Freethought & Rationalism Archive

seebs · 06-19-2003, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz

What we have here is a thread that is about the GENERAL rule of allowing theists as a GENERAL group to be moderators.

And any such discussion, to be useful, must realistically look at the many different types of theists.

When IIDB says "we allow atheists to be mods", it does not mean "any atheist may be a mod". It means "atheism is not a bar to being a mod".

To argue that theism should be a bar to being a mod requires that you look only at characteristics totally universal among theists. To look at generalizations, even *fairly* good ones, misses the point.

pz · 06-19-2003, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
Rather than existing simply as a "mouthpiece" or a forum for the defense and support of the II mission, it has become more of a a freethought forum, where any and all issues related to freethought or the intersection of freethought and society are discussed and shared.

Not so much a vehicle for advocacy, but a community.

Now, with that said, if our purpose is defined as a community for the discussion of freethought and related issues, I see no reason whatsoever why theists should be automatically disqualified as moderators.

I agree that it is a community with much more complex properties than you may have initially envisioned. Obviously, I disagree with you on the lack of reasons to disqualify theists.

The board may have other functions than simple advocacy, but advocacy must remain one of the most important functions. Anything else, and you'll lose the heart of the place, and iidb will become just another boring chat board, one among thousands. If we don't even have nominal commitment to freethought and secularism, why should the board support this drain on their resources?

seebs · 06-19-2003, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz

The board may have other functions than simple advocacy, but advocacy must remain one of the most important functions. Anything else, and you'll lose the heart of the place, and iidb will become just another boring chat board, one among thousands.

Can you identify another "freethought" chat board?

It seems to me that a fairly large portion of the user community here is much more interested in discussion than in advocacy.

Quote:

If we don't even have nominal commitment to freethought and secularism, why should the board support this drain on their resources?

Commitment to freethought is not necessarily best served by aggressive proselytizing.

It seems to me that most groups benefit hugely from the inclusion of a few wild cards and outsiders. I think most Christian BBS's suffer from the lack of atheist staff, and I think IIDB suffers from the lack of religious staff.

That, of course, ties directly into my belief that peaceful coexistance is the best outcome for *everybody*.

pz · 06-19-2003, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seebs
Commitment to freethought is not necessarily best served by aggressive proselytizing.

Where did that come from? I'm not interested in proselytizing, either. If I were, I'd be frequenting boards full of theists.

Quote:

It seems to me that most groups benefit hugely from the inclusion of a few wild cards and outsiders. I think most Christian BBS's suffer from the lack of atheist staff, and I think IIDB suffers from the lack of religious staff.

While I think iidb benefits from the lack. Having "religious staff" would be a betrayal of principle, and gives that "religious" adjective far more respect than it deserves.

Do you have some specific complaint about how iidb operates that you think would be corrected by theist moderators?

Quote:

That, of course, ties directly into my belief that peaceful coexistance is the best outcome for *everybody*.

Again, where did that come from? Is there anyone here who would argue against peaceful coexistence?

seebs · 06-19-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz
While I think iidb benefits from the lack. Having "religious staff" would be a betrayal of principle, and gives that "religious" adjective far more respect than it deserves.

It seems to me that the weight on "religious" comes only from people opposed to including such people.

As I said before, this board has many different types of people on it, and serves many different functions. For many of the readers, friendly coexistance is one of the big bright spots.

Quote:

Do you have some specific complaint about how iidb operates that you think would be corrected by theist moderators?Again, where did that come from? Is there anyone here who would argue against peaceful coexistence?

There are indeed people who have argued against peaceful coexistance, at least in the long run. I've seen people in this very thread arguing that the "goal" should be the complete eradication of one of the groups that is trying to coexist.

brighid · 06-19-2003, 10:50 AM

Bill Snedden,

I want to start off by saying THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your reasoned discourse. I must say that I agree with everything you said and I humbly submit that you have done a much better job at explaining what I feel then I have. Maybe it's time brush up on some of my writing skills!

Brighid

Daleth · 06-19-2003, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid
I want to start off by saying THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your reasoned discourse. I must say that I agree with everything you said and I humbly submit that you have done a much better job at explaining what I feel then I have. Maybe it's time brush up on some of my writing skills!

Seconded. Very interesting points made and questions posed.

brighid · 06-19-2003, 11:11 AM

Quote:

But a very real question, as yet unanswered, is whether or not the mission or purpose of the IIDB is identical to that of the II. It seems to me that the IIDB has in fact taken on a life of its own.

I think this is an important question to answer.

Brighid

pz · 06-19-2003, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seebs
There are indeed people who have argued against peaceful coexistance, at least in the long run. I've seen people in this very thread arguing that the "goal" should be the complete eradication of one of the groups that is trying to coexist.

How odd. I've completely missed that. Let me go on record as saying I'm also completely against anyone who proposes the eradication of any group of people, especially if it is by non-peaceful means.

Toto · 06-19-2003, 12:02 PM

Bill Snedden has posed the question very well. But I disagree with his conclusions.

The boards may have taken on a life of their own, but they are still using resources provided by the Internet Infidels, based on money collected for a 501c3 educational institution, given by people who support the goals of that institution, which is advocacy of non-belief. The mission of the boards is still the mission of the II.

I still think that a theist could not in good conscience support the goals of the secular web and still be a theist in any meaningful sense - so I think that a rule against theist mods is in one sense redundant, but also saves a lot of time considering mods who can never work out.

And I guess I would appreciate it if anyone could point to a particular theistic contribution to the boards that indicates mod material. Most of my experience with theists has been with Layman and Nomad.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-19-2003, 10:50 AM	#166
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Bill Snedden, I want to start off by saying THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your reasoned discourse. I must say that I agree with everything you said and I humbly submit that you have done a much better job at explaining what I feel then I have. Maybe it's time brush up on some of my writing skills! Brighid

06-19-2003, 12:02 PM	#170
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Bill Snedden has posed the question very well. But I disagree with his conclusions. The boards may have taken on a life of their own, but they are still using resources provided by the Internet Infidels, based on money collected for a 501c3 educational institution, given by people who support the goals of that institution, which is advocacy of non-belief. The mission of the boards is still the mission of the II. I still think that a theist could not in good conscience support the goals of the secular web and still be a theist in any meaningful sense - so I think that a rule against theist mods is in one sense redundant, but also saves a lot of time considering mods who can never work out. And I guess I would appreciate it if anyone could point to a particular theistic contribution to the boards that indicates mod material. Most of my experience with theists has been with Layman and Nomad.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.