you prove that the Bible and the content that is attributed to God is false. This is the same God that creationist claim created the earth and us in it. Can you see why i think this is biased towards your side of this debate, and how endless it is. Its either shut the whole thing down, or accept this content. There is no inbetween.

    But to be fair i will forward your suggestions to the Mods to see what they have to say. As i believe you make some pretty good suggestions, but then again that is only my personal belief and wether i think it has merit, along with others will not necessarily mean it should apply.



    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 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.


    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.
    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.



    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.


    You are right, i may have read something somewhere else and incorrectly linked it to your thread as i have been following a number of threads, as you do here. Anyway what ever my excuse, i was wrong, Sorry for that.



    posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:21 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by atlasastro
    Religion is far more than an interest, i think to label it as such is ridiculous.


    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. But I respect that not everyone is going to see things my way and I respect that they may not be interested in hearing about dogs as related to every subject. So, I put one in my avatar and talk about them and post pictures in General Chat sometimes. I also belong to a few dog boards, where, when I want to talk about dog behavior and training, I go and let it all out!


    To some of us, religion isn't a "special" topic that should be treated as sacrosanct.



    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.


    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.



    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.


    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? There are threads for and against every subject you might want to imagine here.



    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 did exaggerate, I apologize. And I don't really have a problem. I'm just trying to explain the opposing viewpoint to you. I don't have a problem with people having and practicing their religion. I wholeheartedly support the First Amendment. Meaning simply that, if and when religion is brought into threads where someone deems it off-topic or inappropriate, they have every right to say something about it. This is not a free speech zone, but as far as I'm aware, the staff here allows religion to be discussed. Pro and Con.

    I did read your post, by the way. If you still feel I am misunderstanding something, perhaps you can tell me what exactly it is that you want. This is a real question. What do you want here that is different than it is now?



    posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:03 AM
    link   
    Let me first say that i am greatfull for your replies and for taking the time to politely offer interesting questions on the topic we find ourselves discussing.


    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 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.

    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.
    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.



    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?

    Yes i can. If you read some of the replies on this thread you will find comments from the OP of This thread
    www.abovetopsecret.com...' he suggesting that we police the posts by creationist, as he is tired of hearing the same replies, whichis an understandable comment from someone so obviously passionate and informed on the topic, but never the less a call to censor religious content.
    Here is another....
    www.abovetopsecret.com...'

    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.

    You know i posed the same question to the OP that you have asked of me. Three times i asked to be linked to threads that the OP's claims happens. I got no replies.

    www.abovetopsecret.com...'

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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?

    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
    BTW...that is a lot of interested people. geography.about.com...

    You know, i think where you mis-understand me is as to what i am trying to do. You believe i am trying to peddle religion to those that rely on other systems of belief. I am not. 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.
    I have a deep interest in religion and its many traits, both good and bad. Here is another thread i have started on religion in relation to another popular topic here on ATS.www.abovetopsecret.com...'
    I hope this helps you understand my point.

    [edit on 4-6-2008 by atlasastro]



    posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 03:44 PM
    link   
    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?'

    Of course we respect your beliefs.

    But when someone tries to advance their beliefs in the guise of factual proof, that's another story entirely. Respect ends, as the old saw has it, where my nose begins.



    posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 04:33 PM
    link   

    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?


    Actually my interest in dogs does teach me a lot about my life, who I am, right and wrong and what's important in my life... I don't really want to go into "how", but I will say that the fact that you hold religion so important does not mean that it IS important or should be important (or even understood and accepted) to everyone else.



    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?


    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.




    I think you are deliberately down playing the significance of religion to support your point of view,


    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. I live totally without it. It is NOT significant to me.



    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 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 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.


    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.

    I do not respect religion. But I respect the fact that it's important to some. Some people hate dogs. I do not insist that they respect dogs or the role they play in my life.



    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.


    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.


    If you read some of the replies on this thread you will find comments from the OP of This thread


    Asyntax is NOT staff. He can suggest to staff till he's blue in the face, but that doesn't mean that staff will do anything about it. 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?

    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.

    You have yet to show me where STAFF is trying to censor you.


    That is being treated pretty differently if you ask me.


    They're just members, not staff. 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??? You're going to be treated differently by different people. But I used to be a moderator here and the staff is NOT into censoring anyone who obeys the T&C.



    You believe i am trying to peddle religion to those that rely on other systems of belief.


    No, I don't. I understand that you are not proselytizing.



    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.


    You can hold the opinion that what they are saying is wrong. After all, they hold the same opinion about what you're saying. But what do you want to happen? You still haven't told me what you would like to happen. What do you expect people, regular members, to do when they have strong feelings about something, like bringing religion into a discussion where they don't feel it's relevant?



    posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 12:36 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
     


    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?

    Just for the record, I'm not. I merely suggest, on that thread, tighter policing of thread content - in line with the T&C and staff operating procedures - and that all members be treated the same in this regard.

    By the way, BH, I liked your earlier avatar rather more than the present one.



    posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 08:01 AM
    link   

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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 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.
    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".


    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.
    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.



    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.
    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.


    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.
    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.


    You have yet to show me where STAFF is trying to censor you.
    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.


    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?
    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.


    But what do you want to happen? You still haven't told me what you would like to happen.
    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



    posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 08:55 AM
    link   

    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?'


    How do you know about my Petunia, and she's not a doll, shes a small plastic person with polyester hair, and she has an incredible kowledge of vulcanology, and she has this great joke about vulcanism and how the Enterprise runs out of food....umm anyway. I can't believe she would withhold information that would lead me to a golden sheep and untold wealth. So i would have to say that there is no stamp collection.

    :w: now 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, which is simply no true. And i am not asking for special pleading, are we not all special Astyanax, at ATS and so we can all post.


    Of course we respect your beliefs.
    just respect the right to express a belief, what you do with it after that is up to you.


    But when someone tries to advance their beliefs in the guise of factual proof, that's another story entirely.
    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.
    :w: where is my doll Petunia, she was just here a second ago....?


    Respect ends, as the old saw has it, where my nose begins.
    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.....!

    I liked the old BH avartar too, i had a Shepherd called Indiana(yes ok i called her that as we got her just after i saw Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, stop laughing).



    posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:49 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by atlasastro
    Why can I not ask others to approach religious posts this way.


    You CAN ask. You HAVE asked. They just don't have to comply.


    Who cares, get over it, move on, let them post what they believe.


    Exactly! I think BOTH sides of this issue SHOULD do that, but if they don't, they are perfectly within their right (and so are you).


    I am well within my rights to reply to those threads, hopefully, in a constructive manner.


    No argument. You are within your right to reply, start threads (yes, this thread) and keep replying. I don't see anyone stopping you.


    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.


    I know it is significant to other people. I have not argued that.



    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.


    I see how important it is to people. That doesn't mean it's important to me. To me, it's a fantasy. I don't have any obligation to respect or allow or accept or like or understand people's obsession with it.



    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 live without religion in my life. I also live without drugs, motherhood, a big screen TV and a job. That doesn't mean they don't exist in other people's lives. I observe the effect religion has on people and the importance that people place on it. I would LOVE to avoid it, but without totally extricating myself from society, I cannot. That doesn't mean I have it in my life.

    I pay taxes to support public school, but that doesn't mean that children are important to me. They are not. I don't even like them. I pay for them to be educated. I cannot avoid that. But they are not significant to me. And I know that they mean a lot to others. But I live without them. Same with religion.


    You seem to have a real poblem with me doing this WHY?


    I actually don't have a problem with it at all. I'm just enjoying the debate. And trying to show you a point. And that is, just as people have the right to talk about their religious beliefs as they apply to various subjects AND to reply in those threads in whatever manner they prefer AND just as you have the right to start this thread asking for what you want... the writers of those threads have the right to say what they did about religious content and to start the threads they did. There's NO DIFFERENCE. You BOTH have every right to say what you've said.

    The only reason I'm involved in this thread and not the others is that I saw this one from the beginning. I didn't see the others. I should go over there and defend religious content. If I get some time today, I will.
    I'm behind on my chores just from writing this reply. LOL



    The belief i have stated over and over is that we just have to let people post.


    I agree. And I don't see anyone not letting others post (unless it violates the T&C). They are letting you post. They just have something to say about it. That's different than not letting you 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".


    Exactly! Read your words. Where "them" is the people complaining about religious content (like Asyntax). And "people" is you. Let them Post, let the Threads Play out. Get over it. If people don't like replies, bad luck, like you say....."



    And i started this thread to discuss those threads as i feel they are wrong in suggesting that it should not be allowed.


    They are "wrong"? Should they not be allowed? This goes back to my first post in this thread. Asyntax started a thread saying (basically) that some posts are "wrong" and then you started a thread saying that his thread is wrong. You're both doing the same thing. Voicing your opinion about what should and should not be allowed as content on the site.

    And as far as I can see, neither one of you is getting your way (staff intervention or voluntary self-censoring). Both of you are going to have to buck up and realize that you each have the right to express your opinion here and compose your threads and posts as you see fit and with the content you choose. Unless you can show it violates T&C, you're just going to have to deal with it.




    Is it is ok to suggest that a certain group who use religion should not be allowed to post religiously.


    Yes, it's ok to suggest it. Of course it's ok.



    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?


    That's ok, too! They're both ok.


    Why do you have a problem with me addressing issues raised by other threads.


    I DON'T have a problem with it. My point since the beginning of this thread was to show that you both are within your rights to comment on other threads and posts as you see fit. You seem to be asking for special treatment (i.e. religious content should not be complained about, but accepted and respected) while Asyntax and others are asking for special discrimination where religious content is involved.

    IMO, you're both asking for something that is not provided by the site or staff. There's nothing wrong with asking for what you want, but unless something violates the T&C, there's no reason to censor content either way.



    I never claimed they are [trying to censor], or are threatening too.


    Then I don't see a problem. Just because you don't like what someone is saying doesn't mean you get to make them stop. That goes both ways.


    I am asking for members to respect the right to post religious content


    They HAVE to respect the right. They have no choice. They don't have to respect the content. And they can complain about it all day long.


    Let 'em post, stop complaining. Get over it. Use the Ignore feature. Don't reply. learn to Understand why people post like this.


    Exactly! Read that. You know those people who are complaining about religious content? Here's my advice: Let 'em post, stop complaining. Get over it. Use the Ignore feature. Don't reply. learn to Understand why people post like this. Or not. It's totally up to you.



    Can i not argue why we should have these posts while others argue why we shouldn't.


    Yes, you can! And you're doing a great job. Else I wouldn't be here.


    Asyntax, sorry about the avatar.
    The dogs will be back, but there's political fun to be had.



    posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 10:35 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
     
    i just want to make a quick point, two of the threads are asking for forums to be closed down, or policed. Which they can ask for, and obviously as you point out, i can argue.....but they are calling for content to be stopped......i just had to have a go at offering some balance to this sudden appearance of threads attacking the same type of content. A third is attacking religious posts as thread derailers. i have tried to cover all three threads in this one which may have made my replies a little too general in relation to religion. But i'll learn more and get better at this if i keep coming across the likes of yourself. anyway its really late here i gotta hit the sack....gotta say.....you are one tough cookie, you don't miss much. thanks for all your replies.




    posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:11 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by BenevolentHeretic
    Astyanax and others are asking for special discrimination where religious content is involved.

    Oh no. Absolutely not. In fairness to me, BH, I think you should at least read my original post in that thread if you intend making comments on my position.


    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.

    Excellent response; I tip my hat to it, and to you. But the following is incorrect:


    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.

    In fact, I am simply pointing that if one's religious belief is thought sufficient to substantiate a point one is making, then any claimed belief belief should be equally sufficient. Ask yourself: what would happen to discussion on ATS then? You know the answer: it would descend to the intellectual level of the nursery and the sandbox. 'I know there is a Santa Claus because Petunia told me so! It's true, it's true, it's true.'

    Is that what you want for ATS, atlasastro?


    Does respect of ones belief purely rely on the scientific model of proof Astyanax?

    Thank you for taking the trouble to spell my name correctly. I know it's a bit of a mouthful.

    Do you have another model of proof, atlasastro? The 'scientific' model is only a somewhat formalized version of the kind of proof that is accepted in courtrooms, schoolrooms, bedrooms ('You've been with some hussy again -- there's lipstick on your collar!') and just about everywhere else. It's called proof based on evidence. Of course evidence can be contested -- but there has to be some in the first place. Religious belief is not evidence, so it cannot be used as grounds for proof of anything.

    And now - what is this site about? It's about proving and disproving conspiracies and strange phenomena. So, tell me again - what place does religion have in that?


    Do they have to gain respect to the have the right of expression respected.

    No. But they have only themselves to blame if what is expressed is not respectable, and gets treated with accordingly.


    Basic human respect first.

    Assuredly. But a little reflection will show that 'basic human respect' has nothing to do with this issue.

    [edit on 6-6-2008 by Astyanax]



    posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:59 AM
    link   
    religion may have its place here on ATS, but it has no special protection. it is not immune the lens of critical analysis, it will not be given that special privilege.

    it's here on ATS, and, just like everything else here, it's going to have its skeptics going through it with a fine-toothed comb.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    5
    << 1    3  4 >>

    log in

    join