[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by teh rulez No ... religion bashing is allowed

Stupid ideas should be bashed.

Just because some statement has the word "God" in front of it should not make it immune to criticism. To steal an idea from Douglas Adams, if you're going to tell me that you can't flip a light switch on Sunday, I'm going to say "that's stupid." Why is it, then, that if the statement is changed to "God says I can't flip a light switch on Sunday" that it is suddenly protected and barred from criticism?

That's ridiculous. Religion should not be shielded from criticism. If even mathematically proven theories are open for criticism, then something that has never even been proven should be equally open for criticism.

[SenorCheaposGato]

I see your point. The difference is the personal/moral weight of [issue].

When it comes to any religious discussion, "bashing" is really hitting below the belt. Think of something that is really, deeply important to you...something that you believe absolutely that is a big part of your life. Now, imagine someone telling you that you're stupid and wrong. It's just kind of mean.

I think that friendlycriticism, discussion, and debate are essential--I want to learn about different religions, even if they sound bizarre to me. (and even though I'm an atheist.)

My guess is that "no religion bashing" is in the rules to try to keep things civil. I don't think they want to stop discussion about religion, but it really is an issue where things can get very personal/hurtful very quickly.

Does that make sense? I'm just guessing anyway. I'm not a mod or an admin, so my word is not gospel.

(haha...I crack me up. )

[SenorCheaposGato]

BTW - I hope you're not offended by me saying any of this, but...

stupid ideas shouldn't necessarily be bashed. I don't think any ideas should be bashed...discussed, debated, dissected...there are plenty of good words that start with "d" that apply.

Bashing doesn't do anything but piss someone off. The idea that you think is stupid may be really important to them...see above post. Bashing is just going to cause a lot of problems and confrontation, IMO.

please don't take this the wrong way--like I said, I don't know exactly what was meant by that and I have no authority here. I hope some of this makes sense and clarifies!

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by SenorCheaposGato When it comes to any religious discussion, "bashing" is really hitting below the belt. Think of something that is really, deeply important to you...something that you believe absolutely that is a big part of your life. Now, imagine someone telling you that you're stupid and wrong. It's just kind of mean.

There's an excellent quote by Penn Jillete:

I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do."

From that perspective, why not ban religious "bashing" (more on this later) of anything else instead?

Originally Posted by SenorCheaposGato BTW - I hope you're not offended by me saying any of this, but... stupid ideas shouldn't necessarily be bashed. I don't think any ideas should be bashed...discussed, debated, dissected...there are plenty of good words that start with "d" that apply.

Defenestrated?

It's all semantics IMO- there's no real difference between "bashing" and "debating", just an arbitrary line in the sand drawn by a random moderator/administrator. I'd much rather that get excised from the rules- the other rules cover flaming and similar well enough so that an overzealous and/or biased mod doesn't decide to get rid of criticism of religion under the "no bashing religion!" rule.

[Ek0nomik]

I think what they are getting at is not to make threads saying: Christianity Fuck/ng Sucks!!!!1!!!!

Granted, not many people would do that and having a rule about "No bashing religion" is rather pointless, because we are all adults and we can share ideas maturely. I just think you are looking into it too much.

[SenorCheaposGato]

I don't think all words that start with "d" apply.

The general idea behind the rules is "play nice." I agree with Ek0nomik--we really can all interact maturely. Personally, I'm hoping that everyone on the forum can be mature/polite/considerate enough so that the rule in question is never even used.

(Hey, a girl can dream, right?)

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by Ek0nomik I think what they are getting at is not to make threads saying: Christianity Fuck/ng Sucks!!!!1!!!! Granted, not many people would do that and having a rule about "No bashing religion" is rather pointless, because we are all adults and we can share ideas maturely. I just think you are looking into it too much.

The rule, as it stands now, would allow a moderator to delete a post saying "The Bible claims that god has killed over 2,270,365 people. This is a cruel, mean god. If this is true, god is a murderer." as "bashing Christianity" (and Judaism as well)- this is clearly a legitimate comment to make about Christianity, but since it's negative it could be claimed to be "bashing" Christianity, and as such could be deleted by a moderator.

Would it not be better to have rules that aren't so clearly abusable?

[ButteBlues]

There is a difference between debating the legitimacy of religion and bashin religion.

It lies in the tone of the statements made. And of course the diction.

[ButteBlues]

Originally Posted by JoshJ The rule, as it stands now, would allow a moderator to delete a post saying "The Bible claims that god has killed over 2,270,365 people. This is a cruel, mean god. If this is true, god is a murderer." as "bashing Christianity" (and Judaism as well)- this is clearly a legitimate comment to make about Christianity, but since it's negative it could be claimed to be "bashing" Christianity, and as such could be deleted by a moderator. Would it not be better to have rules that aren't so clearly abusable?

That isn't bashing - that's making a statement based on information.

Bashing would be saying something stupid, like, "Gee - doesn't the Christian God come off as a huge dick? I mean he just murdered millions of people. Anyone who could have faith in such a God is a complete twat."*

* This is just for the sake of argument. Personally, I'm a Christian, so no one need get their panties in a bunch.

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by ButteBlues That isn't bashing - that's making a statement based on information. Bashing would be saying something stupid, like, "Gee - doesn't the Christian God come off as a huge dick? I mean he just murdered millions of people. Anyone who could have faith in such a God is a complete twat."

In reality, those two statements are basically saying the same thing. (One's more precise, but that's beside the point.) One shouldn't have to mince words to post- a true statement can be surrounded by 100 ad hominems and still be a true statement.

[brandx]

I cleaned up the rules.. but please continue on

[ButteBlues]

Originally Posted by JoshJ In reality, those two statements are basically saying the same thing. (One's more precise, but that's beside the point.) One shouldn't have to mince words to post- a true statement can be surrounded by 100 ad hominems and still be a true statement.

See my prior posting.

One has a tone that represents an ernest desire to have a fair debate; the example I gave has a tone of, to refer right back to the quotation you offered earlier, "'I [don't] have faith, I [don't] believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my [non-]faith.' That's just a long-winded [anti-]religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less."

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by ubuntu-geek I cleaned up the rules..

Thank you.

but please continue on

Gladly. The idea that "you can't be a dick" applies in general- there's no need to give religion special protection.

There are clearly countless bad ideas that come from religion. Saying "you can't attack this idea, it's above reproach because I claim it comes from God" means all you have to do is find some justification for an idea from a religion and suddenly that idea is invincible, save where it butts into conflicting ideas from other religions. Considering the sheer quantity of religions that exist, and the extreme verbosity of their texts, you can basically find a justification for anything and everything in a holy book.

That's no way to attain progress. God is not a shield to defend an idea. Whatever position you take on an issue should be given in terms of its impact on humans, not the claim that it's what some sort of divinity wants- unless you can actually prove not only that a divinity exists, but that it's that specific one, that the book in question is intended to mean what it says (ie: no translation errors, no 1500-year-old editorializing, etc), and that the divinity in question hasn't changed his/her mind.

[SenorCheaposGato]

Sure, the mods/admin could interpret it any way they want. (well, if it still existed.) I'm also on the Ubuntu forums and they're not a bad bunch. There are definitely much worse mods--I can't see them punishing you for stating a fact.

Just stay away from emotionally loaded statements and things should probably be cool. And sure, you could say things more bluntly...but if you try to phrase your arguments so that they're not overly emotional and one-sided then people will respect you a lot more and really look at what you're saying.

The extra time and words are worth it.

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by SenorCheaposGato And sure, you could say things more bluntly...but if you try to phrase your arguments so that they're not overly emotional and one-sided then people will respect you a lot more and really look at what you're saying. The extra time and words are worth it.

"Words, words, words." -- Hamlet

Getting to the point is far better than spending a paragraph beating around the bush. Say more with less.

[ButteBlues]

The whole concept of "You must prove that an supernatural entity exists!!!" is fallacied to begin with.

How can the natural hope to comprehend fully, or even be able to prove the existence of, a being that is on a completely different level of classification?

[ButteBlues]

Originally Posted by JoshJ "Words, words, words." -- Hamlet Getting to the point is far better than spending a paragraph beating around the bush. Say more with less.

One need not ramble to make a concise statement without "being a dick".

Example 1: "I don't believe in God or the Bible's validity."
Example 2: "God is a murdering farce and the Bible is nothing but a book of lies and anyone who believes it is a complete and utter fool and should die in a fire."

Guess which example is preferred!

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by ButteBlues The whole concept of "You must prove that an supernatural entity exists!!!" is fallacied to begin with. How can the natural hope to comprehend fully, or even be able to prove the existence of, a being that is on a completely different level of classification?

Very well then, I claim that there is an invisible pink unicorn behind you, and if you don't worship her, Her Horniness will stab you and pound you with her hooves for eternity. Also she hates pasta and if you ever eat pasta you burn in an induction oven. (you burn for one second, and if the oven is on in second x, it remains on in second x+1)

Clearly there should be proof, or at the very least evidence, for a claim such as that. Otherwise, why listen to it? Without proof or even evidence, allowing such a claim to be a shield for any idea derived from it is ridiculous.

[JoshJ]

Originally Posted by ButteBlues One need not ramble to make a concise statement without "being a dick". Example 1: "I don't believe in God or the Bible's validity." Example 2: "God is a murdering farce and the Bible is nothing but a book of lies and anyone who believes it is a complete and utter fool and should die in a fire." Guess which example is preferred!

Funny, I thought it was generally the Christians who said that people who disagreed with them died in a fire.

[ButteBlues]

Originally Posted by JoshJ Very well then, I claim that there is an invisible pink unicorn behind you, and if you don't worship her, Her Horniness will stab you and pound you with her hooves for eternity. Also she hates pasta and if you ever eat pasta you burn in an induction oven. (you burn for one second, and if the oven is on in second x, it remains on in second x+1)

You are most certainly welcome to believe that; I disagree.

Clearly there should be proof, or at the very least evidence, for a claim such as that.

Considering the world's three largest religions all corroborate some or much of what is in what is considered the Bible, I think it's fair to say there's some validity and grain of truth to it all. It is for this reason that many will say that Jesus Christ did exist - of course the question of whether he was just a smooth-talking carpenter or the Son of God or whatever-you-will is entirely debated. But, the fact that he existed is corroborated. Similarly, the Great Flood is corroborated in many other items of folklore besides Judeo-Christian ones (the Story of Gilgamesh for one).

Otherwise, why listen to it? Without proof or even evidence, allowing such a claim to be a shield for any idea derived from it is ridiculous.

Some people like to operate under the belief that they have a higher purpose in life than to simply live and die and call it a day.