19 Jul 04
Originally posted by fjord"bot items"? Not sure what that means...
I don't see good reasons to remove religious flavored debates from here or to make a segregation between politics and religion. Bot items are governed by questions around morality, ethics, the use of logic, the balance between thinking and feeling.
Some months ago politics was much more prominent. (They got often dulled by the pro and anti American sentime ...[text shortened]... opaganda for religious or political systems and ideologies. I don't think it will.
fjord
I dont see our viewpoints as being in disagreement here. Though I defer to your clear lead in terms of RHP experience.
All I'm saying is if there is enough of a problem with a particular type of topic (religion), seperate forums are the only reasonable answer and that you will very probably lose religious debate entirely.
Religious debate, by it's very nature, requires someone who avidly does not believe...most political and philosophical topics can still be argued even when people are in "general" agreement, heatedly so in some cases. When there is agreement between two religous types, 99% of the time they will be so despicably nice to each other, even while irrevocably disagreeing with each other over some minor point of some obscure parable in the bible.
What is my point? That's what I imagine most you would ask at this point...
Well if the religous types are stirring up too much trouble, the rest of us do have the ability, the means and the right to request seperate forums (I have no idea if that request would ever be heard...).
Since that would kill religous debate entirely I would strongly urge anyone desiring to debate religion to avoid evangelism, forum flooding and anti-anti-christian battering (even if they did start it first).
Doing those things stirs the "opposition" too much and you NEED them for religous debate to happen.
MÅ¥HÅRM
19 Jul 04
1 edit
Originally posted by MayharmMayharm: " .... Well if the religous types are stirring up too much trouble, ... "
"bot items"? Not sure what that means...
I dont see our viewpoints as being in disagreement here. Though I defer to your clear lead in terms of RHP experience.
All I'm saying is [b]if there is enough of a problem with a ...[text shortened]... ] much and you NEED them for religous debate to happen.
MÅ¥HÅRM[/b]
Have you been following the recent developments on the <Debates> forum regarding the "Stand-up Comedians" problem and the "Wolf Pack" problem ?
... If you have, I ask myself why you are assuming the "religious types are stirring up too much trouble" ?
19 Jul 04
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI have for the most part been avoiding religous threads. Occasionally I will delve in... and then flee in horror. Occasionally there appears to be stuff worth my time and maybe even a jovian perspective. So I have no idea which side I would consider primarily "responsible" for any friction going on.
Mayharm: " .... Well if the religous types are stirring up too much trouble, ... "
Have you been following the recent developments on the <Debates> forum regarding the "Stand-up Comedians" problem and the "Wolf Pack" problem ?
...[text shortened]... ng the "religious types are stirring up too much trouble" ?
HOWEVER, I absolutely beyond a shadow of doubt dont need to know this information for my advise to be valid. I assume nothing, I know everything I need to know to write that advise.
I have watched the wolves and comedian threads with a fair amount of amusement 🙂 however they tell me no more than that there is friction between the two groups.
They dont tell me who "started it first". But even if they did "He started it first!" is the defense of a child and I will simply pour scorn on anyone who says it's NOT the religous types who are causing friction...
Even if I knew who started it first my advise would not change.
DONT OSTRACISE THE ONLY GROUP WHO WILL CHALLENGE YOU IF YOU WISH TO HAVE A RELIGOUS DEBATE.
Can I make it any clearer?
MÅ¥HÅRM
19 Jul 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeI think you have, yet again, completely misunderstood me.
By the way Mayharm, many of our threads are about ethics in general and bio-ethics in particular. It is impossible to discuss these issues and banning the overall perspective of these issues, religious and secular philosophy, to another forum.
I'm all for keeping the debates forum a plain, singular entity centred around having "debates".
Unfortunately, this will not remain the case if it causes too much friction between wildly different groups. The best way to prevent this is to stop the causes of the friction.
I've given some sample causes, but frankly, I havan't spent enough time in this forum to determine what's causing the friction or even how serious the problem is.
MÅ¥HÅRM