HelenM

Oh, but I did say why in my post, in a part you didn't quote. In my opinion that in my opinion it could increase the quality of discussion/debate if there was a better theist/nontheist ratio here rather than the nontheists far outnumbering the theists.

I suppose one could also argue that nontheism and nontheists are presented well here, the more theists witness it, the better. Perhaps it would correct some misconceptions.

Anyway, I think we already have a forum called ~~Elsewhere~~ where theists are allowed to 'proclaim the Good News'.

Helen

brighid

Yes, and perhaps all my mothers prayers have finally worked!!

I appreciate your humor Helen

Brighid

Gurdur

Practical suggestions
----------

That is a suggestion well worth pondering.
I actually disagree with this.
IMownHO, and reflecting my own biases, what would be an extremely good idea is to have a Humanism forum, with clearly defined goals ---- and to invite religious humanists as well as us secular humanists; and such a fourm would benefit from having a religious humanist mod as well as secular humanist mods.

The current emphasis is on more academic discussion; however, a major part of SecWeb's mission is touted as activism, and while on the whole SecWeb is not a humanist BB per se, having a forum dedicated to humanism ---- secular and religious --- would both fulfill AspenMama's suggestion and be an interesting furtherance of SecWeb's activist aspects.

Whyever not ?
That seems overstated.
No more than the usual rules on civility of discussion on SecWeb.
Because of SecWeb's dual missions --- academic discussion and activism.
That is one personal opinion. There are others.
And the question to me is not whether theist mods are needed, but whether they would be permissiable, and add something positive to SecWeb's overall mission.
This thread is already 5 pages long, and the number of non-theists on this thread who think it might be a good idea outweighs the theists who think so; IIRC, Seebs and HelenM are the only two theists so far to contribute, while at least 5 others (including at least 3 very hardline atheists) have indicated the idea is at least worth discussing.
Ad hominem.

The person who started this thread is Brighid; a hardline atheist.
Other hardline atheists have indicated that the idea is worth discussing.

brighid

Because it's the right thing to do ....

WOW ... I don't even know what to say except that such comments support my idea that part of the reason some people at iidb don't want a theist on the moderation staff is because of prejudice.

I think there are many reasons why we would want more theists to take part in our community. I think a lot of ignorance about atheism could be dispelled (we do seem to have a positive effect on many people who come here as theists, but stay after becoming agnostics/atheists or soften their hard stance against atheism.) If we truly desire a secular world outside of these cyberwalls we should want to attract more and more theists so they can have exposure to atheism/non-theism, etc. so they can have the opportunity to become educated. I am under the impression that alot of the problems we face in the public is largely due to ignorance and misinformation. If we can't help them see what we feel is truth, at least we can help some to be more understanding and tolerant so they chose to let us be and encourage others to quit using ignorance to support their misinformed prejudice against us.

I see attracting more theists as a positive giving the rules of discussion and the purpose of iidb isn't going to change because more theists feel they can come here and discuss things they can't discuss other places.

Why shouldn't we make the dedicated theist members of our community happy, or benefit them in some way?

Brighid

ManM

This is really an aside, but fires don't burn without fuel. Besides, you have nothing to worry about. The fact that an insulting and pornographic thread remains in GRD after two days (with no intelligent conversation mind you) is quite disturbing. I do not think you have to worry about theists becoming too happy here.

Gurdur

Drat, I didn't see this, otherwise I would have tackled it first.

Nope, I disagree. I've pointed out twice now in the thread that two current mods of SecWeb do not suscribe to strict naturalist metaphysics.

Now I do adhere to strict naturalist metaphysics personally (though I've often pointed out in philosophical discussions that naturalist metaphysics is a presupposition, but it's one that works for me, ), but I don't have difficulties with a mod not suscribing to nat-met per se.

HelenM

Thanks Brighid

I very much appreciate that you initiated this discussion. Regardless of whether any changes are made here because of it, I appreciate your willingness to question publically whether the "no theist moderators" rule here is moral.

Helen

brighid

Helen,

You are welcome!

Brighid

Gurdur

That may well seem to be the case if we hardline atheists get tarred too with the brush of supporting some alleged theist trojan horse.

Agreed to the above in full.

HelenM

It seems to me that most requests for new forums are turned down but, if you can persuade the powers-that-be to open this new one then, fair enough.

Well, except, I suspect this is what would happen: it would have a liberal theist moderator who agreed on humanism with the secular humanists. Conservative Christians would come in and argue with the humanists and disagree with all the moderators, whether theist or nontheist.

Which reminds me that even if IIDB did appoint some 'theist' moderators, it's likely that if they were liberal theists (which they probably would be), some/many conservative Christians wouldn't consider them 'Real Christians' anyway.

Helen