AquaVita

It is not my intention to claim that you are doing anything that you aren't actually doing. Apologies if I have misread your position. However, I call it as I see it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sure it is. I haven't seen anyone argue that this is not a non-theist board. What I am seeing argued, as I am arguing, is that one need not be a nontheist to support such issues as perhaps evolution...separation of church and state, Media and Popular Culture, Politics. You are using the definition of nontheist as though they are the only people who can support such views. Obviously you are mistaken.

Would you argue that an atheist cannot support separation of church and state? How is saying that a theist cannot be any different?

Many people were also here only for the private forums...yet the administration determined(rightfully so) that the community would be best off without them. You cannot resort to argumentum ad populum. What's right is not always popular etc.

Putting them in a greater role of operations is NOT supporting theism. They are given no platform to preach or promote their theism, simply because they were selected to help keep a forum under control.

Sure there is. You yourself have said that there are theists who would be well qualified. Isn't that rational?


I'm sorry that you see it that way. However, the fact remains that as a logical extension of our desire to promote learning and tolerance, bigotry does not fit well within that recipe for a better world. Theists have had no luck with it...why would we?



Quite the opposite, actually.

I can give you solid, defined reasons as to why this is so. I already have. It is apparant when you take a stroll through any theist dominated ideal. Are we above that or are we not?

Seeing as how you are not a theist, I would like to know how exactly you come to this conclusion. It's an interesting thing, to be able to say for sure beyond a doubt, what people will and will not do. I'm sure you yourself do not appreciate the stereotype that follows us around. Why perpetuate it the other way?


I am ready, willing and able to be convinced of this. I honestly am. But I have yet to see a satisfactory answer that requires the requisite currently in place.

I have never said, nor implied that that is what my opposition thinks. I have implied that the reasons for the oposition are emotional, and not based in reality or reason.

Again, that is just what I see, and I am willing and ready to be talked right out of it.


I am quite genuinely sorry if you are at all insulted by what I have said and the arguments I have made. But again, you cannot presume to speak for others. I would imagine that many others just simply don't like theists and want them off the board alltogether. (it has been expressed as much all over this board, and also in this thread...regarding moderators anyway)

pz

Oh, yeah...another thing I find irritating is when people take a complex argument and split it into a dozen little contextless fragments, and pretend that by responding to each little phrase that they have actually dealt with the gist of the content.

I mean, really, how can you take the sentence, "Your argument that not letting theists moderate is the 'same opression and segregation' that atheists experience, or that it implies that we are 'evil assholes', is also rather heavily larded with emotional rhetoric", which is part of a reply to your claim that the argument against theist moderators is all emotion, and think that "Quite the opposite, actually" is a sufficient response? You've just implied that your opponents are evil assholes who are for oppression and segregation, and that is the opposite of emotional rhetoric?

So I'm sorry, I find your reply unsatisfactory, but your tactic of splintering the substance into fragments means I'm not going to try and respond in kind. It's not worth it. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you really think you're points are logical, but they just can't be dealt with in their incoherent state.

Bill

In the past, we recruited a theist (bede) as a debate judge in the Formal Debates forum. This is one arena where having theist participation can be a good thing.

The majority of the Board of Directors of the Internet Infidels have expressed a desire to include theist Mods on a case-by-case basis in places where it would make particular sense for us to do so. No such cases spring immediately to mind, however, so no applications are currently being solicited.

As for setting aside areas for theists, again, we would do so if we felt the need. However, given the ready availability of Christian Forums (which seems to have suffered a server crash at the moment; something I'm attempting to avoid here), we certainly don't see the need to set up an area for Christians to fuss-around in.

And in fact, one reason for our establishment of the Non-Abrahamic forum here was to set aside a place for the discussion of theism that isn't based upon the God of Abraham (i.e., it isn't Christian, Islamic, or Jewish theism). In my personal view, it would be nice to have one or more Non-Abrahamic theists as moderators in that forum at some point in time. This is part of what prompts my personal view that, on a case-by-case basis, we ought to have some number of theist moderators on this board.

== Bill

AquaVita

Read it again.

I said that we are unjustly percieved as such by the Christian majority. Are you going to argue that?



If my arguments seem incoherent to you, perhaps you should focus more on what I'm actually saying, rather then what you think I am implying.

HelenM

This is just a comment...

People have argued against theist moderators based on the goals/mission of Sec Web.

Yet - don't we have threads here that have very little to do with the goals/mission of Sec Web?

I don't see how - for example - asking whether specific women are beautiful, has anything to do with the mission of Sec Web.

Anyway, it seems to me that if posts that seemingly have that little to do with the goals/missions of Sec Web are allowed here, it's a little inconsistent to invoke the goals/missions of Sec Web as a reason not to have theist moderators. Why not use the same standard of 'needs to have some relevance to the goals/missions of Sec Web" for post content, as for choosing moderators?

Feel free to point out where I'm being illogical, if I am...

Helen

The Other Michael

Hi Helen,

There are some folks who'd like to see about half of the fora jettisoned as not being relevant (or detracting from) the mission of the SecWeb. Being a detriment to the mission is a big reason why RR&P and a private forum were shut down.

"Social" fora (like the lounge) can be construed as having a relevance to the community aspects - as long as they don't degenerate to the point where they become more of an embarrassment (as did RR&P).

IMO the belief-status of the moderating staff has a more direct bearing on the mission of the SecWeb than does a particular type of thread within a social forum which is subsumed within that forum's "community building" status.

As always, thanks for the continued level of concern and support you've provided to IIDB,

Michael

HelenM

Fair enough. Thanks for sharing that.

I absolutely understand that and I agree that social fora are helpful to the mission because they encourage nontheists to meet and get to know each other and provide support for one another.

I appreciate that the social fora are not off-limits to theists as long as they don't preach, witness, etc. I think that allowing theists to participate socially goes partway towards achieving some of the benefits envisaged by those here who would like to have theist moderators. In other words, it gives nontheists and theists opportunities to interact, hopefully thereby substituting specific knowledge of each other for negative stereotypes.

But some people seem able to post what is not directly relevant to the mission and annoys other posters. Such posts evidently have no social community-building benefits that could be construed as indirectly supportive of the goals/missions of Sec Web. Perhaps over time the people who post such things get fed up and leave or get banned and that's how their incompatibility with the goals/missions of Sec Web is resolved.

I understand and I did my best to explain above this, that I was not thinking of 'community building' threads.

You're welcome - thanks for letting me post here...

And thanks for your response!

Helen

The Other Michael

Hi Helen,

Well, I guess what qualifies as a "community building thread" may vary a bit. I try to follow the example of the Bobhead and grant slack to all who need it (within reason and depending upon my personal state of dyspepsia). You may just be running up against something that falls into a gray area between differing dividing lines.

We'll try to be as consistent as we can, but there is a wide range of people on the staff here, and at best we can probably hope that we all tend to fall within a similar mindset, within probably 2-3 standard deviations.

cheers,
Michael

Toto

I am very uncomfortable with AquaVita's stance. In particular I object to characterizing a decision not to have theists as mods as "bigotry" with no qualification. Not all discrimination is bigotry. A decision to confine certain positions to people who agree with the mission of the organization is just that. It is the sort of decision that every organization makes routinely.

I am disturbed by this exchange:

Is it possible to believe in god(s) and want to promote non-belief? I don't understand how this is possible unless the theist involved is totally unclear on the concept (which may be the case, but is not a good argument for having them be moderators.)

seebs

I tend to agree, but:

1. That doesn't mean that some people might not be expressing bigotry in supporting such a position, even if there are other, good, reasons to hold such a position.
2. I hope everyone still agrees with that when it's an organization founded by religious people selecting religious people for various roles within the organization.