The Culture within AN

[abeybaby]

I disagree here. This is assuming that the Scripture defines the true religion. Is this entirely true? If this were the case, would there be many denominations of say Christianity and Islam? Do we classify these as the same? Or different? Do we consider Catholicism equivalent to Jehovah's Witnesses?

denominations are results of theological disputes, which means that there are many denominations that i personally, dont agree with. but for me to come out and say, <insert religion here> is wrong, i cannot base that on the actions of its followers, only on its official standing.

[thushan]

Hey ninatron, I think nacho has a fair point here. It's not whether you ban or not, it's that the aggressive arguing makes people fear that they will be banned. It's perception.

[enwiabe]

no, only objective criticism of religion is valid. i cant look at buddhists and say buddhism is peaceful. i cant look at muslims and say islam is violent.
you can only make these judgements by reading the koran/hadith/bible/torah/whatever that religion is meant to be.\

I disagree completely, and the evidence is in my favour. Why do so many people react so differently to religion? It's because of their psychology and innate morality. That is what I'm concerned with.

The scriptures make supernatural claims which are entirely unverifiable. There is nothing much to be learned from them beyond the moral fabric of the time period in which they were written.

Why does one Christian want to shoot up an abortion clinic, and another want to hold a woman's hand as they go through the traumatic process?

So now tell me that the debate is about the objective "truth" of the religion, and not about how individual people react to it...

It is honestly trivial to show that the religious texts are worthless pages of empty babble. What we should all be concerned about is who is taking "stone homosexuals to death" literally, and why they believe it.

[thushan]

I disagree here. This is assuming that the Scripture defines the true religion. Is this entirely true? If this were the case, would there be many denominations of say Christianity and Islam? Do we classify these as the same? Or different? Do we consider Catholicism equivalent to Jehovah's Witnesses?

denominations are results of theological disputes, which means that there are many denominations that i personally, dont agree with. but for me to come out and say, <insert religion here> is wrong, i cannot base that on the actions of its followers, only on its official standing.

Still, it's not purely based on ALL of the Scripture. The official standing will pick and choose different aspects of scripture to follow.

[Soul_Khan]

Hey admins: thread has gone a little off-topic don't you think?

 

[Thu Thu Train]

Hey admins: thread has gone a little off-topic don't you think?

Took the words right out of my mouth.

I guess you could say that taking threads off-topic is
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
part of AN culture

http://mirrors.rit.edu/instantCSI/

[slothpomba]

Honestly, what i'd really like to see are proper debates on AN. For awhile, i've been thinking of getting together a subforum for proper actual debates, ones that dont degrade into slinging shit, useless arguments or insults. I can tell we have a lot of intelligent people here, who want to discuss a lot of important and interesting things but many of the topics that are of fundamental importance to humanity (and of course emotional attachment) seem to get rapidly derailed.

I think it would be great if we had some kind of AN debate/discussion subforum/club thingy with rules and maybe even some structure (can only post once and rebut etc).

Overall though, i think we have a great and encouraging culture. We have plenty of people who volunteer countless hours and time to helping people. Many of them have even more posts than enwiabe and he owns the place! That just tells you how helpful a lot of the more senior members are. I think we can sometimes have an unhealthy fixation on academics or the view that we live to work rather than work to live but besides from that, i reckon we do ok.

It gets pretty nasty in debates though, i wish it wasn't so.

- Contradicting mods/admin in religious debate threads?

[enwiabe]

Hey ninatron, I think nacho has a fair point here. It's not whether you ban or not, it's that the aggressive arguing makes people fear that they will be banned. It's perception.

Don't actions speak louder than words? Has anyone ever been banned for dissenting to a religious opinion I've held? Regarding "aggressive arguing", being an admin does not preclude me from debating. I am wary that my position of "power" over regulary users could lead to an abuse of it, but it hasn't happened yet, and it's never going to.

This is simply imagined hyperbole that certain detractors of mine like to pedal. And yet, they will never be able to point to a single case of it happening ever.

[CaiTheHuman]

Enwiabe, I apologize sincerely about accident-ly writing my post while trying to quote abes22.

I believe an objective judgement can be made without having to refer or delineate a religious scripture.  No religion in it's entirety of it's existence has ever, and I mean ever been peaceful. There will always be disputes over each other theology.

[Felicity Wishes]

Still, it's not purely based on ALL of the Scripture. The official standing will pick and choose different aspects of scripture to follow.

Was about to say this. Often, decisions are made by these in the authority that have stemmed from scripture but are not direct excerpts from it.

[ninwa]

@thushan and nacho, no I do not agree. If you go back to my posts from when I was a new member you'll see I had no problems calling out enwiabe or other mods when they deserved it. I am not going to stop expressing my opinions because some unspecified member (you never provide any proof of this) has an irrational fear of being banned. Spend just a couple of days here and anyone will realise the level of moderation is very laissez-faire. The only person I can think of was that random dude in the teachers strikes thread who threw a hissy fit because his views got challenged. It was a login from the UoM IP and I'm pretty sure he's still around as a member. Most people "delete" their accounts as some sign of protest when they actually make another one straight afterwards.

[thushan]

Hey ninatron, I think nacho has a fair point here. It's not whether you ban or not, it's that the aggressive arguing makes people fear that they will be banned. It's perception.

Don't actions speak louder than words? Has anyone ever been banned for dissenting to a religious opinion I've held? Regarding "aggressive arguing", being an admin does not preclude me from debating. I am wary that my position of "power" over regulary users could lead to an abuse of it, but it hasn't happened yet, and it's never going to.

This is simply imagined hyperbole that certain detractors of mine like to pedal. And yet, they will never be able to point to a single case of it happening ever.

Again, OK you will not ban people who disagree with your opinions. Good. But will all the forumites know that? What I'm saying is that it's a valid fear to have. And it's good to understand it from their point of view.

[EvangelionZeta]

Generally speaking, I think one cause for this forum's perceived cultural faults is the fact that written communication eliminates a lot of emotion, body language, tonal expression, etc.  At some level, the result of this is that statements which are not necessarily designed to incense others are interpreted as such.  Another, perhaps more serious result, however, is that people also don't see people's emotional reactions to what they're saying; without physical interaction, the humanity of the conversation is lost, and people too easily write things without thinking of how people are actually interpreting what they're saying; the significance of others' feelings is lost.  I know this sounds wanky and everything, but hopefully the point I'm trying to make is comprehensible here.

You look like the biggest immature jerks when you do it, and you're the admins of this forums. I could imagine it being pretty scary for new members who want to voice their opinion but are scared of the ban stick.

Hey Mr Hyperbole, name one person that has been banned just because they disagreed with me or enwiabe

Nina, you know I love you and all, but honestly I think this is probably an example of unnecessary name calling within the context of debate (and also an easily misinterpretable message, in relation to tone/intent).  Perhaps try reading the message from a random third person observer's perspective; hopefully you can see that even if you didn't intend it, the statement comes across as perhaps a bit antagonistic and intimidating.  =/

[ninwa]

If someone addresses me in an antagonistic way as nacho did, I'm going to reply in kind.

[eeps]

All I have to add is that in the time I've been on ATARNotes/VCENotes - when an admin/mod has posted in religious debates, there seems to be this perception that the admin's/mod's view is the right one (as reflected by the karma/respect given to that post). I don't think a new member's post should be considered any less than an admin's/mod's post. Everyone has the right to their own opinion - even if others think it's idiotic etc. (perception). People have the right to believe what they want to believe and whatever belief(s) they hold shouldn't be torn apart by others. This post may add nothing to the discussion, but I thought it was worth mentioning.