The Religion forum

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Sorcerer, Jan 10, 2014.

  1. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Good point. Assuming we need the topiic at all, the mod should be an agnostic, and therefore impartial.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Thisiskwhilbornsock Banned Banned

    Yeah. I made a sock to bitch about this moderator again. You cannot say anything against Jesus without raising his/her ire.

    The shroud of Turin was the discussion, and the fact that the arms are overly oblong and distorted to conveniently cover the penis area is a valid comment.

    All escalation of the argument came from Syne. She/He is too stupid to recognize a valid point

    I am one of the few regulars here who have sparked some interesting conversations and arguments, but Sciforums is getting ridiculous with that moderator.

    Just for the record. LENR will be confirmed as true although I will not be here to rub it in.

    If the shroud of Turin did not distort the human figure to conveniently cover the penis area then it would not be a valid argument, but it was.

    Creating a sock puppet is the ONLY way to bitch about this and if it incurs a lifetime ban then I could care less. I have been spending as much time on one of the other sites that seems to be gaining popularity.

    Sad though that a Zealot (as I said 2 posts ago) that can be offended by the proof the Shroud of Turin is fake is allowed to even be a member nevermind a Moderator.

    Fuck you synne... That is a cheap way to defend your fake deity. Others will see it as cheap also.

    If this brings me a lifetime ban I welcome it. Synn can continue pushing catholicism down peoples throats.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    oh my, you seriously screwed up with that one.
    see my cosmic load post in the act of love thread.

    using a sock to evade a ban is really bad news for you.

    for the record:
    syne was chosen by a GROUP of people, not by one person.
    i can only guess that the rational reason would be they liked his vision and seemed to know the job.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    go away noob.
  9. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    In your dreams asshole.
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Just a thought on the Religion forum:

    For a long time, until quite recently, we had numerous complaints from members, saying that they thought that sciforums was run by a bunch of card-carrying atheists, who were biased against people who are religious. In particular, they questioned why atheists should be moderating the Religion forum. Why not have a believer moderating the forum for discussion of religious beliefs instead? Wouldn't that be fairer (they asked)?

    Now we have appointed somebody who believes in God to moderate Religion. And look what's happening. Suddenly we have some atheists complaining that they are being discriminated against. And this, despite the fact that only one new moderator has been added - all other moderation and oversight remains as it was.

    Question to users of the Religion forum: do you think it is possible to strike a balance in moderation in this forum? I mean, if you're not happy when there is an atheist moderator, and you're not happy when there's a religious moderator, what are we to do? Appoint an agnostic?

    Is the problem here really a problem about who the moderator is, or is it something else?
  11. Yetanothersock Banned Banned

    @ James R,
    Odd. This is a thread I am heavily a part of and the only way to answer is "Yetanothersock" so here it is.

    I have endorsed and argued for the god stance, and believe I have given some decent arguments for it.

    My problem (since you asked) is having a Zealot who is biased Catholic.

    Look at the Shroud of Turin Thread and tell me the moderator did not escalate this.

    Apparently the word Penis is too offensive for this moderator even though the Shroud of Turin is obvious PG (movie rating).

    In the final post Syne points us to a thread where the Vitruvian Man (shown in OP there) is now clad in underwear. I do not think Leonardo drew it that way.

    see here
    ww(DOT replace this)
    from Synes link
    ww(DOT this also)

    Is Syne a prude?

    look at that Thread...

    It started off innocent until Syne focused on one word "Penis". Yet that is the part of the body the Shroud of Turin is so modest about.
    See Thread...

    I have been here over a decade, and even though I enjoy arguing (even against Moderators) I have started hundreds of threads and believe I have contributed to this website. I am a Moderator myself to a Poker Website 1000 times bigger than Sciforums and have a grasp of what is offensive and what is topic.

    I do not see the point in remaining a member though if Syne is just going to start banning me every time I say jesus is a fraud. Catholicism killed Millions, and if the popes had their way their followers would murder the local United Church like they did with the Cathars.


    Syne is a Zealot. That is above and beyond believing.

    If Syne is to remain a moderator then I happily request a lifetime ban on my KWHILBORN account.

    I have enjoyed the banter here, but that was over moderation.

    The Troll in this thread,

    is Syne with his/her comments in post 3.

    I portrayed a valid argument for showing the Shroud is bogus, and yet Syne just turns it into a Penis debate.

    Since this is likely my last post here I would like to say for the record,
    "fuck-You Syne".

    @ Leopold,

    I am not caring about ban or this website as much, so ...

    I request Kwhilborn (me) be banned for life under these circumstances. I can contribute elsewhere.

    I may not have posted as much as some, but my posts have always been decent arguments.

    Good Luck everyone. Cheers.

  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    you are going about this the wrong way.
    if you are going to create a sock then you need to use that sock to PM the moderators.
    you should have sent the above post in its entirety to james.
    a better option would be to report the offending post and include the entire above post as a reason.
    you are only extending your ban by using socks to post on the open board and are risking a permaban.
  13. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    I couldn't care what belief (or lack thereof) the Moderator has.
    But they do have to use common sense and moderate without bias.
    It may be that this person is new and still learning, but so far it smacks of a heavy-handed show of power rather than unbiased moderation.
    Threads have been closed too quickly.
    One complete with accusations of there being too many red-herrings with no opportunity for people to state their case, to defend themselves and/or the thread.

    The task of a moderator is to respond to the rules of the place, of course, but surely to do so in a manner that strives to keep threads open.
    If individuals get out of line... Warn them, suspend them, etc.
    If threads are on the margin of acceptability in subject matter, then they should put aside their own feelings, leave the thread open for those that want to discuss, but warn that the thread will be moderated more tightly.
    If they think a thread is off-topic, who cares as long as no one is complaining and the discussions are still ongoing: threads often move away from the title.

    At the moment this moderator, through deliberate bias or mere inexperience, seems unable to disconnect their personal views from the power they have been given.

    It's a pity.
    Some may soon feel concerned with disputing what he says on a topic for fear of the thread being closed or them personally being "moderated".

    Surely there are some more objective people who can possibly share the moderating, who can at least offer a sounding board before any more heavy-handed actions are taken.

    I'm sure there would be volunteers for such.
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Ah, so the ban is now permanent.
    Farewell to one of this site's more deluded charlatans.
    May you find an audience more gullible than this to which you can spout your drivel.
  15. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Who in their right mind would volunteer for such a thing?
  16. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    That is a point, I suppose. Not me, for one.
  17. Yazata Valued Senior Member


    I agree with Baldeee. As I see it, the issue isn't whether the Religion forum is being moderated by atheists or by theists.

    That only becomes relevant when moderators behave unfairly, insultingly or overly-aggressively towards individuals who argue for opposing views. If that's happening, then it doesn't really matter whether it's atheists or theists that are doing it. It's wrong either way.

    Intelligent, thoughtful and unbiased discussion of religion, and of philosophical issues associated with religion, aren't impossible. They aren't even all that unusual. They happen all the time in college and university classrooms.

    That's probably how Sciforums' moderators should approach this -- as if they are facilitating a philosophical class discussion. (While remaining aware that Sciforums is populated by laypeople and that standards of discussion might be a bit lower.) The goal shouldn't be to arrive at some pre-determined conclusion. Ideally, it should be to draw out better arguments and more sophisticated thinking about whatever views a participant happens to favor.

    The moderator probably should step in if a participant starts insulting or abusing somebody else. That means that the moderator mustn't be among those doing the insulting and abusing. That's extremely important and it applies equally to atheists and to theists.

    That's the primary difficulty -- how should a moderator balance his or her sometimes passionate advocacy for a particular view, with serving as an unbiased moderator and facilitator of discussions in which some people will be arguing for diametrically opposed views? How can a moderator keep the role of moderator and discussion participant separate and distinct? I realize that it's going to be hard sometimes.

    I'm going to agree with Baldeee again and say that if the polarization on the Religon forum is already so pervasive and so poisonous that Sciforums is having trouble moderating the forum in such a way that's fair both to theists and to atheists, then you might want to consider employing theist and atheist co-moderators. If a thread's to be closed or a participant banned, then require that both the theist and the atheist agree on the proposed action. That would eliminate most of the potential bias right there.
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    the forum is about religion.
    religion deals with a god and its relation to society
    if anyone is offended by that then STFO of the forum.
    how simple can it be?
  19. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    I have had discussions with Christians who admit their beliefs are delusional, that they make no sense in reality. These same folks, for example, understand evolution and accept it, have no problem with gay marriage or abortion, because they understand those concepts and the facts relating to them, don't believe the bible literally, etc. They are relatively unbiased, honest and actually understand the world around them and never proselytize their beliefs.

    These are the kind of folks we had hoped would be chosen to moderate the Religion forum.
  20. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    I hate to be negative, but how can they be christians and yet not believe in the teachings? If you're saying they are christians who have been secularised, then that's fine.
  21. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    My wife and I are two such Christians... we are modified (heavily) by other teachings, including Pagan and Buddhist ideas, including the idea of finding "contentment" as opposed to "happiness" (given as emotional states are fickle and apt to change on a whim). However, at our core, we are Christian.

    Granted, we also believe that most major religions are/could be the very same teachings/people, but with different labels and recorded from different viewpoints. Case in point - what's to say Yahweh, Jehova, Allah, etc aren't the same entity, but appearing in differing forms to different people?
  22. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Even if your views have travelled far from the tenets of your faith,
    there is great satisfaction and comfort in keeping to the traditions you were brought up with.
    Why abandon your culture?
    Many Christians don't believe in the Virgin Birth, the Creation myths, or even in an afterlife.
  23. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Oh, I would agree there are hypocrisies there and that we can invoke the True Scotsman fallacy, but nonetheless, those "Christians" exist.

Share This Page