@jkirk

Quote:

jkirk wrote: @nicholas if it makes you feel better.

It doesn't make me "feel" anything. It just is.

_________________
Ya Husayn!

@klesterjr

Perhaps some that claim to be athiest do act in a religious fashion towards it, then really, in my opinion, they are not athiests. Religion requires a belief system, athiests should have no beliefs as such.

If athiests are allowed beliefs, rather than working the basis of observed evidence, reason and assigning probabilities of truth to various 'facts' that we use to live and exist along with theorisation ( but recognising its a theory ) then frankly I don't want to be an athiest because indeed then atheism would be the ultimate in hypocrisy.

I think there is a difference between 'hunch', 'hypothesis' and belief.

@DruidPoet

Quote:

Go back and look at my " " "joke". See if you can suss out what I did there?

OK, I'll answer this one myself.

We are talking about (or at least "were") offense. I just posted an image of Thom and then a winking smiley. Under UK law, I have just broken the UK's anti discrimination laws by making fun of a dissability. Yet nobody on this list is offended (Including Thom if he was here).

My point being that offense is a very difficult thing to moderate out. The post was potentialy offensive to anyone suffering from Thom's eye defect, but nobody reading this thread would appear to have this condition otherwise somebody would have objected.

So do we moderate things that are offensive to our members only, or do we go further and ban anything offensive regardless of effect?


I'm thinking along the lines that we just take each case as it comes. If we start moderating religion, we should do so to politics and everything else that is offensive otherwise it's unfair to target specific things.

Although I brought it up, I now no longer consider blanket censorship is the answer.

Last edited by DruidPoet on 24-May-2005 at 02:49 PM.

@DruidPoet

I don't know what the answer is. All I saw in that picture was a blurred image, I had no idea it was an eye defect or who Thom is/was. Im not offended through ignorance.

@Wiffy

Quote:

Im not offended through ignorance.

Which is precisly the point I am making.

(Incidently Radiohead are quite a succesful band I'm led to believe)

If we don't know it's offensive, is it still offensive? Yes of course it is. Just not to us.

So if we were to start imposing bans, who knows where it would end up? We might find outselves no longer able to post jokes, stories, etc because somebody found it to be offensive. You can't ban one thing and not the other can you?


So I retract my request for moderating religious comment in sigs. But what if we had a limit? If 3 people complain, it becomes offensive (Unless the offense is obvious).



Edit: I have to leave this discusion. my hands are too painful to type. I wish I wasn't so long winded. Edit And I really wish I hadn't written this sentance as it is really long and quite unnessesary to the post.

Last edited by DruidPoet on 24-May-2005 at 02:58 PM.

@DruidPoet

Ive got a radiohead album, I listen to it, I dont look at any pictures, its tolerable stuff.

But yes, I knew what your point was, I was kinda confirming it.

Thing is just because people complain, doesnt make them right to complain. You'd get voting blocks springing up then to stitch up anyone who was disliked.

So again we come down to moderator judgement.

I fear the moderators are going to have to deal individually and put with with 'they oppress people on aw.net' claims wrt signatures. Its the only way I guess.

@Wiffy

Couldn't we just get God to moderate....

@DruidPoet

Is my new sig offensive to anyone?

_________________
Ya Husayn!

@Wiffy

OK then. thats a few people who've objected to Billseys sig... Judge us your honour, but judge HIM first

Quote:

Wiffy wrote: Perhaps some that claim to be athiest do act in a religious fashion towards it, then really, in my opinion, they are not athiests. Religion requires a belief system, athiests should have no beliefs as such. If athiests are allowed beliefs, rather than working the basis of observed evidence, reason and assigning probabilities of truth to various 'facts' that we use to live and exist along with theorisation ( but recognising its a theory ) then frankly I don't want to be an athiest because indeed then atheism would be the ultimate in hypocrisy. I think there is a difference between 'hunch', 'hypothesis' and belief.

An interesting post. It seems such a pity to point out that you appear to have moved "belief" into the sole domain of the religious. I can't speak for other athiests on this matter but I am pretty confident that there's at least one other person out there who would agree with me on this; Beliefs are shaped and given scope by previously observed events and by our own experienced and pondered past.

Belief is not, and should never be, a static marker in your life, the depressing equivalent of a sign saying 'You are here". It should be formed in part by your past and by who you were in that past, and it should help shape your future and who you will be when you get there.

Practical example 1. I believe that the sun will appear to rise in the morning. I believe this on the basis of past, observed events (the sun did the same sort of thing every other morning that I had occasion to observe the event), and subsequent observed events following the rising of that sun, such as the progression of the sun across the sky towards sunset and so on. This is a belief underpinned on the basis of previously observed events forming a predictable pattern. While I believe that the sun will rise in the morning there is also a part of me that accepts the mathematical possiblity that the sun may not rise at all tomorrow due to circumstances that are as yet unknown (Such as the Earth being thrown onto its side much like the planet Uranus). The odds of this happening are low, but they're not zero.

Practical example 2. I believe that God(ess)(s/es) can not exist in our universe. Previous behaviour of the universe, such as a lack of suitably "god-like" events as well as modern theories of the makeup of the origin and structure of the universe (on a macro and microscopic scale) has given me reason to believe the way that I do.



Doug

_________________
logicalheart wrote:
You know that pretty sound you play when the computer starts?
You need another one to play when the computer is actually ready to use.
Maybe add more for malfunctions and then we'll have music all day.

@DJRJ

Quote:

An interesting post. It seems such a pity to point out that you appear to have moved "belief" into the sole domain of the religious.

See definitions above. Hypothesis != belief.

If you think that if >2 people agree then something is almost certain then there is no hope for the world

In that case Id rather not classify myself as Atheist, perhaps Cynic would be more close to the mark.

@DJRJ


Quote:

"A small mind is easily filled with faith."

this is what wiffy was talking about. since you believe someting and acted on this in a religious fashion are you really an athiest or a person with deeply rooted beliefs that form the basis of your own personal religion.

_________________
Win•dows: n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

@Wiffy

Quote:

Wiffy wrote: @DJRJ Quote: An interesting post. It seems such a pity to point out that you appear to have moved "belief" into the sole domain of the religious. See definitions above. Hypothesis != belief. If you think that if >2 people agree then something is almost certain then there is no hope for the world In that case Id rather not classify myself as Atheist, perhaps Cynic would be more close to the mark.

How about "None-believer"? Oh, thats what "atheist" means. Silly me!

_________________
Ya Husayn!

@nicholas

Only according to the logical

Maybe he would be better off with Infidel:

Quote:

1. An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam. 2. One who has no religious beliefs. 3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.

Seems to describe him better than Atheist, IMHO.

Last edited by Wiffy on 24-May-2005 at 03:28 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Couldn't we just get God to moderate....

Don't worry I am here.

Coder

_________________
Can't get enough of me?
The Bucket Diary Blog
The Bucket Diary Twitter Account

As a child I was forced to go to Methodist Church (which I hated)
My grandfather was a Jehovah, and was a very tight-fisted man, who never shared anything, and his wife (my grand-mother) had nothing.

I believe if religion was not part of this world, people would get on so much better.
Religion is the cause of wars, hate, killing and total ignorance.
It has such a strong influence on people, that they will happily die for it.

I ain't putting my life on the line for something no-one can prove, and most of the time is completely corrupt to the heart.

If i'm gonna put my life on the line, it would be for my daughter.

The only religion I need, we all need and love, is AMIGA.

_________________
Dark Lord Design Wicked Solutions For Damned Problems

@treblesix

Quote:

treblesix wrote: As a child I was forced to go to Methodist Church (which I hated) My grandfather was a Jehovah, and was a very tight-fisted man, who never shared anything, and his wife (my grand-mother) had nothing. I believe if religion was not part of this world, people would get on so much better. Religion is the cause of wars, hate, killing and total ignorance. It has such a strong influence on people, that they will happily die for it. I ain't putting my life on the line for something no-one can prove, and most of the time is completely corrupt to the heart. If i'm gonna put my life on the line, it would be for my daughter. The only religion I need, we all need and love, is AMIGA.

Well, born agains only ever get "born again" because they have absolutley no love in their life. The love we feel for our children is the strongest love in the world. Much more powerful than any "love of God".

_________________
Ya Husayn!

@nicholas
Quote:

Well, born agains only ever get "born again" because they have absolutley no love in their life. The love we feel for our children is the strongest love in the world. Much more powerful than any "love of God".

Nothing like it in ever, for sure.

_________________
Dark Lord Design Wicked Solutions For Damned Problems

@Wiffy

Quote:

Or, if y'all want Ill declare this thread a moderation free zone and you can all sides hack and slash at each other.

annworld.net ?

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

For what it's worth, I think you ALL have the wrong idea.

Vote agnosticism.

Kay (runs for cover)