re: So what would be the rules/guidelines of a Religion & Philosophy Board?

quote:

---

However when a civil Christian tries to offer threads that Atheist's do not like they cannot stand it and they boil over and make a fit.

---

I guess he doesn't realize that the boiling point was a "Was Jesus Gay" thread. Doesn't sound like something atheists would boil over about.

quote:

---

And the most vocal enemies unto Christianity are Witches, Atheist and Homosexuals.

---

quote:

---

For the PT, I think the rule would have to be that the political tie-in would have to be to an actual official action or proposed law/bill.

---

You would think this would apply to any topic, not just religion.

But here we are, discussing which thread should go where, when, in fact, it seems the admins themselves are unaware of the policies they've put in place.

Here's a relatively new science thread with zero political valence that was posted on Political Talk (by an admin)

In response to this, the admin replies...

quote:

---

Science articles have always gone on the Poli Board.

---

Yeah, except when they're posted on the OT.

In the first few pages of the OT, we find this, as well as this.Two science threads, linking to science articles, that were allowed to thrive on the OT.

So, either the admins are overtly incompetent with respect to thread management, or are blatantly indifferent. The discussion in this thread is meaningless until they can all get on the same page.

quote:

---

Which is true, but they have also always gone on the OT board as well.

You can't make up rules for every possible contingency, which is why the possible creation of a new board is being debated.

---

Well, if science articles have always gone on Political Talk, then they have never, and should never, have gone on the OT. If I have always gone to Starbucks every morning for breakfast, then it follows that I haven't gone anywhere else for breakfast.

However, we've historically seen science articles posted on the OT as well. So, the statement, "science articles have always gone on Political Talk" is demonstrably incorrect.

It's about consistency. We're aware posting trends have evolved such that more sophisticated and educational discussions are posted on Political Talk. But why? This trend had a beginning. When the first science thread emerged on Political Talk, however many years ago, an admin decided not to move it, despite the thread having nothing to do with politics. The cycle repeated itself, establishing a trend, and culminated to the admin's most recent post, where he made us aware that "science articles have always been posted on Political Talk." Well, why? Because however many years ago, an admin was indifferent and decided not to move the science thread, despite the fact that it had nothing to do with politics.

So, if science articles with no political significance are allowed on Political Talk, why are religious threads with no political significance disallowed? Science threads can easily generate the levels of controversy and volatility commonly seen in religion threads. What if I created a thread on Political Talk that linked to an article discussing a new breakthrough in OLED technology? Obviously, this is science, but it has nothing to do with politics. Since it's not the type of "science" that has "always been posted to Political Talk", how quickly would it be removed?

This is why it seems that the admins manage threads whimsically, and will lightly enforce (or ignore) one policy while strictly enforcing another. You're right, you can't make up rules for every contingency. But this website doesn't have a substantial amount of boards. It's not difficult to sit down and explicitly outline where certain content should be placed. I think this is something they need to work on for the current collection of boards before adding another variable to the mix.

quote:

---

civil Christian tries to offer threads

---

You should probably go look at the hundreds of threads made by Christians calling out atheists attempting to incite flaming.

Does the mulling continue?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because for some reason people turn into giant tards when discussing religion. And both sides of the debate were guilty, religious people and atheists.

---

As long as they aren't breaking the rules, what is the problem exactly?

Aren't more posts good for this website?

---

You can't judge what a certain type of thread does to overall website traffic just by taking note of the number of posts in those particular types of threads.

When the environment of a message board suffers, it's entirely possible for high-post-count threads to be a large factor in driving away potential traffic and participation on other threads.

Like the Austrians always say when it comes to policy decisions with unintended consequences, it's the losses of things that never materialized (and thus can't be counted) that are the worst ones.

quote:

---

the only requirement should be that you are striving for serious and thoughtful discussion on a topic rather than making a flame or playing a game of "gotcha!" with a recent embarrassing or socially/politically controversial news story. As an example, one of Wiki's threads with data and graphs building a case for why religion is becoming obsolete would be just fine.

---

I think this rule is a must, the example you bring up about wiki is a good one, that should if none flames should turn into a good intellectual discussion.

but a thread like "priest shows gay porn" "to many pedophiles in the Church, we shouldn't listen to them" "Evangelical pastor caught cheating on wife" or "atheist are smarter then Christians therefore religion is false"

but rather have discussions like "how can God exist in a world were there is evil" "Can the world exist without a eternal necessary being" or "Why are human superior to animals?"

quote:

---

There also seems to be a very small contingent of posters, a 4th group consisting perhaps of just myself, who dream of a more philosophically-oriented board centered around philosophy, science, morality, and the evolution of human morality under various religious systems and worldviews. But maybe I'm being incoherent. As much as I hate being inundated with threads based on personal anecdotes or random news stories from the day, they seem to go with the territory of any board you could possibly create.

---

This

quote:

---

There also seems to be a very small contingent of posters, a 4th group consisting perhaps of just myself, who dream of a more philosophically-oriented board centered around philosophy, science, morality, and the evolution of human morality under various religious systems and worldviews. But maybe I'm being incoherent. As much as I hate being inundated with threads based on personal anecdotes or random news stories from the day, they seem to go with the territory of any board you could possibly create.

---

This sounds wonderful.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Oops, that's Chicken's line.