Since people forget to keep themselves updated with the rules I've decided to spare the moderators the hassle of continually reminding people and put up a nice sticky warning...Religious debates of any sort are not allowed in these forums.

The reasons are available in the now locked threads that contained them for people to find out for themselves. Debates cannot be started about religion (i.e. Why does God say this? Why is there more than one religion? etc.) and religion cannot come into your argument (I believe that abortion is wrong because God says it is. I think homosexual marriages should not be allowed because my religion dictates it's wrong. etc.).

I can see from my recent topics that this has come out of them as a result. I would like to say I am sorry for my lack of attention towards the rules. I hope this is the right place for it. Thanks.

It's not just you, a few people have done it recently. Enough to warrant this post.

Good idea Dark0ne, editing my post and not even having the courage to admit you did it.

You know just as well as I do that this is the exact thread you removed my moderator powers for insisting was necessary. And guess who was right. Yep, by posting it, you concede that I was right the whole time. I know you'll never restore them and admit you were wrong, so I guess I'll have to settle for this thread's existence.

I don't believe Dark0ne is stopping you from talking about religion Indoril, there are thousands of forums out there. It's only on this one such subjects are banned because of bitter experience several times in the past. As the forum is his he can set whatever rules he likes.

That, and it's more of a "We are skirting this topic because it WILL result in flame wars, WILL make tempers flare, WILL make spam, and WILL clot the forum with useless protestations related to religion in its myriad forms". It isn't a "Religion doesn’t exist... Lalalalalalala-I-can't-hear-you-lalalalala..." or a "Religion is worthless and is too stupid to be discussed" or a "Religion never affected anything- why talk about it here?" thread.

Yeah but honestly, I empathize with DarkOne on this because in the end, a topic on religion is a lose lose situation. Neither side will give ground, and it's utterly pointless. But, when arguing things like Evolution, it's impossible to avoid debating it within a religious context, because that is essentially the largest and widely used counter-argument against Evolution and Darwinism. Topics that are centered around "Who's Religion is better" or something of that sort should be banned, but for other topics wherein the lines are blurred, posters should be warned that they need to be mindful not to hijack the thread and turn it into a religious flame war; that has happened many a time IIRC.

But yeah, if you want to argue about the existence of God, I suggest you refrain from it. It'll wind up in a stalemate or a locked thread because of flaming. Or it'll go nowhere.

religon is a touchie subject and maybe it should be left to scollers to discuss in church's and mosques and maybe the odd temple, simple people like us have no right to say whats right are wrong i leave that to bent politicians lol, so darkone when are we gonna ban politics.

yeah and why do religious people get bent out of shape about evolution there is more evidance to substantiate that than the other that were not aloud to talk about,
and did HE put dinosour bones in the ground 65 million years ago just for us to find when the latter says that the earth is only about 12 thousand years old.
i wonder how shocked the holy ones were when they found that a homo sapien was found just of the borders of rushia that was way over our alotted time here,
i do appologise for the vagueness but i dont want to offened people.
Darkone dont think im having a pop at you i like that you have removed religion debates from this forum they are whole hartedly anoying and its true you cant shake a truly faithful persons believe.
So maty if you think me offensive i am sorry

andrus, when it says debates are banned it does NOT give you an excuse to post religious opinions in the guise of agreeing with the ban or whatever. Please stick to the rules - no religious comments.

And theres no need to double post. If you need to add to a post there is an edit button.

sorry i didnt mean to make a religios view i watch my typing from now on.
with minds like these im never gonna put one past lol

i am sure that a big part of this is the many flame wars i had with my good buddy peregrine. we went a lil to far in many of our deates. we even went as far as to put each others threads in our signatures so everyone would see them and embarass each other. i loved those days.

Hm. I think western society is getting way too touchy. You can't discuss this, and that, and that...

As you can understand, that the problems will not solve themselfs, just if you stop discussing them. The tensions will rise, and some day there will be huge problems. Actually - by banning all discussions you just state that there are huge problems.

Sorry for the thread necro D0ne.

In reality, banning the religious discussion thread is for the best because it's preventing flame wars of massive scale. It isn't ignoring the problem as much as it is just refraining from talking about it in order to maintain civility. Vlad, you are right that when we Ban it that we are stating that there are huge problems. In the past any time we would open up a religious debate or something somewhat related, the thread would get hi-jacked by people who were not open minded at all and therefore contributed nothing to the debate save for being a lightning rod. All civil tones and manners would be dropped and the thread would ALWAYS get locked because the debate would descend into petty name calling and go nowhere.

Again, they're not ignoring the problem by banning it. If you had actually read this thread and then looked at the religious debate threads that had been locked and led up to this decision, you would understand. And Western society isn't way too touchy, I'd gladly discuss religion (I'm atheist) with you if it weren't for the knowledge that some fundamentalist (from either side) would come along and ruin it for everyone. This is a done deal, and I highly doubt that it will be recinded in the near OR far future.

So we can't exalt and praise Almsivi's holy name?

Outlander S'wits.

This rule needs to be changed. There's absolutely no reason to ban religious debates and only religious debates. Your justification that they cause flame wars is just silly, this forum has seen flame wars on everything from politics to video game consoles. I've used, almost word for word, the exact same insults in debates on other subjects. And yet none of those subjects have been banned, or even considered for a banning. There's no reason to give religion a special immunity to criticism, if this forum can't handle debates on religion, it can't handle debates on anything.

As counter-proof to your ban, my friends and I often discuss religion and related subjects. Our views cover a pretty broad range, including completely opposed and mutually exclusive beliefs. And yet your feared flame wars just don't happen, we're perfectly capable of arguing about the subject without anyone getting offended. In fact, I've even convinced at least one of them to completely reverse her beliefs from "devout and faithful christian" to "I can't find anything wrong with your atheist beliefs"... without any hurt feelings. And the book that did the convincing? The God Delusion, a book filled with at least as much hostility towards religion as anything I've ever written here (though I will concede, much better written).

Of course I'm taking the optimistic option here. I hope you're mature enough not to put a ban like this in place just because you disagree with my opinions. So why don't you prove it? If it's just purely about the flame wars, either remove the ban, or just delete the whole debates forum.

I believe the main reason is because unlike the console flame wars are rather pointless as few people really identify as a nintendo purist, or such. Religion is part of how people identify themselves, just as you identify as being an athiest, with that comes anger and frustration when someone says something to challenge your own beliefs. You may not fall into this, but most of the world unfortunately does.

Add that to the fact that religious debates are essentially pointless since people will still believe what they want to believe, even when hard evidence is beating them over the head. As some people strongly identify themselves by their religion, when anything somes to question it, it only makes them get defensive. What that ammounts to is essentially two people shouting at opposite sides of a wall without any willingness to listen to the other. Religion isn't something that can be defined through evidence, it is about beliefs. As much as you may feel obligated to change those beliefs, people should be allowed to maintain their beliefs*. Debates about religion in a setting like this (internet aside) just don't solve anything, and only cause people to get upset. You may not care, but I cannot see allowing this to be a good thing. Most people simply aren't informed about their own religion or others for any honest, well meaning discussions to be viable here.

If you want a real discussion on religion, what on God's green earth makes you think a gaming forum is the place to do it? Yeah, can see trying to sidestep it any time evolution, philosophy or ethics comes into play... But seriously, how many people are there floating around here that can talk intelligently and unbiased about those things? Most of the members of this forum aren't even out of highschool, yet you expect them to be able to converse in matters that even college students can't get straight. As much entertainment you may have attacking the beliefs of others, which you can probably prove are wrong, it just wouldn't accomplish anything other than getting people angry.



*beliefs that violate basic human rights aren't covered by this, and people who maintain those beliefs should be either locked away or re-educated. There is no reasoning for this aside from wanting people to try and get along with eachother. If you're happy wih your religion and aren't causing pain to others, or killing those that don't also believe, that is fine with me.

You are right, Vagrant0. Few people on this forum have a clue how to debate any issue and IMO that also includes Peregrine. A proper debate is never one person insulting another. It is the clear presentation of two sides of a case for the purposes of a third party group (an audience) to vote on. Formal debating calls for both sides to present different speakers for and against any motion. Each is given a short time to present their view and may take questions. They may, in some debates, be allowed the opportunity to rebut the points made by their opponents. Any attempts to insult would be dealt with by the Chairperson who has overall control.

You can have discussions among friends on far less formal lines but these are not 'debates' and a gaming forum is not a suitable medium for such discussions. MSN or equivalent perhaps.

Indeed I don't think it is possible to have any real debate in any environment that is not face to face. Too many subtleties and nuances of presentation are missed in the written word.

At the end of the day the best you get are a series of individual opinions. And whilst we may and almost certainly will disagree with some of those opinions (and can say so), we have no right to force people to change their views. There is a famous saying on the lines that 'while I totally disagree with everything you said, I would die to defend your right to say it'. (Something no longer believed in by western society.) It has to apply to belief as well. The fact that it doesn't causes untold grief throughout the world but this forum is not the place to discuss it.

BTW I have been an atheist for years. Peregrine is the only person I have ever met who has managed to make me think that I might be wrong.

The exact same thing can be said of politics. Many people identify themselves by their political party and beliefs. But not only are political debates allowed, insulting people over politics is allowed. Recently there was a thread titled "George Bush - Mock him here!", posted with full admin approval. A thread with no purpose other than insulting Bush, and by extension, the millions of people who respect him. Why should it be any different if I made a thread titled "Jesus - Mock him here!"?




Because not only do I enjoy proving people wrong, but it's just silly that we have to avoid one of the fundamental driving forces in our culture, even when it's directly related to the issue. And the exact same thing is true of politics, why should we expect them to be able to converse in matters that even college students can't get straight?

====================================



I know perfectly well how formal debates work. A formal debate has a moderator that keeps people from using poor logic and simply re-stating the same argument while ignoring any counter-argument. In the case of forum debates, the only choice is self-moderating... my prefered method just happens to be lots of profanity directed at people who refuse to listen when I correct them on factual questions.



Then remove the debate forum. If it's so hopeless, why do we even have a debate forum? There is no difference between a debate on religion and a debate on politics or any other subject. If it's completely hopeless to attempt one, it's completely hopeless to attempt anything more significant than "what kind of pie is best?".



Textbook ad hominem argument. Come on Malchik, I thought you were smarter than that... the fact that I'm arrogant and have no patience for idiots has nothing to do with the fact that I'm also right. Which, by the way, is an entirely justified statement.... it's a fair bet I know more than 99% of this forum about science and philosophy, admins included.

Whether you are right or wrong, you believe you know so much more than anyone else. It makes it impossible to debate with you because you are not prepared to accept you may be wrong. Others must be wrong because, perforce, they are less knowledgeable and less intelligent than you are. This assertion is as illogical as anything anyone else can say on any issue. It predisposes me to doubt your arguments before I have even looked at them. However I am too old and wise to actually fall into that trap.

But on the question of debates I agree. We do not have debates. We have opportunities for people to give their opinions which is the best a forum can do. We could call it a discussion forum instead but that is just semantics. But do you think I really take any notice of what a fourteen year old member of the church of christ homophobe Virginia has to say or a twenty something year old from the church of proselytising atheism come to that? You can work out the answer yourself.

Politics isn't as significant of an identity as Religion for most people. While yes, there is some overlap here, most political beliefs are based in socioeconomic status, not in how people are raised. If you change that status, the identity changes, political interests change, Religion remains the same. Religion is more than idle beliefs to be shaded with others, it is about faith.

Besides the point... Bush is Bush... He's been a joke even before he came into office. People mock him, not because of real political opinion or identity, but because it's so easy and culturally acceptable to do so. Even still, it wasn't posted as a debate, but in the offtopic thread, so people assume that anything said isn't meant seriously. The only reason why the debate was allowed, for as briefly as it did, was because it was moved somewhere else, where the setup and intentions were different. Had the discussion continued in that thread, I'd probably be looking at a strike, and the thread would be quickly closed.

At any rate, religion is just one of those issues like veganism, homosexuality, or race which just aren't appropiate to be discussed in any length here. As said, most people aren't informed enough to contribute, and those who are are often very biased in their views. There is no room for debate, only senseless shouting at eachother, it solves nothing, enlightens no one.

I am prepared to accept that I may be wrong, if evidence is presented. The problem is nobody ever does that (because the evidence doesn't exist), they just act like I'm expected to change my mind if they say it enough times. There's a huge burden of proof here... my beliefs (in general) are backed up by solid evidence, and near-unanimous agreement from the scientific community. And I personally have years of high-level classes in math, physics and engineering, as well as countless hours of reading on other areas of science and philosophy. And just to make it even more solid, I generally have the wisdom to avoid posting anything unless:

1) I am very sure it's factually correct (see above about peer-reviewed scientific theories), and I have the facts/statistics/etc to back it up.

or

2) It's a subjective question of opinion, where my opinion is just as valid as the expert's.

So when I say "I am right", it's just a shorter way of saying that for all relevant purposes I am very unlikely to be wrong. If you want to disagree with me on scientific topics, you'd better have some amazing counter-evidence.



What you personally care about isn't relevant here. If you don't find it entertaining, don't read the forum, but that's not a reason to ban the subject for the rest of us. There is no fundamental difference between debates/discussions/whatever on religion and debates/discussions/whatever on any other subject. Let those who are interested participate, and those who aren't can just skip opening the thread. We have a very neatly organized forum system here, nobody's forcing you to click on thread titles you aren't interested in.



And once again you're wrong. There is a high correlation between religious belief and cultural/socioeconomic status, beyond mere "what I was raised as" (for example, an inverse correlation between strength of religious belief and level of education). And just like politics, religion often changes with changing life experiences (see, for example, the entire concept of the "born-again" christian). Unless you're saying the average person is too hopelessly stupid to form their own opinion as an adult, religion is just as much of a choice as politics.

For many people, they are exactly the same. If you disagree, just look at the near-worshipful way a lot of conservatives talk about 'freedom', or the death-threats and outrage produced by flag burning (an attack on a purely political symbol). Yet these disagreements are entirely acceptable on this forum. If I decided to post a picture of a burning American flag, not only would it be allowed, but many people, admins included, would join in with the usual "lol, bush/us suck!" comments. On the other hand I would be banned instantly if I posted a picture of a burning bible. Why is there a difference? The two images would provoke the same anger from (often) the same people, so why is one ban-worthy and the other not?



Besides the point... Jesus is Jesus. He's been a joke even before he came into the world. People mock him, not because of real political opinion or identity, but because it's so easy and culturally acceptable (ok, well that part doesn't really apply) to do so. And you know, from my perspective, that's a completely true sentence.

Like it or not, just as there are people who are offended by criticism of their religion, there are people who are offended by criticism of their politics and/or respected leaders. In these debates (or discussions or whatever you want to call it), the exact same insults are exchanged.



The rules say religious debates are banned. Veganism, homosexuality and race are completely acceptable by the current rules. Which is kind of my point... religion is only one of many controversial subjects that could be debated. There are only two options, assuming Dark0ne has any interest in an objective and fair set of rules, and not just "shut up Peregrine, you're wrong":

1) Remove the ban on religious debates, and allow it along with every other controversial and potentially troublesome subject.

or

2) Remove the debates forum entirely, and lock any thread discussing anything more serious than "what's your favorite Oblivion NPC?".

There isn't any benefit to either of them; on one hand that opens people to freely make any controversal topic they want, if only to get other people upset, on the otherhand people will naturally have minor debates, and would need a place for it. It really only seems to be you (and maybe a few others) who get so damn serious about these things. Your own beliefs in what is fair don't change the fact that this simply wouldn't help anyone, and only make things harder for the mods. Darkone doesn't need to do either, she can simply allow things to stay as they are, lock this topic as a final decision, and let that be the end of it. It is her forum, she normaly tries to be fair, but there is nothing saying that she has to be. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other places to bring religious discussions, try over there. I personally like the lack of religious rhetoric around here, it makes for fewer disruptions, I would imagine there are others who feel the same (that goes for athiest rhetoric as well).

This is already true. Every single controversial topic you can imagine is acceptable, with the single exception of religion.



People will naturally have religion debates, and would need a place for it.

See how easy this is? It doesn't matter if people want to start debates, the moderators can just close the thread with a "no debates allowed" post. This works just fine in the case of religion, so why not apply it evenly to every other subject that generates the same flame wars?




Dark0ne, what a shameful secret! I knew you Brittish people had that crossdressing thing, but going all the way?

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. People (myself included) get "so damn serious" about politics and other subjects. I've used, almost word for word, the same insults that got religion debates banned in a debate on video game consoles. And yet the world isn't suddenly ending, the moderators aren't overwhelmed with work, and nobody feels the need for a ban on the subject. The only difference un-banning religious debates would make is the exact details of what subject is being argued about at the moment.

And once again, if you don't care about the debates, don't read the thread. Nobody is forcing you to open a debate thread if you aren't interested in it. Just let the rest of us argue in peace.


But you know, I think I'll take advantage of this ban while I can...

Reverend Peregrine, can you not understand that this forum does not permit flaming on any issue? It's in the rules. Are they not clear? Flaming includes insulting others, which you freely admit that not only do you do, but that you enjoy doing. If you had been prepared to present your case without resulting to insults it is highly unlikely any ban would have been imposed in the first place.

You brought the ban into force and however much you wish it hadn't happened and however illogical you think it is, you have to live with it.

So please, just drop the matter.

The fact that it's against the rules doesn't stop it from happening... and you know perfectly well that I'm not the only person who throws around a few insults occasionally. At least I'm honest about it, and don't hide behind some transparent image of "politeness" when I insult people. An d I'm perfectly fair in it, I don't go running to the moderators every time someone says something I don't like (and yes, I've been insulted on this forum, and I'm not horribly traumatized over it).

So please, answer the question... are the current debates happening in this forum acceptable? This is a yes or no question, either they are, or they aren't, there is no middle ground.

If they are, then there is no reason to keep religious debates banned. Even the absolute worst of those old threads was no worse than currently active threads, so even the worst-case scenario isn't all that bad. The only difference might be the use of "fundamentalist moron" and "filthy sinning atheist" instead of "trigger-happy bush fanboy" and "commie traitor".

If they aren't, then lock all of the current debate threads, delete the debates forum, and ban all debates. If the level of conflict that would exist if religion was on the list of valid topics is too much, so is the level of conflict that exists right now. The members of this forum are clearly incapable of meeting your standards of debate, so why do we have a debate forum?


And if you actually read the threads, you'll notice I did present my case without insults. I presented it politely and directly, telling people in full detail why they were wrong. I only start insulting people once they refuse to even read my arguments, and simply repeat the same already-disproven "argument" again and again until the thread is finally locked. I have no problem with different beliefs and viewpoints, and I will gladly argue them without a single insult. But I have no patience for stubborn ignorance, endless fallacies, and general refusal to follow any standard of rational discussion.

If flaming occurs and is noticed or reported on any forum it gets removed and the offenders earn strikes or bans. (You were a moderator once, you know how it works.) It is not specific to the debates section. The decision to ban debates on religion was taken by Dark0ne, whose forum it is, but supported by the moderators including myself, after some exceptionally virulent insults from you to other forum members.

You say it is illogical to ban religion but nothing else.

I hear you. The situation will not change.

If we suddenly started getting a rash of racist, sexist, genderist, ageist etc. etc. posts then we might go beyond simple deletion or banning individuals to banning those topics too. Fortunately so far these have been the exception rather than the rule.

And you are being honest in saying you admit to insulting others. I am being equally honest when I say it is against the rules and will not be accepted.

If it is illogical, then change the situation. Illogical behavior should not be accepted, join in on my side and tell Dark0ne to fix his forum.

And those insults were not exceptionally virulent, in fact they wouldn't even earn a PG-13 rating in a movie. If anything, I was too nice to those people. A poster who fraudulently creates quotes is a liar. This is a dictionary definition, not an insult. A poster who admits to willingness to torture and murder in the name of his god (or ANY ideology... I'm looking at you, Bush fans) is a sociopath. This is a dictionary definition, not an insult. A poster who consistently makes flawed scientific arguments is ignorant. This is a dictionary definition (and one that applies to anyone, in various areas, I am no exception... I admit that I am ignorant about many things), not an insult.

All of these statements are both objectively true, and directed at behavior that should not be acceptable, and especially shouldn't be treated with approval. If this was a properly moderated forum, all of those posters would have had their posts edited or removed long before I got to insult them. But since I was participating in the debate, it would have been a massive abuse of my powers if I had done it myself. The next best thing, acting as an ordinary member, is to call them on their unacceptable behavior, not to pretend that their dishonest tactics are actually acceptable.



And by the way, I'm glad you consider my insulting people the equivalent of racism, sexism, genderism, etc. I'm impressed by that level of hypocrisy, warning against insults while making a massive one of your own.

I have stated the position clearly. The fact that you find it illogical and you think illogicality is wrong I hear.

The situation will not change.

Blah blah blah blah blah, Peregrine ... how tiring.

The simple fact is; religious debates are banned because I had enough complaints about you, and others, on the subject for it to warrant a vote of "we really can't be bothered to handle all this crap, let's scrap it" from myself and the moderators. Throw your logic out the window: welcome to the forums where (hello? We've been here before) what I say goes. If I say discussion on monkeys is prohibited, it is so.

I really, really don't need to explain myself to you, or anybody here. If people didn't/don't like it, they wouldn't/won't post on the forums.

We've done this sooooo many times before. Lets hope this is the last.

Thanks for the clarification.

.... could you clarify what is debatable?

Depends what you mean by debatable. For instance, a debate on evolution might not be against the rules, but the odds are good that some people will start arguing it from a religious standpoint, which is likely to result in a lock.

So I'd probably guess that debates regarding the "e"-word are out of the question, as there always the possibility of WWIII happening...

Evolution is not a topic that is automatically locked. If you present your debate on evolution in a way that creationism arguments can be brought against it, then you are asking for a lock. If you are debating something specific about Evolution that doesn't invite religious replies, then you are much more safe from the topic getting locked.

Bad Topic: Should Evolution be the only topic taught in school

Better Topic: Evolution and Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life (Fermi's paradox)

Keep in mind that Evolution is a "hot topic" and closely related to creationism. If you have any doubt, then google "Evolution Debate" and see check the ratio of links including creationism to links that mention nothing about creationism in the debate.

LHammonds

Excellent topics of choice for evolution would be:

Given “x” environment and “y” and “z” species, which is more likely to evolve into a more robust organism and survive.

This is asking for a clear-cut opinion given a few variables and perhaps your own personal knowledge. So you see, evolution isn’t banned, but when it becomes a poo-flinging contest between two babbling monkeys, then yes it will be banned.

Hmm i find this sad.

I always believed that the expression of free ideas was important for the civilization of mankind. When we stop talking, we start fighting. Just because we attack an idea, doesn't mean we attack a person. Ideas should be shaken and picked apart. What if we never challenged slavery and women rights?

See, the thing is that in such areas as religion and politics (mostly the former), people are very adamant and strike out at anyone who disagrees. A religious debate may start out just fine, but will eventually degrade into a flame war, and flame wars are not good.

Then whoever is the flamer, looks bad might learn how to react next time. Live and learn. Not that its fixable. Have to respect the mod/site pwner!

no..doesn't work that way. the flamer never learns what he is doing is bad. They are too ignorant to know what they are doing is wrong and narrow sighted. All the flamer does is get everyone upset and they start flaming as well.
It never ends well, and people get banned.

Unfortunately, there are many with poor social skills who always think they are right and have to jam their opinions down others throats.

Sooo..to keep from banning a lot of people..the rule is made to protect those with poor social skills from their own stupidity.

There are MANY other sites on the net that you can go debate such issues.

Well people don't like to admit there wrong, and most likely if they do change their mind, i believe they do that later when they are by themselves and reflect. People have the capacity to learn.

I don't see a reason to ban often. I can see a reason to close a thread once too many are playing in the sandbox.

The reasoning is simple; religious topics are often deeply personal and linked to one's hopes, dreams, beliefs and lifestyle. People don't appreciate having these things debated when the conclusion is simply a stand off of ideas that can NEVER be proven one way or the other. If science proves a theory, religion quickly jumps onto the notion of it being their God's doing, or simply wrong, etc.. It's a debate that just cannot be won because neither side is willing to compromise.

Over the years religious debates have not worked. They go down the same path of people disagreeing and then things disolving into petty flame wars. Once one person throws a name, everyone jumps on board.

I think people are capable of changing their minds. Ideas are contagious, and good ones have the capacity to spread. But i suppose people really change their mind on such topics when they are forced to in that dark place, frustrated and want free.

Thats how the Greeks discovered philosophy, and how after the dark ages, the enlightenment came. Such change comes from struggle much of the time. Although I don't see the harm in online religous debates, nobodies going to bring a knife.

I should drop it. I will respect your wishes.

Love peace chicken grease.

Welcome or not here is my 2 cents. To truly understand what the Dark0ne has said, WITHTEEH, you must first deceifer the difference between your own ideas and beliefs. Religion is a belief structure and often instilled from birth. An idea is saying here is what i think now you tell me what you think and simply absorbing that. And that is what makes believing in the non-existence of god and trying to spread that word, a religion in and of itself. Your supposed idea that people should be more open minded to change in their belief structures is in fact itself a belief. Without knowing anything more about you than what i read in this thread i can say with 90% certainty that that is what you believe and are intent on spreading your beliefs. Philosophy is the exchange of ideas without the pressure on the opposing side to change what they believe. A true philosopher will do nothing more than state his own ideas and listen to others without debate. The moment you follow a person's comment on what they believe with a counter point you have entered a debate and are no longer sharing ideas, but are essentially actively trying to change that persons view on their beliefs.

As your are doing now by trying to get Robin to change how he believes his site should be run. My suggestion to you is that you do some research in all concerned areas and from all points of view to better understand the implications of spreading religious propaganda. You will find that most horrifically it has lead to nothing but war and death. So by all means share your idea's with others, but when it comes to someones beliefs, keep yours to a single statement of what you believe and then you will be sharing without immposing.

Wise words, but the defining characteristic of philosophers is debate. They, of course, weren't pressuring anyone to change their beliefs, but they did debate. It takes a special skill, a skill almost no one possesses anymore, to debate without trying to convert.

Well worm.
I disagree with your position, especially as a lover of wisdom on your viewpoint on philosophy. As I said before. Ill leave this argument alone for the second time.

Love peace chicken grease!

That isn't so true of myself - in fact, I could care less if you believed your arse was your mouth and your mouth just a hole to regurgitate food . But that's not the point. The fact of the matter is one needs to understand both sides of the debate in order to make a responsible, informed argument. I'll admit that I at times fail to follow this advice, but I try to place an understanding between myself and my opponent(s). If they are not being reasonable, I try to (somewhat) make them see how their arguments are not exactly "the truth".

I admit I'm a Catholic (or at least try to set a good example for others to follow if they so choose), but I prefer to leave my beliefs out a debate (especially if those involved are non-believers). As Dark pointed out, people do tend to hold firmly to their beliefs and moral systems, and won't be easily moved if someone who doesn't exactly share is those beliefs tells them otherwise. And we wouldn't want to have a massive religious flame war happening here, as that would seek to create a community divided.

There is a (very) big difference between "what is" and "what one chooses to see/believe/hear/etc".

We want no flame wars on any matter!

There are basically two kinds of valuable debate. The first is private and involves only you. You learn as much as you need to learn about any subject and then decide on your standpoint (if you feel the need to have one). There is absolutely no requirement to understand either side (indeed few people usually bother). It can go 'my mother and father vote republican, they are good people and I trust them, I don't need to hear anything more'. Or it can be 'I have studied the actions of democrats and republicans in power over the last 50 years and found that it makes no damned difference who you vote for so I shall not vote'. Or it can be 'I have examined the views of the various contestants and have decided, notwithstanding my parents' opinions, to vote democrat'. You can expand and mix and match as you choose but you get the idea. How you arrive at your decisions is entirely your affair and should never be divulged. Other people may try to challenge your views and accuse you of being illogical or irrational. So what? Humans are illogical and irrational why should you be different? No one has the right to tell you how you should think, what you should hear and the method by which you should arrive at your views. You can never win an argument with people who believe they have the right to tell you how to think so don't even enter into one. There is also no need to justify or explain your opinions (unless perhaps there is some legal issue involved).


The second valuable form of debate is where your views are challenged at one remove. You hear others talking, you read articles or books, you see a film etc. etc. You learn things you did not know and this may (and equally as conceivably may not) make you reassess your earlier decision. This is where a debate thread can be useful. Provided those who are doing the debating are pretty expert in their field the 'audience' can learn a lot. Such debates can become aggressive but usually this revolves around the 'interpretation', 'accuracy' or 'completeness' of facts presented. In theory a religious debate could be conducted on those lines. E.g. The Bible says it is wrong to dance, with a discussion on which parts of the bible are relevant to that topic, what they say and how they can be interpreted. However religious debates are rarely about facts. They fall into the category of one person trying to tell others how to think. With freedom of speech they are fully entitled to do so but their own agendas make it impossible for them to hold any meaningful debate. Since the only response must be increasingly heated shouting it is better to prevent them starting off in the first place.

There are many places on the net where you can debate and even rant about religion. This forum is not one of them. That is the rule. On this matter there is no debate.

Is that clear.

Well, I'm glad to hear that... I get enough of the religious debates with the religious side of my family at Christmas time and New Year.

I'm so glad I took mainly from my dads side