• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Changes regarding Religious and Philosophical Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
52,184
Reaction score
35,955
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Recently the Mod Team undertook an evaluation of the Religious and Philosophical Discussion sections of the forum. Our goal was to see if each section, under the current rules and standard procedures, were facilitating the level and types of discussion/debate that was intended at the time of their creation. Additionally, we wanted to make sure the purpose of each section was clearly presented to the user base. Following that review we will be making a number of changes.

The "Religious Discussions" section will remain as it has been for some time. It is a section of the forum dedicated to discussing/debating matters of spirituality and theology from a foundational standpoint that is non-skeptical or critical of the notion of faith or the divine itself. We will continue to monitor the section for threads that do not belong, either because of their critical/skeptical nature towards faith or because of their decisively more political than religious focus.

The "Philosophical Discussion" section will be undergoing some slight alterations. The description of the section will be changing to better explain what types of discussions are allowed and disallowed. This section is meant for discussing a wide range of philosophical ideas; general questions regarding our world/existance, the works of Socrates, classical political philosophy such as Locke and Machiavelli, matters of faith and religion from a foundation open to skepticism, etc.

Discussions focused first and foremost on political topics will not be allowed. Threads dealing with modern political ideologies also do not belong and will be moved to the "Partisan Politics and Party Platforms" section. Additionally, attempts to derail threads by continually and/or singularly attacking the idea of skepticism within theological discussions may be met with action. While an individual confident in their faith may express such and why, it is counter-productive to this sections intent to have that poster derailing a thread by demanding others accept such views and refusing to engage in substantive back and forth debate.

Finally, the Mod Team has recognized an issue with the "Philosophical Discussion" section being a "catch all" for any religious thread that isn't focused on faith/spirituality from a stand point open to skepticism. While we envisioned theological debate occurring in "Philosophical Discussions" from a skeptical stand point, it was not our intent nor desire to have the large amount of religion related threads dealing with political/societal/cultural issues in a non-philosophical way to be dumped there.

To remedy this, we will be creating a new section titled "Religion and Politics". This section will be home to all threads that deal, positively or negatively, with Religion from a political, societal, or cultural context. Issues like the "war on Christmas", the threat of "jihad" to western culture, or the impact of atheism on a political candidate would all be examples of thread topics that would be appropriate for this section. It will be located under the "POLITICAL FORUMS" umbrella as its own section.

These changes will be occuring in the near future and we will give a clear indication when the new layout/guidelines will be officially going into effect. Thank you.
 
Ok, but to clarify, in the same way that attacking religious beliefs is acceptable in Philosophy, will there be a place where it would be acceptable to "attack skepticism" (if you will), even if it's repeated? (I'm understanding the OP to say that someone "confident in their faith" can say so only once, or, at least, that posts repeatedly or singularly attacking skepticism would be actionable.)
 
Last edited:
X Factor raises a valid question.

If skepticism is to be protected and not to be repeatedly attacked, then are also arguments for religious faith and belief to be protected and not to be repeatedly attacked?
 
X Factor raises a valid question.

If skepticism is to be protected and not to be repeatedly attacked, then are also arguments for religious faith and belief to be protected and not to be repeatedly attacked?

The whole Religious Discussions section does just that.
 
Ok, but to clarify, in the same way that attacking religious beliefs is acceptable in Philosophy, will there be a place where it would be acceptable to "attack skepticism" (if you will), even if it's repeated? (I'm understanding the OP to say that someone "confident in their faith" can say so only once, or, at least, that posts repeatedly or singularly attacking skepticism would be actionable.)

If one wants to make a topic specifically discussin the notion of "skepticism" as it relates to theology/philosophy/etc and why you think it's a problem or something worthy of attacking as a thought process, that would be fine and prefectly reasonable for the philosophical forum.

However, attempting to derail a thread where the notion of "skepticism" itself isn't the topic by not engaging on the ACTUAL topic at all and instead simply focusing ones posts on attacking skepticism, is what will potentially have action against it.

Additionally, concerning other posts here...

The purpose of this is not to "protect" any group or idea. Just as the purpose of the original split was not aimed at "protecting" any specific group or idea. The PURPOSE, in both instances, is to better facilitate a broad style of topic to be discussed/debated that was previously found to be difficult to engage in under the current setup/rules.
 
Last edited:
If one wants to make a topic specifically discussin the notion of "skepticism" as it relates to theology/philosophy/etc and why you think it's a problem or something worthy of attacking as a thought process, that would be fine and prefectly reasonable for the philosophical forum.

However, attempting to derail a thread where the notion of "skepticism" itself isn't the topic by not engaging on the ACTUAL topic at all and instead simply focusing ones posts on attacking skepticism, is what will potentially have action against it.

Additionally, concerning other posts here...

The purpose of this is not to "protect" any group or idea. Just as the purpose of the original split was not aimed at "protecting" any specific group or idea. The PURPOSE, in both instances, is to better facilitate a broad style of topic to be discussed/debated that was previously found to be difficult to engage in under the current setup/rules.

I completely understand the intent and have zero problem with it, in fact I applaud it. I sincerely appreciate you leaving this open for comments/questions. That said, I'm sure we could come up with, literally, hundreds of "what if" questions but anything at this point would be mere speculation. Personally, I've never felt required to stifle my own views on anything here, so I'm, in no way, worried that I need to be concerned about it now.
 
Completely false. According to this;

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...ligious-discussions-forum.html#post1061989586

Atheism is as protected in the Religion forum as any other faith. My question has to do with whether non belief can be "attacked" in the same way religious beliefs can.
Having run afoul of the rule against non acceptance of Biblical stories as actual historical fact, I have to disagree with this one.

The religious forum is a place where fundamentalist believers can discuss their faith without having to deal with skepticism.
 
Having run afoul of the rule against non acceptance of Biblical stories as actual historical fact, I have to disagree with this one.

The religious forum is a place where fundamentalist believers can discuss their faith without having to deal with skepticism.

What do you disagree with?
 
The whole Religious Discussions section does just that.

I haven't participated enough in either religion or philosophy forums to have an opinion about that. I'm just trying to understand the changes posted here.
 
Ok, but to clarify, in the same way that attacking religious beliefs is acceptable in Philosophy, will there be a place where it would be acceptable to "attack skepticism" (if you will), even if it's repeated? (I'm understanding the OP to say that someone "confident in their faith" can say so only once, or, at least, that posts repeatedly or singularly attacking skepticism would be actionable.)

Isn't that done in "religion" forum already? They get to bash atheists and any response is met with infractions, which led to atheists staying away and certain "religion" posters swarming into "philosophy" and S&S

It sounds to me though that the new section will serve that purpose

If it plays out in a reasonable compromise: "religion" forum - no criticism of theism, "philosophy" forum - no criticism of atheism, "religion and politics" - free for all
 
Completely false. According to this;

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...ligious-discussions-forum.html#post1061989586

Atheism is as protected in the Religion forum as any other faith. My question has to do with whether non belief can be "attacked" in the same way religious beliefs can.

It may say that but it's never functioned as such. Trust me, any criticism of religion or positive spin on atheism is infracted

I mean i got infracted for this once:

" Quote Originally Posted by Logicman View Post
Yeah, so what are you going to do - be Satan's whipping boy for a trillion + years? That's smart, LOL!


"(me)You know if there is a god and the multitude of other religions are correct that the jesus claim is just a manufactured myth, this god might be a little pissed at those who devote themselves to a false prophet."


Now you're telling me they're equally protected, or even non-christian faiths are equally protected?
 
Isn't that done in "religion" forum already? They get to bash atheists and any response is met with infractions, which led to atheists staying away and certain "religion" posters swarming into "philosophy" and S&S

It sounds to me though that the new section will serve that purpose

If it plays out in a reasonable compromise: "religion" forum - no criticism of theism, "philosophy" forum - no criticism of atheism, "religion and politics" - free for all

Except, as I linked, there is no criticism of atheism in Religion either. Now, remove that from the Religion Forum, then I'd agree, it would be the same (or seperate but equal, lol). It is a little puzzling why "skeptics" don't want to be questioned or challenged, but sincerely, I don't oppose prohibiting such things in Philosophy. Actually, it would be really interesting to observe.
 
The newly created "Religion and Politics" section sounds good to me ....provided there's a firewall between them,, :)
 
It may say that but it's never functioned as such. Trust me, any criticism of religion or positive spin on atheism is infracted

I mean i got infracted for this once:

" Quote Originally Posted by Logicman View Post
Yeah, so what are you going to do - be Satan's whipping boy for a trillion + years? That's smart, LOL!


"(me)You know if there is a god and the multitude of other religions are correct that the jesus claim is just a manufactured myth, this god might be a little pissed at those who devote themselves to a false prophet."


Now you're telling me they're equally protected, or even non-christian faiths are equally protected?


Chrom, my friend, this is not the place for that. If there were posts in Religion that violated what I linked to, then the right response would be to report it.

Oh, I can honestly tell you that there is no shortage of Christianity critics here.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Closing for review.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom