yguy

You wouldn't have to ask a theist to support any of your ideology to have him help your cause, because if your ideas are valid, anyone contradicting them will have the effect of demonstrating their validity.

Are they really such spineless dolts? Don't you have enough "safe havens" within the board itself? Or do you lack sufficient confidence in the ideas II espouses to put them to a greater test?

brighid

If advocacy is to plead the case of another, defend or maintain a cause or proposal how does a belief in god make one in capable of being an advocate? If patricipation in II is a further requirement how does a theistic belief prevent one from participating here?

I see many theists who advocate a secular world view, defend non-theism and atheism from theist detractors and theist ignorance, as well as participate within the secular cyber community (and some outside of it) all the while maintaing his/her god-belief and even Church participation. If they meet the stated criteria and feel they could moderate should they then be denied based on theistic belief?


I would generally agree. I think one is a better advocate of something he/she believes in, but I do not believe one cannot be an advocate for a cause he/she doesn't fully believe in. However do all theists fail (because of a god-belief) to be able to support a secular world vision (as long as that mission does not seek to eradicate the ability for each man to come to his own conclusions, rational, emotional or otherwise?) Do deists, fideists, and religious humanists fail that test?

Brighid

pz

Some people, whether theist or atheist, do need support and reassurance. This does not mean that they are "spineless dolts". Do you similarly characterize christians who appreciate the fellowship aspect of their religion?There is an invalid assumption in your question. Making a theist a moderator is not a test of our ideas. It is instead just a waste of time and a dilution of our objectives.

ManM

Bill,

I think you hit the nail on the head.

"Is the job of IIDB moderator defined as narrowly as you do above, or is there more to it? If the former, then there's no real reason why theists should not be considered (IMO) and if the latter, there's probably no moral dilemma. "

I agree with this 100%. It all depends on the job description. I have been under the impression that moderation was solely an administrative task. Now I get the idea that it is more like the position of a priest. As a spokesman for II, the moderator would be expected to be one of the flock. Having a theist in that position makes absolutely no sense.

Brighid,
The mission of II is not just to promote a secular worldview, but also to promote metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is mutually exclusive with theism. If a moderator is supposed to be an advocate of the mission of II, he/she cannot be a theist without contradicting him/herself. While a theist could perform all of the administrative tasks of a moderator, a theist could not assume the roll of representing II.

brighid

IMO, that statement appears to be contradictory. Can religious tolerance really be promoted if the ultimate goal is to convert everyone to non-belief (eventually)? We aren't promoting the allowance from our deviated standard if we truly desire conformity of non-belief. Otherwise it seems more like we are tolerating theists in the sense we are just putting up with them.

Brighid

yguy

To the degree that such "fellowship" is a means of mutual ego massage and avoiding uncomfortable ideas, you better believe it.

ManM

Stop thinking like me. It is bad for your health. I think religious tolerance is meant as an ethical statement. II does not want to promote violence or other nasty things against those who do not subscribe to metaphysical naturalism. The goal of converting everyone to non-belief does not conflict with the recommendation to tolerate people who remain theists.

brighid

I know that II does not support violence or other nasty things against theists. I would not participate or accept a position of moderatorship here if they did. But hey ... I have to ask the questions!

I think part of the philisophical problem I have with tolerating people (as many theists surely tolerate atheists/non-theists) is the lack of respect for the individual. I don't agree with theism. I don't believe in gods (even if I play one at home ) but I don't want to simply be tolerated by theists. I want to be respected and to extend that respect even in the face of disagreement. If a theist secretly (or not so secretly) desires to convert me to some brand of theism, and works toward converting me I get pretty pissed. Respect that I don't see things as you do and furthermore don't try to change me. Change is up to the individual.

Now if I had my way with how the world was run I would like to see it illegal to indoctrinate children into ANY belief system until a child is old enough to have the mental faculties to determine truth from untruth. I would combine that with a strong education, including exposure to facts about world religions and mythologies. If upon growing to maturity he/she wishes to become a theist I would find this okay. I would personally think said person was foolish, but I want to be unmolested in my pursuit of knowledge and truth and that is what I wish to extend to others (as painful as that is sometimes.)

Okay, now I am the one getting a bit off topic here ... sheesh ... almost time for me to call it quits for the day anyway.

Brighid

brighid

I just wanted to take a moment to thank all those people who have thus far participated for the positive, negative and constructive feedback. I personally enjoy the fact that we can have this discussion, despite the controversial nature. That is what MF&P is for. I am proud to have the opportunity to participate and moderate here.

Brighid

seebs

Someone asked me about this, and on further thought, the answer is general enough to be worth posting, perhaps.


I think theist moderators at IIDB would mostly be a good idea. I think there are several problems, however, which might prove insurmountable.

The basic problem is that IIDB and the individual members of IIDB do not always share goals. Many of the people here are not actively interested in promoting "metaphysical naturalism". Some oppose it. Even among the atheists, adherence to metaphysical naturalism is not universal. Given that, what I personally think SecWeb should do is, instead of aiming to "promote metaphysical naturalism", aim to "promote metaphysical naturalists". The problem isn't that there are people who are not metaphysical naturalists; it's that metaphysical naturalists are often treated very badly by religious people. However, the converse would be *just as bad*, for exactly the same reasons, IMHO.

The second concern is that many of the atheists here have been abused by religious people in the past, and have justifiable and sincere concerns about being in any way subject to the authority of religious people - which is sometimes hard to distinguish from the authority of religion.

However, I think that a couple of theists (HelenM leaps to mind) around here might make good moderators. They would serve many important functions. One is to provide that ever-vital second opinion from a different point of view; while IIDB's staff, on the whole, are decent people and self-regulating, I think you're still slightly vulnerable to groupthink. Not as badly as the people at someplace like ChristianForums, or, worse still, RaptureReady... but still vulnerable. Cross+Flame is a very interesting example; an overtly Christian board with a non-Christian moderator. It works well.

A theist moderator might have a "chilling effect" on some conversations in the staff forums - don't know what you guys talk about, so I don't know. However, my instinct is to think that such an effect might be a beneficial one. If something I'm about to say might be offensive to someone, there's a real chance that this is because it's actually a bad thing to say, and I need to reexamine my feelings on that issue.

Different parts of IIDB are pursuing different goals. I actually think it was probably an error to move MD into the secular forums; SL&S served that function admirably, and most MD threads don't seem to me like they'd suffer from an occasional bit of "preaching", as long as there's a place to go where the readers would be safe from it.

It seems to me that, if a theist mod were to be added at all, the right thing to do would be to make a NEW forum, specifically with the intent that it should be moderated by at least one theist, and at least one atheist, and preferably at least four people with differing views. Such a forum could be focused specifically on religious tolerance and similar issues; think of it as a theist-friendly "Separation of Church and State" forum. A lot of Christians don't realize this, but separation of Church and State is actually very good for Christianity, and so is religious tolerance.

I think a forum like that could do a lot of good. A lot of the atheists here are bitter and angry, and many of them, well, if I'd had those experiences, I'd be bitter and angry too. When I hear the stories people tell, I sometimes wonder why they aren't *more* hostile to me. And yet... I think that healing these wounds is ultimately substantially more important than dogma. I think that blaming the problems entirely on "religion" is a harmful thing, and ends up creating the exact same problem - people who will abuse and harm others they disagree with. Better, I think, to try to create a forum for dialogue between the "opposing" sides. In the long run, I think the actual opposing sides are tolerance and intolerance. I see Starboy and Jerry Falwell as being united against the rest of us. They want a world in which there is no freedom to explore these questions, and I think that's wrong *either* way.