pz

Like what? That theism is a lie? That's just the way it is. I haven't made any derogatory comments about theists in general. You'd have a case if I were claiming that theists were hateful, wicked people who are therefore unsuited to be moderators, but I have been making exactly the opposite argument! I have been conceding that some theists would be good, fair-minded moderators, but that that is completely irrelevant. Where they fail as moderators is not in temperament or in their status as decent human beings, but in their commitment to the intellectual premise underlying iidb.

Yes. I am an atheist. I share an opinion about theism with many other people: there is an "us".

Other people are theists. They share an opinion about theism with many other people: there is a "them".

This particular opinion is a specific dividing line that is the focus of the iidb. If we stop caring about that opinion, there is no point to this site.
...and now you're just making stuff up. What conspiracy is this?

brighid

Your trojan horse theory???

Brighid

Gurdur

And once again I protest the ad hom's being thrown around in here. They are derailing the discussion.

HelenM

So many of the proponents?

As pescifish wisely pointed out, only a tiny proportion of IIDB posters have identified themselves as proponents of theist moderators on this thread, so it would be best not to draw conclusions about them from it (even if you're right about them being insulting, about which I'm not convinced).

Helen

pz

A bit of casual curiousity about why people are so anxious to get theists into moderator positions has now become a "wild conspiracy theory"?

I would think I'd at least have to start naming names and drawing organizational charts and doing a word-by-word analysis of everyone's post ala you-know-who before it would achieve that status.


But seriously, as far as I know, there is no conspiracy. There are no underhanded motives. I think the people who want theist moderators are entirely sincere and believe it is the best way to promote their worldview -- the atheists as a matter of "fairness", and the theists because they also feel they are a committed part of some aspects of the iidb. I disagree because I think the "fairness" is a false issue, and most importantly, because I think there is an extremely important aspect of our goals, the dedication to a secular, gods-free world, that is being swept under the carpet.

Daleth

So is this: It looks like a trojan horse to me, an attempt to sneak theism into iidb, for the benefit of theists.

No, what we have here is a discussion of a general rule DISALLOWING any INDIVIDUAL theist from being a moderator only because they are a member of a group.

Nope. Just discussion of a hypothetical person who fits all the other qualifications for a moderator but who wouldn't even be considered as a mod because they were a theist.

Not so. The argument that a moderator's job is to be a representative of SecWeb and promote secular ideas and that a theist couldn't do that without being disingenuous has not been called any of those things. It's een met with questions about exactly what a mod's job description is.

Look at the language in most of your posts. It's highly emotional language. Look at the "trojan horse" accusation.

What deck? Is this a game or competition of some kind?

That's a fine argument. It contains itself.

If anyone has argued that theism would be a virtue for a moderator, it wasn't me. If some would be good and fair-minded moderators, why should all be barred from being moderators?

That's quite possibly true. Is there a harm in making that determination on an individual basis?

That was mature and levelheaded. There's no emotional rhetoric in it. If the mod's job is to promote secularism actively, not merely make sure the community keeps running smoothly and provide a tolerant environment, and the potential mod's theism makes it impossible to promote secularism... That's a reasonalbe rational point. Calling it an attempt to sneak theism into IIDB is not.

HelenM

Is it a stated goal of Sec Web to eradicate all views except nontheism from the world, as well as [evidently] being your personal goal?

If so surely that's very evangelistic [in a secular sense].

But I don't see that promoting and defending nontheism necessitates eradicating all other viewpoints from the world.

Helen

Daleth

Honest question here: Who is so anxious to get theists into moderator positions? Is this happening in another thread somewhere or in a private discussion? Because I'm not seeing it on this thread.

Bill Snedden

It doesn't make one incapable of being an advocate in a purely intellectual sense, but to what extent can one really advocate for a cause in which one doesn't believe?

I could argue for theism as an intellectual exercise (and have done so), but can I in good conscience support it? No, and I don't think many theists would feel comfortable doing the opposite. It's one thing to advocate tolerance, acceptance, and understanding of differing worldviews, it's another thing entirely to advocate a world-view that you actually believe to be false.

That's why I make the distinction between advocacy and moderation; if we really and truly want advocates, we don't want people who do it merely as an intellectual exercise, we want people who do it because they believe the cause to be true.

I think you are equivocating on "secular world view". To advocate a secular worldview means to actively support the idea that god either doesn't exist or is irrelevant to humanity. I know of no theists who advocate either of these view points nor can I imagine that any would for any reason other than an intellectual exercise.

But really, it's irrelevant. The answer to this question, IMO, depends upon the purpose or reason for this board's existence. That needs to be clarified first.

I disagree. I cannot see any way in which one can in good conscience support and work for a goal in which one doesn't believe. Such an approach would be hypocritical.

It's one thing to attempt an intellectual exercise in which one defends a POV which one does not have, it's another thing entirely to pledge oneself to support and defend a cause in which one doesn't believe. I don't think that we can or should ask or expect people to do that.

But, again, this goes directly to the purpose of this board. Allow me to explain my position more completely.

NB: The historical portion of the remainder of this post is my own recollection of events and may be incorrect in some details or colored with my own bias. I am not and never have been a member of the board of II, but I have been around a while and have seen discussions of this nature before.

When the II discussion board was initially implemented (in 1998-99, IIRC), it had only a few forums and the basic idea was to provide a place where II could further its mission by discussion and debate. Over the years it has undergone much growth and change, but the mission of the board itself has not really been outlined as differentiating from that of the II itself.

Now, my initial point was that if the mission of the board is in fact identical to the mission of II, the addition of theist moderators really doesn't make sense.

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.

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 there are good reasons (as Gurdur and other mentioned) why theists might not make the best fit as moderators in certain fora, but certainly not for automatic disqualification.

So, that's my position: this forum no longer represents a vehicle for advocacy and support of the II mission, but has become a freethought community and, as such, the automatic disqualification of theists as moderators is no longer a necessary or even desirable policy.

One last thing. As I noted, it is my belief that the IIDB has taken on a "life of its own" and no longer represents the vision I see as underlying its founding. We must remember, however, that at a base level this board is not owned by the participants; the II BOD owns the servers, domain, and bandwidth upon which its existence depends. While I personally feel that the II mission is too narrowly focussed and a this forum as a community more effectively represents where II should focus, I'm not on the BOD. Whatever action we (IIDB leadership and administration) take WRT theist moderators should not be done without the support of the II BOD or we risk the possibility of becoming too disconnected from what they perceive as the II mission and thereby losing the support that our existence as a community requires from them (server, domain, bandwidth, etc).

I hope that helps to clarify where I stand on this issue.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

ManM

This thread started as a question about morality. I do not have to actively desire a woman president in order to question the injustice of a ban on woman presidents. Likewise, no one has to desire a theist moderator in order to discuss the morality of disqualifying all theists from the position.