brighid

Pz,

I think this idea of "theists" is where you and I differ significantly. I don't see them a just "theists" I see them as people first. As a person I know how I desire to be treated and I try my best to extend the same hand to everyone, including those who have harmed me.

Our mission will never be accomplished as long as we put ourselves into the "us" and "them" camps. Especially since that is the very thing we fight against and is likely at the root of some of your own anger and hostility (but I can't really know that. I am just guessing.)

Brighid

Gurdur

I sincerely doubt my powers of persuasion in that aspect.

However, it will be interesting to see if there's an echo.
All to the better.
Divida et impera.

Nothing like splitting the enemy forces.

brighid

Personally, I don't think we should be concerned about whether or not other Christians will see a theist moderator as a "Real Christian". That will happen whether they moderate or simply discuss things in any given forum ... unfortunately.

Brighid

pz

Oh, come on. Talk about ad hominem...

I hear this crap all the time. I'm a mod in E/C, remember, and my specific focus is on creationism. This is a common strategy: forget about the relative merits of the intellectual issue. We have to give equal time to creation in the classroom because it is fair. Scientists don't talk about god because they are intolerant bigots. You teach evolution because you hate god.

This is bogus.

I dismiss creationism because it is bullshit. Similarly, I dismiss theism for precisely the same reasons. It is not a matter of prejudice. We've got a huge library and reams of discussion here on just this topic -- are you suggesting that we all reject theism out of simple prejudice? Ludicrous.

This is an evangelical argument. I have even more difficulty with the idea of recruiting theistic moderators if one reason is to use them to help convert more people to atheism. I would suspect that theists might object to being set up as a judas goat, too.This is a better reason -- educating people to see that atheists aren't evil. We're already doing that, though, and I see no convincing reason that blurring the lines would help. I think it would hurt. I don't see iidb as one of those generic religious places where we show that people of all creeds can get along, that deep down, we all worship the same god, whether we call him Jehovah or Allah or Jesus or The Cosmos. We're different. This is where we say that all of that god nonsense is a pile of humbug. Creeds are artificial barriers between people, and we knock down delusions rather than encouraging them.They can already do that. They do do that. We all try quite hard to allow theists to talk freely. Theists couldn't do a better job (and given the track record of theists at other sites, odds are that they would do a much worse job). Let's not lose sight of who we are: we are the Secular web, we are infidels, we are atheists and agnostics. We tolerate theists, but we are not theists. Let's not change that.Because they are not dedicated to the goals of our community, and what you are suggesting to make them happy is a softening of our purpose.

HelenM

The home page of Sec Web states its goal is to [...] "promote a nontheistic worldview".

If that's not evangelical I don't know what is.

Helen

brighid

What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that ALL theists feel this way? You and I both know (especially if you are an E/C mod) that this is bogus. I am talking about being fair to people who deserve fair treatment and not thinking that ALL theists are a certain way because of the bad examples of some. That is the heart of the matter.

I have never suggested that and if you have read my discussions on this subject you know that to be true. I don't think we should recruit anyone, or attempt to convert others but I can see that a positive benefit can be had for all by dispelling misinformation through education. The more we educate the better!

Have I suggested we become some generic religous place? No I have not. I cannot see how allowing a theist moderator (who does not necessarily believe in any of the things you have presented) would change any part of our purpose or mission. Except perhaps the ceasation of using ambiguous labels.

This generalization is the VERY thing I (and others) are talking about. A theist at THIS website with his/her own track record should not be judged by the action of other theists - period! No more then I should be judged by your actions because we are both strong atheists. We are talking about INDIVIDUALS not "theists." That is the distinction. You want to lump everyone into this homogenous category with all the negative stereotypes that go along with it and never allow (and that is what I would like to see ... the allowance) a theist who doesn't fit your tightly defined mold to do a job! :banghead:

Brighid

HelenM

...well, not as moderators, of course...

Gurdur

I've still yet to see that ad hom about this all being a theist trojan horse retracted.

And most Christians, even, are not creationists.
Indeed.

No, what is ludicrous is the suggestion that various hardline athiests are pushing a theist trojan horse.
Furthermore, naturalist metaphysics can only benefit from hard scrutiny.
I direct your attention to the fact that SecWeb library houses several documents from theists for that very purpose.
This question should be directed to seebs -- it would be interesting to se his reply to that.
Especially through such open and transparent policy discussions.

Irrelevant strawman. No-one at all is suggesting the mission of SecWeb be changed.
We'ld look very silly if we didn't tolerate theists.

We claim the truth of the matter on naturalist metaphysics --- to not tolerate opposing viewpoints would be a shot in the foot.
Having a good theist mod in say one forum would hardly change the membership composition of SecWeb, or suddenly turn SecWeb into a den of theists.
Not true, for all the reasons stated throughout this thread.

Daleth

They would do a worse job just because they are theists, even though they fit all the qualifications for a moderator as well as any other of the mods? You're not judging theists as individual people. Your making claims that all theists are too thin-skinned about their beliefs to discuss them rationally and yet you're making paranoid claims that this whole discussion sounds like an attempt for theists to infiltrate and subvert SecWeb. Give a theist an inch and they'll take a mile, eh?

If pz's reasons are the ones upholding the rule, by all means, please do away with it. This is hate, anger and fear. It is definitely not an example of "an above average level of maturity and levelheadedness."

pescifish

I would caution against using this thread as any indication of the relative spread of opinions of our general community on this issue.

I don't believe this thread is conducive to collecting simple opinions. It is a debate, not a poll. Therefore, I don't think you can take any statistics generated from this thread as an indication of what the general nontheist or theist populace feel about the subject.

Personally, I am not prepared or interested at this time to debate this subject as a moral question and therefore, I have chosen not to participate. A thread conducive to the collection of opinions would need to be less of a debate. Sometimes a person would simply like to post an opinion without feeling the need to commit every waking hour defending it.

If we opened a thread for the purpose of collecting such opinions, we might find 10 people simply agreeing with what another said. In a debate such as this thread, many users may refrain from posting an "I agree with so-and-so", especially if the sentiment was already countered or discussed thoroughly in the current debate.

[edited to add:]
This is not to say that Gurdur was suggesting we use this thread as such an indication. I just thought I'd toss this caution in, since it was what came to mind as I read the continued debate this morning.

Carry on...