Religion Anti-Religious Threads. Alternate views.

strongvoicesforward · Apr 10, 2006

Mars Man said:
Thanks for the reply there strongvoicesforward san, let's see what happens.

Am I correct in taking your referent for "comments referring to me" to be those that sabro had posted on his 'Anti-religious threads--enough?' thread?

For the most part, "yes." It`s no big mystery. Surprised you needed that clarification.

bossel · Apr 10, 2006

strongvoicesforward said:
Others were agitating for censorship and that agitation was unwarranted

Well, you are "agitating" for censorship as well. Difference is that you want to be the censor yourself, while they are simply asking the moderators to review your posts.

Revenant · Apr 10, 2006

strongvoicesforward said:
I would reword it to: Some people are obstinately refusing to accept free speech, unique styles and are continually lobbying for special treatment of their special interest. I have extensively outlined all those points in detail above and instead of addressing them each you are deciding to make a general statement.

Some are obstinately opposing offensive posts, wherein it has already been stated by not just one person, and not just a person of that particular interest group (Christianity) that your posts come across as offensive. I don't have the time to address every one of your points, but after reading them all, I still disagree with you.

strongvoivesforward said:
I am civil. Of the more than 1,000 posts I have here, you may find one or two, possibly three breeches -- if that. Surely more than 95% of all my posts are civil. The style is straight to the point without tip toeing, that is for sure -- but that does not define something as uncivil.

Civil is not civil when more than a few people take offense to something, and despite being able to say the same thing in a less offensive way, one continues to say it in the very way that offends people.

strongvoicesforward said:
You have missed my point on using Rush Limbaugh in my paragraphs above. I used him to show what is acceptable in public forums. I have not said I go to his level. He clearly takes more liberties than I. Besides from using him as an example as to what is allowed in public forums, I also pointed out that since his audience of supporters are mostly Christian Right, that the bounds for what is acceptable by Christians is clearly more than my style here.

One doesn't need to go to his levels to be offensive. I could go just halfway and definitely be offensive. And the bounds accpted by some Christians isn't the bounds accepted by all Christians, no more than some atheists would find a religious basher offensive.

strongvoiceforward said:
Again, look at the whaling thread. A lot of flippant and sometimes things said there I could see as uncivil. No crying for protection. And I don`t see you crying for protection over there. Why are you being selective? Is it only the sensitivities of religionists that should be protected? I don`t think so.

I don't read the whaling threads, and only peeked in once quite some time ago. As to religion, it is like politics, one can have a civil discourse, or just a heated discourse. Heated discourses do not bring about good points, as reading you and sabro exchanging barbs isn't a productive nor enlightening read. From history prior to your arrival, I knew that sabro could debate his own religion so long as the other side remained respectful of his opinion, and didn't even subtly attempt to deride his faith.

strongvoicesforward said:
Friendly debates can be straight to the point of the matter. They do not have to tip toed about and just because things heat up a little in no way makes it an unfriendly debate, until those three parameters above you just listed are violated. Those are good yardsticks to measure by because they are concrete and not very open to interpretation.
Just saying that "you can`t say something to offend the sensitivities of someone" is too subjective. I don`t think it is right that someone can voice there opinion in an absolute if that is what they believe. Why should everyone be required to add, "I think," or "IMO" to every statement?
Some get offensive at things and not others. We can@t be in a rule where we are guesssing at what everyone can handle.

And that I most strongly disagree with. If someone takes offense, then it is even better yet to discuss your objections to their faith or idea using a different method, mainly one wherein you say exactly the same, but with respect for their beliefs. sabro has clearly demonstrated an ability to objectively discuss his faith with others of sometimes very opposing belief systems, and all that because most of the participants were careful when discussing a hot subject.

Obviously just those three aren't good yardsticks, if already a lot of people Not of the interest group (Christianity) have objected to your debate style. A good yardstick is to discuss something with respect to other's belief systems, and to refrain from doing something you know makes them offended. Is it possible to say what you say without offending sabro or some of those others involved? Absolutely, as some posters had already posted the very same objections to religion as you have, and no one got offended.

But it sometimes seems as though I am talking to a brick wall.

strongvoicesforward · Apr 10, 2006

bossel said:
Well, you are "agitating" for censorship as well.

Wrong. I have not said someone cannot say something on JREF or that a particular style is not permitted (other than expletives, pajoratives or threats), which I am pretty sure is commonn sense and already enforced by JREF in ways. My stating that is only underlining what is already most probably accepted and enforced.

Difference is that you want to be the censor yourself,...

Short answer: Wrong.

...while they are simply asking the moderators to review your posts.

Nope. They, or a few people, have been hoping to impose stylistic rules that are subjective or to limit the topics chosen as topics for thread creation. I assume admin and moderators read all my posts anyway.

In the past there have been action taken ... hmmm... I won`t go into this because those have been resolved rightfully so.

Suffice it to say, I have followed the rules here quite well, certain that close to 98% of all my posts and threads have not stepped over the line. The ones that had perhaps, could possibly not have been and I could effectively argue that they were ok as well -- except for 2. But that is very few in the face of more than 1,000 posts.

I haven`t called anyone a "liar" though, as if I had privy information to someone`s inner knowledge or intent.

strongvoicesforward · Apr 10, 2006

Revenant said:
Some are obstinately opposing offensive posts,...

Which post or posts are you specifically referring to? Are they more than 10% of my total? Please make a separate thread and begin to list the posts you found offensive and that a majority of JREF members found offensive. Please remember many lurk without contributing. How do you know they found it offensive. I consider the audience just as important as the participants.

When you make a thread on that topic and list my posts, be sure to look at the posts I am responding to.

I have a hunch that you are not going to make that thread, becuase it is always easier to throw general accusations out than bring forth the evidence.

Personally, I can recall 2 particular posts (perhaps as many as 3, 4, or 5) where I may have gone too far. But, that is a very low percentage of my total.

...wherein it has already been stated by not just one person, and not just a person of that particular interest group (Christianity) that your posts come across as offensive.

Yes, I know. Cliques can cut accross religious/non religious people. And there are those who have commented positively on my comments and style on the threads and in PMs to me. Go look. Are you saying the clique's opinion you are referencing has the right outlook?

I don't have the time to address every one of your points, but after reading them all, I still disagree with you.

Of course you don`t. And it makes it convenient for you to make your comments without addressing mine. Saves you time and still allows you to stay indignant without proving your point. Kind of like throwing grenades from afar.

Civil is not civil when more than a few people take offense to something,...

Objective decisions are not decided by subjective views and a larger number agreeing to something does not make it right. But, it can`t make it a lynch mob.

...and despite being able to say the same thing in a less offensive way, one continues to say it in the very way that offends people.

I speak straightly. Sensitive people do have an aversion to straight talk. I am not responsible for their over sensitivity.

One doesn't need to go to his [Rush Limbaugh] levels to be offensive. I could go just halfway and definitely be offensive.

I do not go to his level. That was my point. I don`t even think I go half way to his level. But then again that is getting subjective again. My point again.

And the bounds accpted by some Christians isn't the bounds accepted by all Christians, no more than some atheists would find a religious basher offensive.

The internet and forum discussions should be no more censored than what is on public talk radio. Most people relish in the freedom that the FCC is not here on the net censoring us. I think admin here respects freedom of speech and the different styles that people bring here. I think they might agree that it would be a boring community if everyone was around in here overly sensitive about political correctness and afraid at offending someone, always guessing if these words are too harsh for so and so`s sensitive ears.

Most of us who engage in the long running debates are adults. We can handle some rough and tumble heated debates so long as they do not devolve into expletives, pajoratives, and threats. I have never had to be handled with "kids' gloves." I won`t break. If someone feels their heart is breaking here because of some critical examinations of their positions on things, they should not click on those threads that bother them. It is simple and they have the power to avoid those threads and posts in a couple of ways.

I don't read the whaling threads, and only peeked in once quite some time ago. As to religion, it is like politics, one can have a civil discourse, or just a heated discourse. Heated discourses do not bring about good points, as reading you and sabro exchanging barbs isn't a productive nor enlightening read.

Heated discourse can still be civil so long as it doesn`t devolve into someone calling somone a bigot or racist or hatefilled -- all of which comments were launched at me. And when those comments were launched, I don`t recall anyone stepping in quickly and saying those were out of line. Why? Because of the clique mentality. But, eventually "someone" did put an end to that rightfully singeling it out when the clique would not.

From history prior to your arrival, I knew that sabro could debate his own religion so long as the other side remained respectful of his opinion, and didn't even subtly attempt to deride his faith.

I respect his right to hold his opinion. I do not respect the beliefs of Christianity. There is a big difference -- even if you can`t comprehend that. You seem to be confusing the two.

If others prior to me joining respected him the way he felt a need to be so, then that is them. I am not them. I have my way and they have theirs. Are you saying I have to be a clone in action and thought of someone else prior to me joining?

You use the word "deride," I use the word "prosecute" something that I see as fraudulant throughout history. That debate can take the form of serious comments and witticism from time to time is an accepted aspect of debate. You may say you don`t find my comments "witty," but others have. Go back and read the thread if you don`t believe me or if you have a short memory. I have gotten PMs on it, too.

And that I most strongly disagree with. If someone takes offense, then it is even better yet to discuss your objections to their faith or idea using a different method, mainly one wherein you say exactly the same, but with respect for their beliefs.

What!? That I have to start and end my sentences with "softeners" like "IMO, I think, If you ask me, etc.." to be careful of some who is sensitive? Well, I don`t agree with you. I can make my opinionated statements without being apologetic or unconfidant in my expressions of them.

...sabro has clearly demonstrated an ability to objectively discuss his faith with others of sometimes very opposing belief systems, and all that because most of the participants were careful when discussing a hot subject.

Well, "careful" is what!????? Do you have a robotic formula for "careful?" Why do I or anybody has to be careful for debating? You are wrong on this and I have never heard any public debate where the rules were "you have to be careful to not hurt each others' softy touchy feelings and sensitivities."

As for others who debated him prior to me, that is their choice how they decided to engage him. I am not them.

Obviously just those three aren't good yardsticks, if already a lot of people Not of the interest group (Christianity) have objected to your debate style.

Yes they are because they are pretty objective and for the most part easy to identify. As for the "lot of people" comment, there are many lurkers who have not weighed in on it, and even if the majority of them felt so that still does not make it necessarily right -- it could possibly mean that there is just a mob mentality that has taken hold, the majority falling on the minority. It has happened many times in history and that is why objective rules are put in place to protect against someone`s opinion or a group`s opinion.

But hey, I guess those Koreans in Japan during the Great Hanshin Earthquak really were poisonin the wells because the majority thought so and therefore deserved to be killed by the Japanese who suspected them of being guilty. I guess their decisions were subjective ones.

A good yardstick is to discuss something with respect to other's belief systems,...

Know, you are confusing the respect of someone`s right to have a belief system with the right to not respect something you find wrong or reprehensible. Would you respect someone`s belief in Nazism if they said that is their belief system? or Satanisim that espoused human sacrifice? I don`t think you would. Would you?

...and to refrain from doing something you know makes them offended.

I am under no obligation to respect a religion. I only respect the right of someone to have a belief in any religion of their choice. I have no privy information into someone`s mind and I am not responsible for the settings on their sensitivity screen. They control that and even more so when they can choose to not see what offends them.

Is it possible to say what you say without offending sabro or some of those others involved?

Yes, if he adjusts his sensitivity. Why should I change for him? Why shouldn`t he change for me? Are you saying his beliefs in his sensitivities are more important than how I feel obligated to talk straight to the issues and identify fraud when I see it?

Absolutely, as some posters had already posted the very same objections to religion as you have, and no one got offended.

I doubt if they have posted the same issues. I have clearly stated I think Christianity is a fraud. Have others done so? I have stated clearly that I think Christianity is based on a book of lies, falsehoods, deceptions, and contradictions, in very clear straight terms as my opinion. Have others?

I can hold those opinions and I can state them so clearly. Why don`t you think that is permissable? It is fine to speak in absolutes and looking at the many other threads that have taken a negative look on Japan, the U.S., whaling, animal rights, vegetarianism, etc... have also stated absolutes and no one is calling for modification in those statements for lack of sensitivity which I could claim I have on those topics.

But it sometimes seems as though I am talking to a brick wall.

That we agree on. Are you red brick or cinder block?

kirei_na_me · Apr 10, 2006

Freedom of speech, religious beliefs, "hide" functions, censorship, etc. aside, this has come down to two members making their spat a public spectacle. It's ridiculous.

And also, why should the administrators make drastic changes to this forum to appease two members who can't seem to get along?

I have never seen this kind of behavior on this site in the three years I've been a member/advisor. It blows my mind. I've seen some nasty trolls, and I've seen a few members hold a little grudge, but they were different because the trolls were banned, and the others just fizzled out. This situation seems to be neverending. Just locked in a stalemate.

I mean, I can't make personal stabs at either one of the two involved, because both have been very nice to me. I just wish they could make peace with each other.

Elizabeth · Apr 10, 2006

Reiku said:
Frankly, I don't think religion should be discussed at all.

I yet to meet someone who could handle the subject maturely when faced with beliefs that directly contradicted theirs--myself included.

There are numerous examples of harmonious interfaith dialogues and communication in all areas of life from personal relationships, online forums, to the organizational and church hierarchy levels. In this case, a Japan forum doesn't have experience with these conflicts in the same way a religion/philosophy specialty board would....why they insist on perpetuating such a fruitless exchange here I have no idea. But there is something fundamentally unfair about it being allowed to go on since members have been banned from JREF in the past for much, much less.

kashii:

bossel · Apr 11, 2006

strongvoicesforward said:
Wrong. I have not said someone cannot say something on JREF or that a particular style is not permitted (other than expletives, pajoratives or threats), which I am pretty sure is commonn sense and already enforced by JREF in ways. My stating that is only underlining what is already most probably accepted and enforced.

Er...:

strongvoicesforward said:
This command would let us list who we don`t want our posts to be viewed by.

IMO, this very much smells like censorship: Denying others to read your posts.

Short answer: Wrong.

When you have the power to decide who can read your threads or posts, who else is the censor?

strongvoicesforward · Apr 11, 2006

kirei_na_me said:
Freedom of speech, religious beliefs, "hide" functions, censorship, etc. aside, this has come down to two members making their spat a public spectacle. It's ridiculous.

And I had never sought that out. If you were to look at the threads and see where each of us went and where each of us popped up, in effect I was being followed around from one thread to another. I wasn`t the one following another around. Could this be called forum stalking? Everyone who has been here knows I joined here and began the "Hunting" thread. When I announced that I would be beginning discussions about "religion and the Bible" someone latched onto that comment and made a sarcastic remark, in effect giving us a peek of what he was going to do from then on -- begin to harry me in threads. You should know this KNM because you came on the "hunting" thread and inquired if I had other interests besides just hunting, and then I told you what those interests were.

What I find sad here is there are people here so willing to pipe up their voice and point a finger at me (not you KNM) for falt or the both of us equally, but few have gone back and gave a fair look at how it all began, and place deserved blame at that point and then look to see how the "following" me around to threads had continued.

And also, why should the administrators make drastic changes to this forum to appease two members who can't seem to get along?

I am not saying they should. It was just a suggestion -- one which I think would be synominous to a room full of people at a party. In those situations, sometimes when someone knows another is sensitive on a topic, they may talk in a lower tone so that that person cannot hear something that would offend them.

I don`t think it would be just for me. And I doubt if few would utilize it. I am not even sure if I would. It would just depend on the atmosphere at the time. Another person found the suggestion interesting and innovative, too. Like that section says, it asks for suggestions and that is what I did. I don`t think there is nothing wrong with the suggestion and if it is tried and seen to be being abused or not working out, it can always be disabled. Again, just a suggestion and not to only please me. Maybe others would find it beneficial.

I have never seen this kind of behavior on this site in the three years I've been a member/advisor. It blows my mind. I've seen some nasty trolls, and I've seen a few members hold a little grudge, but they were different because the trolls were banned, and the others just fizzled out. This situation seems to be neverending. Just locked in a stalemate.

I don`t agree. Since we have not been visiting each others' threads, discussion has gone forth rather smoothly with no interference in those threads. This thread only came up because two others created by the same person came up complaining about threads being allowed to continue that are critical of religion. This thread was created by Mikawa san out of fairness so that I could put my view out since some were putting their view up against me on those other two and I could not post there. Had those other two not gone up, this one would have never come into existence.

I mean, I can't make personal stabs at either one of the two involved, because both have been very nice to me. I just wish they could make peace with each other.

Actually, many may not know this, but he and I have a rather courteous and friendly relationship/dialogue in the chat and with some PMs. As for me, and that is evidence for me, there is nothing personal I hold against him. I can see he is a wonderful person.

strongvoicesforward · Apr 11, 2006

Elizabeth said:
....why they insist on perpetuating such a fruitless exchange here I have no idea. But there is something fundamentally unfair about it being allowed to go on since members have been banned from JREF in the past for much, much less.

I cannot comment on what others have been banned for in the past. One, because I was not there, and two, because I have no idea what the reasoning was behind the decisions to ban them.

I have no interest in an exchange with someone who cannot discuss the topic without getting offended. In fact, I have on several occassions asked that anyone who takes comments about religion personally, to not visit my threads. I do not voice my opinion with the pro-noun saying "You are a fraud," but rather the "Bible" or "The Koran is a work of fraud." There is a big difference in those two opinions. The former is discussing the person in the discussion (i.e. ad hominem). The latter is discussing an issue or topic. The forumer is personal. The latter is not. But, the sensitive graph the topic to their personal and expect all others to view it as such. Which is not fair because if that is accepted then everyone can claim their special topic of interest is personal to them and therefore everyone has to tip toe around each other and they will judge subjectively what is too harsh for their sensitivities.

That said, there is no reason why religion should have to only be discussed on a religion forum site. Those are some of the most restrictive and intolerant sites there are. If they are set up by atheists they may judge too harshly on a posting style of a religionist. If they are set up by a Christian then the opposite is true. A site that has the topic, such as here, as a topic of many without being favored more than others, is the best kind for fair judgement on puttng forth one`s opinions. And admin has demonstrated that quite well here.

strongvoicesforward · Apr 11, 2006

bossel said:
Er...:
IMO, this very much smells like censorship: Denying others to read your posts.
When you have the power to decide who can read your threads or posts, who else is the censor?

Er...well, I guess there is a little bit of censorship in everything. When I talked in a low voice to my friends at a party saying that I didn`t like the neighborhood this house was in, I guess I was performing censorship to keep from offending the host`s feelings.

You got me, bossel, on the absolute purity of words. But in real life, words and their meanings can fall on the spectrum of degree.

Mikawa Ossan · Apr 11, 2006

I have a much longer post that I was going to send, but then I noticed this:

SVF said:
Actually, many may not know this, but he and I have a rather courteous and friendly relationship/dialogue in the chat and with some PMs. As for me, and that is evidence for me, there is nothing personal I hold against him. I can see he is a wonderful person.

And to this I say, so why can't the two of you work it out between yourselves through PMs or chat?

Mars Man · Apr 11, 2006

A capitol idea there Mikawa san !!

:bravo: :yeahh:

Now how do feel about that strongvoicesforward san? sabro san? I do hope both of you are following along !!

strongvoicesforward · Apr 11, 2006

Mikawa san said:
And to this I say, so why can't the two of you work it out between yourselves through PMs or chat?

There is nothing for me to work out. I have not violated any rules of the forum. My style is my own and my interests for discussion are my own. Others have appreciated my threads and posts on the topics I choose.

Mars Man said:
A capitol idea there Mikawa san !! :bravo: :yeahh:
Now how do feel about that strongvoicesforward san? sabro san? I do hope both of you are following along !!

Sabro and I PM and chat quite amicably with one another. I have never held anything personal against him. I am sure he knows that.

When I post it is not for him. It is for the general audience who decide to click on the threads. If it is not their cup of tea, they soon know that and will not click back on my threads. Due to the high hit counts of my threads, I assume that there are many repeat visitors. Even people in the chat have told me they click on to read them, even if that means they do not post -- they have been and are interested in what I have to say on those points.

Sabro can say until he is blue in the face that I am a bigot, intolerant and show contempt, but that is not the case eventhough he insists it is. And, we will not agree on that or posting/debate/discussion/rhetorical styles either in PM, chats, or on the boards. The best thing so that visitors don`t click on several ongoing threads to have to see exchanges between him and I, is that we continue to not post on one another`s threads. That is best for the board and still lets each of us retain our own interests and styles. The policy that we don`t visit each other`s threads has been a success in limiting, if not eliminating a heated atmosphere that some do not like.

This thread or the other two would not even be necessary if there weren`t persistant agitation from him for silencing my interests and my style at persuing those interests.

What more can I say other than that he has even admitted to following me around (forum stalking) to harry me (a big no no on many forums) and which no one ever took him to task on.

I have told him, just go his way and I will go my way. The forum is big enough for both of us and our ideas. He shouldn`t concern himself with me and whenever he sees a thread created by me that he just doesn`t like the title of from the get go, he should have faith that they are so off the mark and not worthy of more than an innitial visit by the first time visitor, that they will not revisit my thread after that (however, many do return to my threads).

Let`s let the numbers of hits to my threads decide what people are interested in reading as I have not violated any forum rules with my thread creation and posts. Numbers don`t lie.

Again, I cannot be responsible for the level of someone`s sensitivities. They hold the responsibility to control that or shield themsleves what offends them. Options exist for them to do so.

bossel · Apr 12, 2006

strongvoicesforward said:
There is nothing for me to work out.

That's just your opinion.

What more can I say other than that he has even admitted to following me around (forum stalking) to harry me (a big no no on many forums) and which no one ever took him to task on.

Wrong. AFAIK, both of you have been warned.

Mars Man · Apr 12, 2006

Well, now. . .this seems to have lead to a dead-end, in one way or another. It was a good effort and every bit worth it--and it may not be over yet; who knows. Anyway. . . I make the following motion:

For a fact, this fora is under 'General Discussion'. To that extent all threads should be started for, and self-evidently designed for the purpose of discussing a matter related to religion and or philosophy; period.

The weight of determining whether a thread meets such a criterion would be up the Administration on the advice and input from the Advisors and Mentors as based on their judgements in light of input from the thoughts of as many regular posters in this fora as possible. As much as possible it should be a democratic procedure. (this would be regardless of whether it would need to go as far up as the Administrators or not.)

Those threads which do not pass the test, are to be deleted.

Are there any furthering motions on that idea, or adjustments to it?

Mitsuo · Apr 18, 2006

Reiku said:
Frankly, I don't think religion should be discussed at all....

I completely disagree with that. Most of us are capable of mature conversations, and by doing so, I see no reason why we can't talk about religion, drugs, or even pornography.

No-name · Apr 18, 2006

Can we discuss all three at once?

Mitsuo · Apr 18, 2006

I'm up for it! lol

strongvoicesforward · May 1, 2006

Revenant said:
Just to hopefully make my position clear, in debate about topics of importance, I hardly see, for example, the debate of present day American politicians terribly useful.

Well, we disagree, and many would disagree with you. Are you saying the minority can be right? In that case, since I am the minority here with many piling on me, I guess then I can be right, too. Your use of the word "importance" may seem subjective to many.

Their only objective is to win, and if they ignore or even state views of the opposing side that aren't exactly correct, it goes.

If they state those views purposely to decieve when they know they are doing so, then I agree it is bad. But, if they truly believe it and feel they are wholy correct, then why shouldn`t they use that in their objective to win the opinions of others?

You are assuming they know their views in characterizing the opponant are in fact wrong.

I know my views have been and can be incorrect, and so I attempt to look at everything objectively, setting aside as much as I can my particular feelings on the topic. I also appreciate those that aren't debating 'just to win the other side (or those following the debate) over', but to only add correct info related to the topic being discussed.

And how do you know they are only adding "correct" info to the discussion? I think their views should be welcomed in the debate if they believe what they are adding is correct. If they are purposely deceiving with intent to deceive then I do not welcome it. But, you tell us Revenant, how are we to get in the minds of others to extrapolate that information?

The truth doesn't need to poke at the other side, nor make incorrect witticisms, whether that be George Carlin or another. Good logic and reason stand well on their own.

Yes, good logic and reason can stand well on their own, but sometimes an audience is held for longer periods to the discussion when things once in a while bring a chuckle or two. 100% of the population is not all academic shcolars, you know. Why not try to reach a cross section of the whole, rather than just one part?

Religion Anti-Religious Threads. Alternate views.

I'm back.

Regular Member

No Longer a Member

I'm back.

I'm back.

Where I'm Supposed to Be

Banned

Regular Member

I'm back.

I'm back.

I'm back.

Mikawa Ossan

Guest

Regular Member

I'm back.

Regular Member

Regular Member

The Great

Banned

The Great

I'm back.