Important Questionnaire #26: RF Rule 8

[Revoltingest]

Belittling is okay if you add IMHO.

I certainly wouldn't rely upon that as innoculation against knuckle rapping.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Belittling is okay if you add IMHO. But not belittling when done as a claim, as in the example of @KenS

I always go by the adage that you attack the religion and not the person, however some people may regard criticism on a given religion as a personal attack on themselves.​

 

[Revoltingest]

I always go by the adage that you attack the religion and not the person, however some people may regard criticism on a given religion as a personal attack on themselves.​

It can depend upon whom one attacks & how.
A cartoon with a bomb on a prophet's head
has been found to be against the rules, this
despite it doesn't attack any individual poster.

 

[stvdv]

I always go by the adage that you attack the religion and not the person, however some people may regard criticism on a given religion as a personal attack on themselves.

I can understand this, as it has to do with your "soul", hence very "close to who they feel they are". Hence I phrase it as my opinion to solve this.

 

[Yazata]

I agree about full-frontal evangelism on the board.

But... it gets fuzzier when it comes to criticizing a belief system. Person A might disagree with some theological tenet of Religion X, or disagree with Religion X for some other reason. So what if Person A's reasons are persuasive to some adherent of Religion X, inducing the adherent to change his/her beliefs?

Does RF really want to demand silence from all the atheists, because their criticisms (usually of Christianity) might induce some Christian to lose his/her faith?

And what about politics? That's easily the most divisive and aggressively evangelical aspect of RF these days.

 

[Revoltingest]

But... it gets fuzzier when it comes to criticizing a belief system. Person A might disagree with some theological tenet of Religion X, or disagree with Religion X for some other reason. So what if Person A's reasons are persuasive to some adherent of Religion X, inducing the adherent to change his/her beliefs?

Does RF really want to demand silence from all the atheists, because their criticisms (usually of Christianity) might induce some Christian to lose his/her faith?

And what about politics? That's easily the most divisive aspect of RF these days.

I recommend that proselytizing be against the rules only when it falls
outside the theme of a thread's OP or meandering topics within it.
Otherwise, I've no problem with anyone preaching at me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted.

Except that it is.

Several well-known posters do almost nothing but start threads promoting their religion or theism in general. I read this just yesterday on another RF thread: "This thread is about one of the most obvious, to a theist, points of observation possible, i.e., the life-giving design inherent to, in, the world, the universe/cosmos, versus the truly asinine implication, of the non-theist, that there's no mindful design inherent to the design of the world, the universe/cosmos." That comment meets my criteria for proselytizing creationism, and does so in an offensive way (Never mind that I feel that his beliefs are asinine. Only he felt the need to say so.). Yet I had no expectation of moderators intervening. Nor did they. Nor did I want or need them to.

Let the guy preach. It opens the door to rebuttal, which could also be called proselytizing for science and reason, but I would disagree. I don't really care what people believe as long as there are not too many of any given type, which is when they become political and theocratic. Short of that, feel free to bay at the moon at midnight chanting to imagined gods if that's what centers you and gives your life meaning. I have no calling to change that.

But if you put your bad ideas in writing, I will rebut them just on principle. And my principle is to identify logical fallacies. The fact that they are made in support of religious beliefs is irrelevant. If they were made in support of climate denial, I would just as happily identify and name them.

I commented to you a few weeks back in another of your questions that I don't actually support some of the forum rules, although I try to comply with them all. I believe the subject was related to reporting abuses, and I mentioned that I don't care if others use profanity or proselytize, for example. So, no, I don't support that rule, but I also don't flout it.

attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching

This part is problematic for somebody like me. If somebody tells me that life seems too complex to them without having been intelligently designed, and I point out the incredulity and special pleading fallacies, who's proselytizing? Both of us? He's promoting creationism, and I'm pointing out his logical errors.

Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.

Also not a problem for me. I assume "I believe" to be implied if not explicitly stated. That doesn't mean that I assume that the writer understands that he is only expressing an opinion, but I do.

And it's also a rule virtually never enforced. How many sentences on RF include "God says" or "God wants" with no inclusion of "I believe" first? Look again at my italicized quote above. That would be a violation of the TOS as I understand them.

But I am not asking for it to be enforced.

Hope this helps.

 

[pearl]

I chose option two. I think there is confusion among some moderators as to what is preaching and what is genuinely meant to correct a mistaken statement concerning one's religion.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

If one simply states their beliefs, some might think it is preaching and others might not. It is too general to just say "no preaching". The rule should be changed or eliminated.

 

[Bird123]

This questionnaire is important to me: I am gathering member feedback to help me make better policy decisions. Please help out by responding to it.

RF Rule 8 reads in its entirety:

8. Preaching/Proselytizing
Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted. Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching. Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.

How strongly do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Overall, RF Rule 8 is reasonable."




Unless all facts are known, how can one make a judgment call on whether it is an opinion or not?

How about we all copy God in this matter? God allows total freedom of speech. Should not we all? If one feels they are being preached to, one always has the option not to reply to them. As a result they are just preaching to themselves.

The only exception I can see is if a person copied and pasted armies upon armies of stuff blocking up the system. Under this length restrictions might apply.

What is the old saying? Do not shelter your children from the evils of the world. Teach them how to deal with them.

God gives everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than any one person could have. Are we doing anyone a favor restricting any view regardless of what that view is? I think not.

In any event and regardless of any rules, if I feel I am being preached to and I do not like I, I simply will not respond or reply to your comment.

Personally, I think God's way is so much less work and hassle. It comes from Great Intelligence. We should not always fight to avoid Drama for that is where most of the learning takes place.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except that it is.

Several well-known posters do almost nothing but start threads promoting their religion or theism in general. I read this just yesterday on another RF thread: "This thread is about one of the most obvious, to a theist, points of observation possible, i.e., the life-giving design inherent to, in, the world, the universe/cosmos, versus the truly asinine implication, of the non-theist, that there's no mindful design inherent to the design of the world, the universe/cosmos." That comment meets my criteria for proselytizing creationism, and does so in an offensive way (Never mind that I feel that his beliefs are asinine. Only he felt the need to say so.). Yet I had no expectation of moderators intervening. Nor did they. Nor did I want or need them to.

Let the guy preach. It opens the door to rebuttal, which could also be called proselytizing for science and reason, but I would disagree. I don't really care what people believe as long as there are not too many of any given type, which is when they become political and theocratic. Short of that, feel free to bay at the moon at midnight chanting to imagined gods if that's what centers you and gives your life meaning. I have no calling to change that.

But if you put your bad ideas in writing, I will rebut them just on principle. And my principle is to identify logical fallacies. The fact that they are made in support of religious beliefs is irrelevant. If they were made in support of climate denial, I would just as happily identify and name them.

I commented to you a few weeks back in another of your questions that I don't actually support some of the forum rules, although I try to comply with them all. I believe the subject was related to reporting abuses, and I mentioned that I don't care if others use profanity or proselytize, for example. So, no, I don't support that rule, but I also don't flout it.



This part is problematic for somebody like me. If somebody tells me that life seems too complex to them without having been intelligently designed, and I point out the incredulity and special pleading fallacies, who's proselytizing? Both of us? He's promoting creationism, and I'm pointing out his logical errors.



Also not a problem for me. I assume "I believe" to be implied if not explicitly stated. That doesn't mean that I assume that the writer understands that he is only expressing an opinion, but I do.

And it's also a rule virtually never enforced. How many sentences on RF include "God says" or "God wants" with no inclusion of "I believe" first? Look again at my italicized quote above. That would be a violation of the TOS as I understand them.

But I am not asking for it to be enforced.

Hope this helps.

Though not as often as the theists, you can find non-religious claims in the name of evidence, proof, logic, truth, reason, objectivity, rationality and/or what not that are not really that. And it is not limited to politics as such.

 

[sun rise]

I chose option 3. If there's any post about politics or religion that does not look for support for the poster's position, I have yet to find it (and that includes me, of course).

So to me any post can be labeled as a rule 8 violation due to the very large grey area.

What if I posted 5000 words from the FSM Bible proving that in the beginning the FSM created noodles and saw that it was good. You were created to appreciate noodles and give all praise to the FSM. If you turn your back on this divine invitation to lunch, you will spend all eternity chained to where you can't reach the divine kugel that all believers enjoy as often as they wish.

I would think it leaves the grey area and is clearly a rule 8 issue if I continued: Repent you sinners before it's too late. Even today have some pasta for lunch and offer words of praise for it's divine taste. Do you want to be saved or not.

 

[Heyo]

I voted "somewhat disagree".
I don't like to be preached at but I also think that it is hard or almost impossible to "preach" on a forum. As long as I can skip the OP, ignore the poster or respond to her "preaching", it isn't really preaching, it is just an invitation to discuss/debate. Especially in a debate all posts can be seen as an attempt to convince the interlocutor (or the silent audience) of ones own opinion. Is that proselytising?
I'd only see it as such (or an attempt at such) when the "preacher" doesn't react to arguments. That would be annoying and might get the preacher one of the few coveted places on my ignore list but it shouldn't be a rule and more an advice in the "best practices" section.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted.

That is all anyone of any fundy persuasion does here. Some more so than others. Top of the list is Bahai followed by Christian, then...well no one. How many Buddhist, witches or Hindus do you see pounding their beliefs with a constant bla, bla, quotes from their infallible books? Us poor atheists just try to follow along and understand the thinking of the rightous know it alls and add our two cents of reasoning on the proclaimed matters at hand.

If it smells like a sell and walks like a sell, it's a sell.

What all knowing God group is not trying to sell their goods? Either for attention, distraction from their ho hum lives or for profits. Belief, and convincing others of it's validity, is the oxy serum every day for Abrahamic zealots. They need their fix which amounts to constantly sharing their unsolicited (true) beliefs. Nothing else matters to them. That is the difference between religious ideal inquiry and sharing, or obvious proselytizing.

And why a second thread is needed for the same topic already started two days ago with many informed responses is also fascinating. Although it was hijacked, it should still have been allowed to continue without another thread on the same topic.

 

[Heyo]

That is all anyone of any fundy persuasion does here. Some more so than others. Top of the list is Bahai followed by Christian, then...well no one. How many Buddhist, witches or Hindus do you see pounding their beliefs with a constant bla, bla, quotes from their infallible books? Us poor atheists just try to follow along and understand the thinking of the rightous know it alls and add our two cents of reasoning on the proclaimed matters at hand.

Add scientists to that group. We are indoctrinated to cite papers. Link - or it didn't happen.
And what is bad about that? (Aside from the quotes of the theists usually not fitting the subject)

 

[stvdv]

I think this covers any disagreement on the forum. For an example: "Christianity is a myth" - which is often used, is it not trying to dissuade a Christian from his religion?
Would that be classified as preaching against a religion? It can get pretty murky in its technicality.

1) Belittling Christianity
2) Stating opinion as fact
I agree, this falls under RF Rule 8 (double violation)

8. Preaching/Proselytizing
Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted. Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching. Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.

Is belittling against the rules?

Belittling is okay if you add IMHO (all are free to have their opinion).
Belittling is not okay if done as a claim, as in the example of @KenS

Note: But I would not do that.

@KenS = I am curious why you give my above reply (the blue one) a "Funny" rating. I was "dead serious"....or do you disagree with what the below?
Because:
To belittle someone's feeling or faith falls under "(RF Rule #8: ) stating your opinion as a definitive matter of fact", unless required respectful, humane IMHO is added
Also:
IF someone states "Christianity is a myth" (in this context, when debating) and if he implies, what is usually the case, "you are a fool to believe in this myth" or "myths are for children, when do you grow up and accept science and common sense" or something similar
THEN these are both strong hints he gives to you, to stop believing what you believe, so again violating RF Rule #8 "attempting to convert the other away from his religion".

I might call this indirect proselytizing, and IMO it's as bad or even worse than direct proselytizing (stepping on the Christian's heart and giving a blow below the belt)

 

[Kenny]

@KenS = I am curious why you give my above reply (the blue one) a "Funny" rating. I was "dead serious"....or do you disagree with what the below?
Because:
To belittle someone's feeling or faith falls under "(RF Rule #8: ) stating your opinion as a definitive matter of fact", unless required respectful, humane IMHO is added
Also:
IF someone states "Christianity is a myth" (in this context, when debating) and if he implies, what is usually the case, "you are a fool to believe in this myth" or "myths are for children, when do you grow up and accept science and common sense" or something similar
THEN these are both strong hints he gives to you, to stop believing what you believe, so again violating RF Rule #8 "attempting to convert the other away from his religion".

I might call this indirect proselytizing, and IMO it's as bad or even worse than direct proselytizing (stepping on the Christian's heart and giving a blow below the belt)

I'm sorry.... I really didn't mean anything in particular. It just struck a funny in me.

I didn't realize you were serious. To be honest, it just doesn't bother me. It is a matter of viewpoint since: Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

You may have a point but if we are not careful, we will have censored everything. So I just let them believe what they want to believe.

 

[stvdv]

It is a matter of viewpoint since: Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Seems that the Bible kind of agrees with me: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" ... so not blabbing it out or imposing on others

You may have a point but if we are not careful, we will have censored everything

"censoring everything" ... that will never happen in the West

Just make people aware how important it is, not to belittle others.
All parents know that belittling their children makes them "sick", don't you think?

So I just let them believe what they want to believe.

That was not the point I made. Of course I agree that all are free to believe what they want. Just control our "belittling" speech, that is all.

I believe that the "Word is given by God".
So I think it's good not to forget this, and always utilize it in a God-intended way (lovingly, not hurtful, so for sure not belittling)...Hence IMHO seems perfect

 

[Kenny]

Seems that the Bible kind of agrees with me: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" ... so not blabbing it out or imposing on others


"censoring everything" ... that will never happen in the West

Just make people aware how important it is, not to belittle others.
All parents know that belittling their children makes them "sick", don't you think?


That was not the point I made. Of course I agree that all are free to believe what they want. Just control our "belittling" speech, that is all.

I believe that the "Word is given by God".
So I think it's good not to forget this, and always utilize it in a God-intended way (lovingly, not hurtful, so for sure not belittling)...Hence IMHO seems perfect

Well said!

 

[ecco]

I read this just yesterday on another RF thread: "This thread is about one of the most obvious, to a theist, points of observation possible, i.e., the life-giving design inherent to, in, the world, the universe/cosmos, versus the truly asinine implication, of the non-theist, that there's no mindful design inherent to the design of the world, the universe/cosmos." That comment meets my criteria for proselytizing creationism, and does so in an offensive way (Never mind that I feel that his beliefs are asinine. Only he felt the need to say so.). Yet I had no expectation of moderators intervening. Nor did they. Nor did I want or need them to.

What he said.