[stmichaeldefendthem]

It's not because I hate atheists or don't think they have a right to their viewpoints...

It's because I see this in every forum where there's a religion section. Instead of it being a place where religious issues are discussed between people of faith, it gets invaded and even taken over by mean spirited atheists with an agenda.

MODERATORS: Look at the threads in this forum and see if I'm not telling you the truth. It's like this on every forum with a religion section that hasn't specifically banned atheists from participation. No fruitful discussion on religious issue can be had because of their disruptive effect and the same thing has happened here. They've corrupted this section with their hostility, their cynicism, and their ability to turn every discussion into whether or not God exists.

I'm asking you to please ban all atheists from this section so that people of faith can have a placid place to discuss religion without contending with those who hate religion. Maybe they can have their own section to express their viewpoints. I can assure you if they do, they won't be plagued by people of faith the same way they've plagued the religion section.

Thank you for considering this.

[Fasces]

This is the wrong forum for this post.

This will not happen. Any off topic posts, however, should be reported as violations of Rule 15.

[The Immortal Goon]

You should start a private group with whomever you choose should you wish to exclude someone or a group of people.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

This Religion forum is under 'Political Issues', and described as 'For discussion of religious issues of political significance.' It's vital that everyone be allowed to participate, because politics affects everyone.

stmichaeldefendthem, there is a Spirituality forum under 'Humanities', which is described as 'An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.' That's where you can have blissfully atheist-free chats.

[stmichaeldefendthem]

This Religion forum is under 'Political Issues', and described as 'For discussion of religious issues of political significance.' It's vital that everyone be allowed to participate, because politics affects everyone.

stmichaeldefendthem, there is a Spirituality forum under 'Humanities', which is described as 'An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.' That's where you can have blissfully atheist-free chats.

Thank you. That was actually very helpful. I wasn't aware of this section, still becoming familiar with this site. That's good to know.

[Rich]

Yes and such a rule might not be as helpful as you think as it would not exclude me as I'm not an atheist. I don't buy that spirit aka Consciousness is just an epi-phenomen of matter.

In fact you could say I'm an extreme Godist as I believe that one day God will wake up and realise that I'm an illusion.

in fact I'm more contemptuous of the hard line Atheists than any so called religous person. They find a universal physical constant that seems fine to tuned to one part in 10 to the power of 120. Then they conjure infinite universes into existence on the basis of zero empirical evidence, so as they can call it a coincidence. And then they accuse religious people of being dogmatic and hidebound to their theology.

[stmichaeldefendthem]

Yes and such a rule might not be as helpful as you think as it would not exclude me as I'm not an atheist. I don't buy that spirit aka Consciousness is just an epi-phenomen of matter.

In fact you could say I'm an extreme Godist as I believe that one day God will wake up and realise that I'm an illusion.

in fact I'm more contemptuous of the hard line Atheists than any so called religous person. They find a universal physical constant that seems fine to tuned to one part in 10 to the power of 120. Then they conjure infinite universes into existence on the basis of zero empirical evidence, so as they can call it a coincidence. And then they accuse religious people of being dogmatic and hidebound to their theology.

Then I don't have to tell you that this thread isn't aimed at you. I think of atheism as disbelief in God in tandem with blustering arrogance. At least agnostics have enough humility to say they don't know for sure. With our almost infantile time span of existence compared to the billions of years the universe has been around and with our inability to even get off our own planet, it's just foolish to claim as one who's ancient of days and traversed the expanses that there is definitely no God.

I like humility. It's appealing, it's pious, and it makes way for undistorted philosophical awareness. I see it in you and that's the highest compliment I can pay a person.

[Stormsmith]

No fruitful discussion on religious issue can be had because of their disruptive effect and the same thing has happened here.

Exercise a little self control and ignore them. They're trolling. Their effect can only be described as disruptive if you allow them to hijack the thread, which is what happens when you respond, therefore, you have to accept that those who respond are half the problem. If you don't respond, they'll get bored and leave.

[stmichaeldefendthem]

Exercise a little self control and ignore them. They're trolling. Their effect can only be described as disruptive if you allow them to hijack the thread, which is what happens when you respond, therefore, you have to accept that those who respond are half the problem. If you don't respond, they'll get bored and leave.

Ignoring them is what I do on other forums. That feature is sadly missing on this site. Though I hope if the moderators see this thread that they'll consider adding it. It would certainly aid my effort to sculpt my social circle here.

[Fasces]

Nope. In life you gotta deal with assholes. It's already way to easy to create an echo chamber for yourself on the internet - man up and face a differing opinion for once.

[Stormsmith]

Sorry Fasces, I disagree. We're here to debate, but we don't have to debate every issue. Some we can just discuss with like-minded posters.

St Mike: You don't need a feature. Just ignore them. If that's tricky, type your reply, but don't post it. Wait an hour, then ask yourself if submitting it is adding to the problem; or if not posting it makes more sense.

[Fasces]

Sure, you don't have to engage them - it's the filtering so that you never even see them in the first place that I don't like.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Fasces, this is a message you sent me along with a warning recently.

This is a warning for violating forum rule 15.

You said: Oh Shit! . . . my bullshit detector literally just blew up in the palm of my hand.

The Spirituality subforum is "An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics."

You lack consistency.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Yes and such a rule might not be as helpful as you think as it would not exclude me as I'm not an atheist. I don't buy that spirit aka Consciousness is just an epi-phenomen of matter.

In fact you could say I'm an extreme Godist as I believe that one day God will wake up and realise that I'm an illusion.

in fact I'm more contemptuous of the hard line Atheists than any so called religous person. They find a universal physical constant that seems fine to tuned to one part in 10 to the power of 120. Then they conjure infinite universes into existence on the basis of zero empirical evidence, so as they can call it a coincidence. And then they accuse religious people of being dogmatic and hidebound to their theology.

Then I don't have to tell you that this thread isn't aimed at you. I think of atheism as disbelief in God in tandem with blustering arrogance. At least agnostics have enough humility to say they don't know for sure. With our almost infantile time span of existence compared to the billions of years the universe has been around and with our inability to even get off our own planet, it's just foolish to claim as one who's ancient of days and traversed the expanses that there is definitely no God.

I like humility. It's appealing, it's pious, and it makes way for undistorted philosophical awareness. I see it in you and that's the highest compliment I can pay a person.

As, perhaps, the only atheist in this thread, I'll just point out something - every mention of 'god' has been written with a capital 'G', and in the singular, as if there's no question that there is just one entity to be believed in. It seems strange to have such certainty, and then be contemptuous of, or call arrogant, others who just put the number at zero rather than one.

[Fasces]

Spirituality subforum

religion section

Anyway, I don't have to agree with a rule to enforce it.

[starman2003]

Then they conjure infinite universes into existence on the basis of zero empirical evidence,

The planck barrier isn't their fault and they're predicted on the basis of accepted theory.

so as they can call it a coincidence.

Earth is habitable because of a lucky accident no doubt about it. It just happened to have all the right features--right distance from its star which has sufficient longevity, right size etc. We know there are many many hundreds of uninhabitable worlds. If lucky accidents account for habitability on the level of planets it wouldn't be surprising this were also true of universes. Some time ago, Davies, a pro-holy joe astronomer, rejected the many universe theory as "invoking excess baggage in the extreme." But there obviously IS a tremendous amount of "excess baggage" on the planetary level; on that basis it's reasonable to extrapolate to universes. Lucky accidents are how it works in the real world. You don't need any holy hallelujah hocus pocus. The history of science is the story of "god" hogwash steadily losing ground to real explanations.

[Kapanda]

starman, thank you and keep it up.

[Cartertonian]

From an Admin perspective, Politics Forum is a discussion forum and to bar particular contributors from an open forum or sub-forum would be inappropriate. As has been noted by others, there would be nothing to stop you organising a Private Group to discuss faith issues without those of no faith.

From a Personal perspective, I simply repeat that, as I see it, the only reasonable position anyone can adopt is one of agnosticism - of simply 'not knowing' - whether you are a faith adherent or a hardcore atheist/sci-tech geek. No-one on either side of that divide has proof of their position; all they have, be they faithful or faithless, is belief in their position.

[Rich]

From a Personal perspective, I simply repeat that, as I see it, the only reasonable position anyone can adopt is one of agnosticism - of simply 'not knowing' -

I feel that's avoiding the issue. Imagine we meet in the street.

Rich: Hi Cart
Cart: Hi Rich
Rich: How's it going Cart?
Cart: Yeah its going pretty good Rich, How's yourself?
Rich: Well its funny you should say that, but I've just been up a mountain, well smallish mountain, Shooters hill actually. Anyway while I was up the Mountain, the creator of the Universe appeared to me and said that I was the seal of the prophets. Basically he's entrusted with me with explaining how he wants human beings to live their lives.
............. blah, blah blah.
Cart Ah Ok.
Rich: Oh one other thing. God said as a prophet I get to sleep with any women I want to. It helps me relax in the little time I'm going to get off in between my propheting duties. So if you could send your girl friend over to my place this evening, well it would stand you, and her, in good stead in the after life.

So how are you going to react Cartesian? My guess is that while you might remain philosophically agnostic on my claims, as you say how could you possibly know for certain. You're actually going to be functionally a disbeliever. For all practical purposes you are going to take an absolutist position of disbelief.

[Cartertonian]

No, my view is consistent. If you had had such an experience you would be well within your rights to consider that you had personal proof of God. What you would not have is the right to require me to alter my behaviours or beliefs on your say-so.

The history of all organised religion appears to me to be the history of men (usually) seeking to exercise power and control over other men (and women - vis your example) using God as their authority.

Ergo, I remain agnostic on whether or not there is a God. Based on that agnosticism, I am not willing to see the lives of others adversely affected in the name of something for which none of those so afflicted have any personal proof.

#stthomasdefendthem...