Can we have a sub-forum for religious discussion please?

[Morba]

ok, so why do people bother praying for god then if it makes no difference at all.

Which brings me back to what I said before, whatever happens, happens - no bloke with a beard hiding in the clouds is going to make a difference

I dunno. I'm not a believer.
However, maybe it's more about acceptance and understanding than about absolute action.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

if there is a god, why didnt he stop the tornadoes in the US, the Tsunam in japan, or the landslides in Brazil.

maybe because there is no such thing.

Lets take a little trip down story lane. An earthquake goes off under the ocean, and its a doozie. A surging energy bubbles up and a massive wave crest forms on the surface. God, sitting in his clouds, strumming his harp, notices this wave heading for a human colony just off shore in devon. 'Holy me!' God profanes loudly whilst simultaneously donning his spandex outfit (no cape, God doesn't do capes). So off sets God. He lands on the shore line just before the wave hits, braces himself against the sand, and with an almighty woosh of destructive interference he breaks down the wave into nothing.

God, in his mighty omnipotence, turns towards the settlement and in a loud voice proclaims 'Lo, my children. Rejoice, for on this day i hath saved thine from a mighty danger!' (Like politicians, God is a bit out of touch with modern culture). 'But be warned! These wavey waves could come at any moment! Be prepared'. And God flys back to his cloud and settles in to read the last few chapters of the final Harry Potter.

Many years pass, and another earthquake sets off on the same fault in the same location creating another massive tidal wave. God looks down upon the same settlement, who look remarkably like they did last time, except this time they have put up a statue of Simon Cowell engraved with the immortal epitaph 'He Did It His Way!'. God, in a trolling rage the likes of which these internet forums have never seen, folds his arms, puffs and tuts and watches from on high as the wave crashes down and obliterates the wholey ruddy lot of them.

There we are. Hopefully that should sum up the issue good and proper

 

[toon_mad]

Ok I mean each to there own, were' all individuals when all is said and done, but I cant help but feel most, if not all the people who believe in some kind of religion have had this "brainwash" so to speak thrown to them from whatever age, and this all they know and have to believe it, because they were told to.

I dont know, I personally think all these worshipping follower people are been led a stray or have been led a stray in the masses. I doubt most of the religion going people chose the path they took, but were told to take that path.

 

[Rainmaker]

Guys, can we please keep the nature of God/validity of theism discussion, mildly glossed racialism and whatnot out of the thread? This thread is not the place to discuss whether God exists. There's a few others that are though, so please feel free to dig one up and add to them.

 

[steve-h]

Do you believe you are not crazy, or have never done or said anything crazy in your entire life?

If I were doing something crazy, I would want people to call me out on it. And yes, I've done crazy things in the past and I have no problem admitting it. Who hasn't?

If i told you you were crazy, would you defend yourself 'high and mighty' for it? Do you realise that calling somebody crazy is an insult?

What's so bad about offending people? As far as they're concerned I'll spend eternity burning in hell. Being offended hardly compares.

Do you not know that two people may hold two distinct diametrically opposed view points, both can contain validity and neither can be any more crazy than the other?

That's certainly quite possible! One religion debating another for example.

 

[Clipsey]

 

[Nix]

And in the cold light of day, this thread goes wildly off-topic.

Typical GD. Not that that's a bad thing, but it's not suitable for such serious discussions. A perfect case-study why we need a less-academic/formal sub-forum than SC.

This thread is quite clear in its objective through virtue of the first few pages and especially the title. However, several pages later we have posters like BunnyKillBot and toon_mad completely ignoring the topic at hand and once again using it as an excuse to revise their meta-physical stance. This is not the time nor the place!

Would such a tangent have happened in SC? No. However, would the debate have evolved the way it has in SC baring in mind that SC if far more formal? Again, the answer is no. It has evolved the way it has as GD is unique in its informality, however it's this same extreme which has granted it to go wildly off-topic. Indeed, posters see one poster 'trolling' and assuming it's no longer faux-pas and due to the huge threshold that GD boasts, the numbers quickly add up.

This thread in itself is a case-study why we should trial-run a sub-forum. If worst comes to worst and 'nutters' are attracted - not as if they aren't to SC or GD anyway: remember the creationist bible-nuts in SC a year or two ago that kept coming back? or how about the slave-trade guy? - then just shift the posts back to GD and delete, simple. Job done.

Equally, it is far more easy to remove someone's access to a sub-forum e.g. MM - or in this case the new sub-forum - if they consistently break convention than it is to remove their access to GD as GD is far larger in topical-scope.

Mods, if you consider a trial-run, then may I also suggest you look at a unique set of rules to govern said threads, such as is laid out in the 'big picture thread' for example. You don't have to blanket ban trolls, but the use of the card/warning system would definitely be for your benefit here. Perhaps if someone is assumed to be trolling, they get a strike against their name which lasts for a week (I don't know if your current system supports this or not though?). Three strikes in a week leads to a suspension, etc. In heated threads, such strikes would very quickly add up for trouble-makers.

Again, such a sub-forum also leads to the possibility that those who actively 'hate' on religious threads in GD because they are so frequent it has become tiresome, will have - like say motors - an option to avoid the cesspit altogether.

 

[Tefal]

Would such a tangent have happened in SC? No.

yes it would and often does.

This thread in itself is a case-study why we should trial-run a sub-forum

use sc?

 

[Nix]

yes it would and often does.




use sc?

Okay, let's give an example.

Let's say I want to make a thread discussing something somewhat philosophical in nature, but perhaps more based on conjecture than evidence and therefore deemed not 'strong' enough for SC. Where do you think I will make such a thread? GD of course.

The problem is, as outlined about due to the threshold of GD, it only takes one and suddenly we have positive-feedback with the thread going hugely off-topic and therefore falling flat on it's backside.

Posting in SC to begin with would not have solved such a problem as it would have either gone largely ignored, or simply would have had people being far too pedanic or dry for it to have been of any interest.

SC is not always the fall-back.

 

[Rainmaker]

And in the cold light of day, this thread goes wildly off-topic.

Typical GD. Not that that's a bad thing, but it's not suitable for such serious discussions. A perfect case-study why we need a less-academic/formal sub-forum than SC.

This thread is quite clear in its objective through virtue of the first few pages and especially the title. However, several pages later we have posters like BunnyKillBot and toonmad completely ignoring the topic at hand and once again using it as an excuse to revise their meta-physical stance. This is not the time nor the place!

Would such a tangent have happened in SC? No. However, would the debate have evolved the way it has in SC baring in mind that SC if far more formal? Again, the answer is no. It has evolved the way it has as GD is unique in its informality, however it's this same extreme which has granted it to go wildly off-topic. Indeed, posters see one poster 'trolling' and assuming it's no longer faux-pas and due to the huge threshold that GD boasts, the numbers quickly add up.

This thread in itself is a case-study why we should trial-run a sub-forum. If worst comes to worst and 'nutters' are attracted - not as if they aren't to SC or GD anyway: remember the creationist bible-nuts in SC a year or two ago that kept coming back? or how about the slave-trade guy? - then just shift the posts back to GD and delete, simple. Job done.

Equally, it is far more easy to remove someone's access to a sub-forum e.g. MM - or in this case the new sub-forum - if they consistently break convention than it is to remove their access to GD as GD is far larger in topical-scope.

Mods, if you consider a trial-run, then may I also suggest you look at a unique set of rules to govern said threads, such as is laid out in the 'big picture thread' for example. You don't have to blanket ban trolls, but the use of the card/warning system would definitely be for your benefit here. Perhaps if someone is assumed to be trolling, they get a strike against their name which lasts for a week (I don't know if your current system supports this or not though?). Three strikes in a week leads to a suspension, etc. In heated threads, such strikes would very quickly add up for trouble-makers.

Again, such a sub-forum also leads to the possibility that those who actively 'hate' on religious threads in GD because they are so frequent it has become tiresome, will have - like say motors - an option to avoid the cesspit altogether.

What more can I say than +1? Nicely put Mr Nix.

use sc?

As has previously been demonstrated SC is not always appropriate, and GD isn't a viable option as has been shown repeatedly. A new sub-forum caters to all and adds scope for expansion currently not possible in relation to topics discussed etc. Do you really want to see SC filled with Happy Easter/Xmas/Divali/Ramadan threads (this week proved GD is no longer the place to be), and 'Which way you do find most beneficial to pray/meditate?' threads, and a whole myriad of others into esoteric and suchlike subjects?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Although I am against the idea of a sub forum (for reasons which are abundantly clear in this and most other GD threads) it would be interesting to see how - if - it could work. Would a trial work or would it just encourage the most extreme of behaviours from both 'sides' to make sure it passed/failed?

e : wait, turns out I was 10 minutes late with my 'unique' idea. Nix beat me to it, heh.

 

[Rainmaker]

Who knows? But the Dons seem to have been open to discussion on the matter. Today is eerily silent, however.

 

[Castiel]

And in the cold light of day, this thread goes wildly off-topic.

Typical GD. Not that that's a bad thing, but it's not suitable for such serious discussions. A perfect case-study why we need a less-academic/formal sub-forum than SC.

This thread is quite clear in its objective through virtue of the first few pages and especially the title. However, several pages later we have posters like BunnyKillBot and toon_mad completely ignoring the topic at hand and once again using it as an excuse to revise their meta-physical stance. This is not the time nor the place!

Would such a tangent have happened in SC? No. However, would the debate have evolved the way it has in SC baring in mind that SC if far more formal? Again, the answer is no. It has evolved the way it has as GD is unique in its informality, however it's this same extreme which has granted it to go wildly off-topic. Indeed, posters see one poster 'trolling' and assuming it's no longer faux-pas and due to the huge threshold that GD boasts, the numbers quickly add up.

This thread in itself is a case-study why we should trial-run a sub-forum. If worst comes to worst and 'nutters' are attracted - not as if they aren't to SC or GD anyway: remember the creationist bible-nuts in SC a year or two ago that kept coming back? or how about the slave-trade guy? - then just shift the posts back to GD and delete, simple. Job done.

Equally, it is far more easy to remove someone's access to a sub-forum e.g. MM - or in this case the new sub-forum - if they consistently break convention than it is to remove their access to GD as GD is far larger in topical-scope.

Mods, if you consider a trial-run, then may I also suggest you look at a unique set of rules to govern said threads, such as is laid out in the 'big picture thread' for example. You don't have to blanket ban trolls, but the use of the card/warning system would definitely be for your benefit here. Perhaps if someone is assumed to be trolling, they get a strike against their name which lasts for a week (I don't know if your current system supports this or not though?). Three strikes in a week leads to a suspension, etc. In heated threads, such strikes would very quickly add up for trouble-makers.

Again, such a sub-forum also leads to the possibility that those who actively 'hate' on religious threads in GD because they are so frequent it has become tiresome, will have - like say motors - an option to avoid the cesspit altogether.

+1

 

[Tefal]

As has previously been demonstrated SC is not always appropriate, and GD isn't a viable option as has been shown repeatedly. A new sub-forum caters to all and adds scope for expansion currently not possible in relation to topics discussed etc. Do you really want to see SC filled with Happy Easter/Xmas/Divali/Ramadan threads (this week proved GD is no longer the place to be), and 'Which way you do find most beneficial to pray/meditate?' threads, and a whole myriad of others into esoteric and suchlike subjects?

do we really need a whole sub forum for people sto spam happy Christmas threads :/

A new sub-forum caters to all and adds scope for expansion currently not possible in relation to topics discussed etc

errr, how is a new sub forum going to let you say things you cant say now?

 

[Tefal]

Okay, let's give an example.

Let's say I want to make a thread discussing something somewhat philosophical in nature, but perhaps more based on conjecture than evidence and therefore deemed not 'strong' enough for SC. Where do you think I will make such a thread? GD of course.
/QUOTE]

not strong enough for sc?

as long as it's sensible it'll be fine in there, or do you mean a thread like kwerks "what if god is a cantaloupe" style thread?

 

[Nix]

not strong enough for sc?

as long as it's sensible it'll be fine in there, or do you mean a thread like kwerks "what if god is a cantaloupe" style thread?

Then how do you propose changing the clique nature of SC? When I post in SC, I don't feel as if I'm debating with new individuals, but the same old boring posters with the same old tired opinions. This is another reason why people opt for GD instead: scope.

 

[Tefal]

Then how do you propose changing the clique nature of SC? When I post in SC, I don't feel as if I'm debating with new individuals, but the same old boring posters with the same old tired opinions. This is another reason why people opt for GD instead: scope.

because that's what happens in every sub forum, in the religion one you'll just be debating with the same bunch of boring posters.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Then how do you propose changing the clique nature of SC? When I post in SC, I don't feel as if I'm debating with new individuals, but the same old boring posters with the same old tired opinions. This is another reason why people opt for GD instead: scope.

If it's a sub-forum of SC then chances are you'd go into SC to get to it, in much the same way that the Football Stadium is populated by the people who used to post in Sports Arena on the same topics. There may be some new people but they'd have to be aware of the option before they're likely to use it so it would probably be mainly SC posters who use it, at least at the outset.

I'm not stating that it can't work or shouldn't be trialled, I'm just hoping that people aren't looking for this to be something that is unlikely to be achieved.

 

[Morba]

Hold on, you want to change the nature of GD but not SC where most of these threads would sit best?

The religion forum would itself have it'd own clique, which would put people off posting imo.

Also, this thread is not an example why a forum is needed, it's an example of active moderation in an existing forum (today is a bit quiet on the admin posts but I'm sure anything unsavoury that is reported would be looked at) working well.
I'm not a fan of mods making 'no more of x posts please', after a while they are lost then another person, Clipsey in this example, posts something 'GD' And will no doubt be reprimanded for it (which would be wrong imo).

 

[BunnyKillBot]

This thread is quite clear in its objective through virtue of the first few pages and especially the title. However, several pages later we have posters like BunnyKillBot and toon_mad completely ignoring the topic at hand and once again using it as an excuse to revise their meta-physical stance. This is not the time nor the place!

Excuse me, but only my last two posts have been off-topic and both were in responses to previous posters, who if i am off-topic, must surely be even more off topic than me.

But i do agree it proves the point. Every thread, regardless of context, gets derailed with the same old same old tired convocations.

Thread title: How long is God's beard
First reply, God doesn't exist
Second reply, God does exist
Third reply, God doesn't exist
Fourth reply, How could God allow bad things to happen

None of which has anything to do with God's beard.