It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Issue Of Religiously Inspired Topics on ATS and BTS

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:51 PM
As many off you know, I'm one of the newer mods, so my perspective has remained more one of a member than anything else, and I intend to keep it that way. So while I'm seeing the problems and disputes from the position of a moderator, I want you to understand that I'm speaking as one member to another.

Everyone thinks their own "problems" here are all staff have to worry about. Because you sit alone at that keyboard and interact with only a limited set of other posters, it seems like any problem you see should be obvious.

But we had between 5000 and 6000 posts in 24 hours. Figure that math out. I'm not sure how many mods are here at any given time. But trust me, sometimes staff is busier than a one legged man in the middle of a square dance.

We tryhard to give each decision our full attention. To discuss it and reach the right action, or non action, that we can. You may not agree with what the results are, but these actions are taken to keep things moving as smoothly as possible.

The perception of gangs can form in every forum, not just the CiR or SS forums. When a poster comes in and makes some hardcore definative statement and eleven more agree, like nodding bobble heads, and the statement gets 22 stars in a half an hour, people tend to see gangs.

When the positions, and even the speech patterns and idioms, reflect more in common than is thought normal for individuals from diverse areas and backgrounds Then people see gangs.

Now what we percieve may not always be true. But mods are people too. They see it much like it appears to the average person.

There's a cure for this though. If you agree with someone else, fine. But you don't have to say so unless you have another point of reasoning to bring up. It looks like piling on when seven people point out that the video of a UFO seems to have bird wings.

Don't use stars just to say "You Rock". To me these are for posts of exceptional quality and depth, showing good reasoning or research. I don't cheapen them, or myself, by handing them out like party favors. And look for a post every day from someone you don't agree with that's worth a star. (You'll be surprised.)

But most of all, moderate yourselves. The less we have to do, the better you'll like us. Half of our tasks are to keep people On Topic, and not on each other. And another fourth is to make people stop/slow down when posting in anger. If there was a 30 second delay, where you had to hold down a button to post, I think a lot of the anger here would abate. Don't force us into the role of keepers; be keepers of yourself.

Why do I say all these things as if I knew them to be true? I've been as guilty as any of you. I'm speaking from experience. We can all learn by experience, or we can remain as we are, basking in a false sense of perfection.

But in the words of Dr. Phil, "Hows that working for you?"

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:53 PM
I would just like to make a very clear distinction. there have been anti-religion threads, and there have been anti-atheism threads. Anyone care to reflect on what this means?

It doesn't mean Believers are bad people,nor does it mean Atheists are bad people. These threads reflect on an individuals frustrations with an opposing viewpoint. I'm pretty sure none of these inflammatory thread starters went around to like-minded people and took a poll to see if they agreed with what they were going to post.

These threads are simply a mainfestation of a individual person opinion. It in no way reflects what the Atheist/Believer community believes. The poster may like to think so, but it's pretty much impossible to make a statement and have every single person agree with it.

Take offense if you like, argue til your face turns blue, but don't you dare assume that everyone who has a similar belief system is in league with these people.

There is no conspiracy against anyone on ATS.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:03 PM
reply to post by AshleyD

This is specific to Ashley's post of 11 June, 2008 at 1605 EDT.

I like Ash, very good writer, even when I never agree. I am pained to hear that there was a posting ban imposed.

The 'tag-teaming' concept is something that I've seen others accuse me of....falsely, I might add....

I've been called a troll, simply because I have a wide range of interests, and dare to have an opinion and post it.

So, I have decided to take a new approach.....more reading, less talking.

To Ash, welcome back! As I said, you write very very well, and are extremely knowledgeable on your subject.

I look forward to reading your treatises.....

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:06 PM
reply to post by NGC2736

The perception of gangs can form in every forum, not just the CiR or SS forums. When a poster comes in and makes some hardcore definative statement and eleven more agree, like nodding bobble heads, and the statement gets 22 stars in a half an hour, people tend to see gangs.

And if we allow such logic Liberals would have to be considered a giant gang stalking group eh?

Just look at any anti American, anti Bush, anti Conservative, anti "neocon" thread. Stars out the wazoo and 100 replies saying "I agree! Bush sucks!"

Which is why I limit my self to the SS forum and economics. I wouldn't alert a thread and start a new thread complaining about it.

IMO the entire notion of "groups" is absurd, and completely unavoidable. And ATS shouldn't pander the idea that "groups" need to be "separated"..

It's like rewarding childish behavior and discouraging debate.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:06 PM
What about discussion of the occult? It seems to be sort of caught between religion and metaphysics. I say "religion" becasue many occultists believe in the existence of and ability to contact spiritual beings (non-human & non-ET). And metaphysics because the occult deals with meditation, astral projection, all of the different types of "clair-" and things of that nature.

[edit on 6/11/2008 by madhatter3113]

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:07 PM
reply to post by madhatter3113

Look at the "Paranormal" Forum, you´ll see thousands of threads on it.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:12 PM
Thankyou ATS for the forum, and thankyou to skyfloating for the thread suggesting it. Well done guys and gals, now, time to pull out those old philosophy books and do some refresher courses...

Indeed excellent!

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Well, don't I feel like an ignorant little shcool boy?

I suppose, seeing as I tend to disagree with Conspiracy Theories, and, according to your, most astute logic.. I am "second rate" I might as well be packing my things and heading to a "discussion board" and not a "conspiracy board".

Would you say, sir, that my conclusions are accurate based upon the reasoning you provide?

Either way, such thought processes are not something I wish to be around, as cavscout said, ATS is pushing older members out the door.

Well, I certainly dont think you´re second rate. I´d say you are a premium-gold-star-super-established-mega-ATS-member.

And you´re not too old either. In your recent debate in the Debate Forum you said you were in your early twenties.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by Skyfloating]

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:21 PM
Well, it sounds like a lot of egg shells and broken glass to deal with, but, good luck anyway.

Currently, you have anonymous posts that are subject to admission.

It would be nice to finally see a reduced and clinical thread without having to read what appears to be more of chatter in a chatroom by cliques. Not that I'm a hero.

You currently have post topics asking questions for upcoming guests etc. In this way, a thread could be reduced and less likely bans by selected questions.

I would like to see a topic on substance abuse or self medication in relation to psychology. This probably means food also. One of my medications had a side affect of cravings.

This also refers to pharmaceuticals and our dependancy on them rather than natural remedies such as diet, rather than exploitation.

Some sites will have a spirituality section that religious people thinks is their domain or right by their own interpretation.

I would be much more impressed if your guests were actually from another world and wanted to share their knowledge. That would be WAY above top secret.

I guess ATS is already a form of group therapy.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:23 PM
Super ideal Overlord. I'd give you 10000 points but of course I can't do that.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:26 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

21, indeed.

This is off topic, but hey in the spirit of problems with ATS ... let's go off topic.

I meant to hit "profile" and I accidentally hit "foe" ...

How do you unfoe someone?

Unless you like being my foe?

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:29 PM
No issues here, considering every topic I ever made or make in the CIR forum has to do with a specific conspiracy concerning a specific religion. To explain, examples would be a thread about the islamic mahdi actually being the anti-christ, or that the vatican is going to clone jesus from dna, or .. that something in the scriptures is pointing towards a mystery.

When I want to make a thread about God, or make a thread about Christianity, or make a thread to debate religion, I've always made those in the Faith n Spirituality BTS forum anyways.

I have to admit, as a believer, I am in the minority on this website. We are tolerated, but not liked, and people keep their tongue in cheek. For example, if you asked SkepticOverlord his personal opinion on your average Christian, he probably wouldnt have the greatest things to say. Yet, he's not going to go out of his way to disrespect Christians on that basis, he just wouldnt speak on it at all. But the members who dislike Christians, Christianity and all of it, they are vicious .. I mean they really go after any kind of religious thread, even if by doing so they are derailing it into a different discussion.

So, overall, im glad the Atheists and the haters feel like they have a perceived victory here, maybe they'll finally leave us be so we can discuss topics without all the added negativity, accusations, arguments etc.

[edit on 6/11/2008 by runetang]

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:31 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

I thought you hit "respected Foe" because I wasnt responding. dont have to un-foe it...its respected foe afterall.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:34 PM
Thank you. This has been a long time coming in my personal opinion. It's a shame that any of this needs to be clarified at all. There are still problems, but the fact is I am very happy to see steps being taken in curtailing some of the hateful messages being posted to ATS forums. I personally think this sort of thing hurts the quality of information on ATS. As it does any other forum dedicated to fact finding and research.

Again thank you for your efforts on this matter. You guys probably don't get many thank you's for moderating, but these last couple of months should be a reminder to everyone why you guys are here...

...To deny Ignorance.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:47 PM
Yeah, I'm becoming more and more wary of the blockades that ATS is erecting to discourage those terrible religious posters. From what I've seen since I signed onto ATS in early 2007, it's the atheists who are the most rabidly hostile.

As long as we're cleaning out the extended theist tirades, could we likewise prohibit atheists from discussing religion and expressing their hatred of all things religious? I mean, since atheists profess no belief nor interest in religion, why should they be allowed to mockingly quote scriptures and ridicule theists?

Oh, I forgot. Without theism, atheists don't have a philosophy at all, do they? Which makes them second-class theists.

Come on, people, open up your minds.

[edit on 6/11/2008 by Doc Velocity]

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:51 PM
Two practical questions:

#1.When will these forums be launched?

#2. How will they be grouped on the "Board" link? (Will these be under "Mysterious Subjects", or where precisely?)

Thanks again.

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:55 PM
I'll be interested to see what these new fora develop into.

But I have to add that I think the real problem is not how threads are divided, but how members conduct themselves, regardless of the specific content of their belief-systems.

I see the mgt. trying to set precedents and guidlines to limit the amount of trash-talking and ill-will. This is like a government, trying to build up a legalistic body of "case law" and "precedent" for explaining their decisions.

Personally, I'm in favor of another tack: make some threads "by invitation only." Leave them open for everyone to read, but not postable unless you've been cleared.

At first, I know that this sounds horrible--limiting what some people post. But I think most members will agree that we have a number of folks who join ATS and last about six months. In that time, they derail countless threads, generate lots of drama, and generally dumb down the whole site. They REFUSE to search for pre-existing threads on any given topic, and jump right in without even responding to previous posts.

While I have definite opinions on most topics, I'm less bothered by opposing views than I am by folks who don't respond to other posters and generally "dumb down" discussions.

Until ATS addresses this, the "short-term members," there will continue to a sort of collective senility at ATS: the same threads, the same debates, the same dramas, over and over.

Unless membership means more than "I wanna post in your thread," the conversation will never rise above the level of an elevator or a dentist's office---the same old routine, over and over with no progress or collective memory.


posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:57 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

I had posted and there was nothing, an act of the MOD's or an act of the predjiduces that permiate our forums?
All you that think that you have something to say for the religious community, "Go to freaking church!!!" not here, I don't care for your convictions of a higher power, go on and disappear!
If you have something that is a convencing and logical "Conspiracy" com'on 'back and tell us.

[edit on 063030p://2174 by Allred5923]

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:58 PM
where is there a ''real freemason'' website at?

i got some questions i would like to ask?

and no not a 32 degree one either im looking for 33o

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:08 PM
reply to post by meanmug

There should be a seperate forum for this kind of argument, where it would be acceptable, but religion is a choice and it should not and really cannot be infringed on!!
Open a thread, "A question about Freemason's" other than questioning here on this thread!!

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in