AspenMama

Thanks seebs! You have some great insights.

When it was determined that SL&S should be strictly for Secular support issues, another preach-free forum was required for non-secular support issues.

I do like your idea of a forum designed strictly for the purpose of bringing everyone together and moderated by several different moderators of varying philosophies. I can see how this would speak to our mission more so than many of the other current forums.

Toto

Hi seebs, I haven't seen you much in CSSSA, but I would like to know what you consider "theist unfriendly" there, or how it would be different if a theist were moderating it (if you just consider the church state separation threads, not the secular activism) - or for that matter, how it would be better if a theist were co-modrating it. We have several types of theists who drop by; some agree with CS separation, some are on the dark side.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is the sort of organization that fits your criteria for promoting metaphysical naturalists, not metaphysical naturalism. I am a member and support AU wholeheartedly, but I still disagree with their positions on some issues. I don't see the need for II to duplicate their efforts.

pz

As far as I'm concerned, this completely misses the point.

Some atheists are angry. However, I don't think that that is a good reason to reject theist moderators, so saying that this would help us 'bitter, angry atheists' is both irrelevant and a bit insulting.

I am not looking for wound healing. I didn't have any kind of scarring experience from being raised in the Lutheran church, I got along well with the pastor and other members of the congregation, and still think many of them are good people. I just never believed in that nonsense.

The simple fact is that theism is a lie. It's a superstition. Its proponents may be well-meaning and blameless, but they are still peddling an unfounded untruth. It just doesn't matter how sincere and well-meaning and sweet and fair-minded they might be -- in a place where we are supposed to be open-mindedly pursuing the truth about the world we live in, they admit to having a blind spot in their heads where dogma rules and evidence doesn't matter. I think a theist moderator would be setting a very poor example.

As for those people who have been damaged by their experiences with religion...you are aware that theists do not have a monopoly on kindness and good counsel, right? I think we're better off tending to our own wounded, we'll do it just as well and better than any theist, and it will be better for our goals in the long run.

That's really the bottom line, our goals. We should be working towards a world where gods and devils are laughed at, the supernatural is dismissed, and we all see the natural world for what it is, sufficient and beautiful enough that we don't need the lies of an ignorant past. Theism is not OK. It isn't something we should just overlook because someone is a nice person. It's what we're fighting against.

seebs

This is an opinion. Whether or not it is a fact is not something you know any more than Radorth does.

No, it's what you, personally, are fighting against. Many of the people here are fighting against you and Jerry Falwell for the exact same reason - because intolerance, not theism or atheism, is the source of the problem.

seebs

That was probably a poor example; I don't necessarily think it's theist-unfriendly, I just think that it's similar in feel in some ways to the kind of meeting place I was thinking of. On the whole, really, I think this place is well-moderated, and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I didn't think CSSSA was run well.

pz

No, it is not an opinion. There could be a big bearded caucasion with omnipotence and omniscience who created and rules the whole universe -- but there is no evidence for his existence, and no one has priveleged access to information about him that I lack. Therefore, people who claim knowledge of his existence (or any of the multitude of similarly unlikely deities) are promoting an unfounded lie. That it has been promoted for thousands of years or is peddled by good people who don't realize that it is a lie makes no difference. It's still false.
I've noticed this behavior in several theists, yourself included: when the falsity of religion is pointed out to them, they make accusations of intolerance. I don't think the word means what you think it means.

And no, I have nothing in common with Falwell. I don't think theists are evil. I don't think they should be punished. I just don't think their delusions are particularly deserving of respect, or should be encouraged, and I'd like to see theism wither away and disappear, but I promise you, no pogroms against theists are planned.

Please try to avoid throwing insults in this thread from now on, OK?

Daleth

Our goals as stated do not include fighting against anything. They involve promoting a set of ideas. They encourage people to hear all sides of every religious claim. All of the goals are stated in the positive with words like "tolerance" rather than "laughed at" and like "knowledge" rather than "ignorance".

The Other Michael

This is MF&P - remember?

That is not to say that the recent posts aren't worthwhile, but I'm seeing difficulties at this point in keeping things on an MF&P hypothetical "is this moral?" level while keeping policy discussions separate.

Brighid, you've had close to 100 responses, and I think that has probably gotten some of the major issues you wanted to discuss out, so I'm going to move this over to the ICR to open it up to a more general discussion. I see your OP as being more of a subset of the overall discussion at this point and further discussion of the moral aspects shouldn't be a problem in the ongoing discussion in the ICR. Drop me a PM if you have concerns about this action and we'll see what we can work out.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

pz

Point taken. "Laughed at" is not a likely response -- it's probably more likely that theism would be regarded with pity and bafflement.

And making people whose ideas are the antithesis of those positive goals moderators still doesn't sound like a sensible move.

Toto

seebs - in another thread, you asked what preaching was, and why a remark of yours had been modded. You had evidently suggested that if all else failed, someone should pray. You didn't seem to understand what was wrong with this.

This is a place where "Nothing Fails Like Prayer" is how we view the world.

This doesn't mean that we think people who pray should be locked up, but it does mean that we do not think that this is good advice, any more than "sacrifice a chicken to the gods under a full moon" would be good advice.

It is also true that many of us, even if we are not in a stage of anger over religion, take offense at being told to pray.