Guidelines on Ranting - Discussion

Feedback and site usage questions

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Guidelines on Ranting - Discussion

Post #1

Post by Danmark »

Ranting Guidelines:
1. You are free to attack any belief or position on this forum. However, you must do so in a civil and respectful fashion.
2. Merely offering your opinion on a position has little to no value in debates. Rather, you are expected to offer a position and be able to justify it with argumentation and with evidence.
3. Avoid posting rants that have no bearing on the debate topic.
4. Avoid posting blanket -- particularly derogatory -- statements against any belief system or group of people.
It may be difficult to draw the line between fair comment and criticism on the one hand, and 'ranting' on the other. I am not speaking as a moderator, but an example of how to avoid violating numbers 1. and 4. in regard to a civil way of attacking a god or a belief system might include:

Stating that the image of God you get from what others consider scripture is of a "wrathful and dishonest deity" or one whose "sanity you question."
And then follow that up with specific facts to support your position. I would think this would be preferred to using derogatory words as expletives in lieu of a fact based argument.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #2

Post by Divine Insight »

I already posted my position on this in another thread, but I thought I'd mention it here as well.

The reason I reject Christianity, and all of the Abrahamic religions is because I have come to the conclusion that, IMHO, after having studied the doctrines of these religions in-depth it appears to me that the God character does indeed do absolute absurd, immoral, and insane things with his supposedly omnipotent powers.

I have no interest in arguing against these religions simply because these "miracles" performed by this God are technically impossible from a scientific point of view. As far as I can see if there truly exists a creator of reality that creator could indeed override the laws of physics with no problem whatsoever.

So arguing against these religions on a scientific basis is futile and not impressive as far as I'm concerned.

In fact, I'll go as far to say that if this magical God had done things that appear to truly be wise, intelligent, and highly moral I'd probably still be a Christian. The fact that this God has overridden the laws of physics is a moot point. Surely if a God created this physical reality he could override the laws of physics without a problem.

So my entire argument against these Abrahamic religions is indeed that they portray a God that, IMHO, is indeed absurd, immoral, and basically insane.

That is my argument.

This is why I reject these religions.

So if it's considered "uncivil" or "ranting" to make these kinds of arguments, then my argument against these religions become null and void.

Arguing against these religions on scientific grounds is futile. If there truly exists a omnipotent God who created physical reality, then I concede that this God could indeed override the laws of physics at will. I see no reason why he couldn't.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #3

Post by Danmark »

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss HOW arguments should be phrased, not the content of the position taken in the argument.

The difficulty as I see it is that we should be allowed to attack various belief systems aggressively and freely, yet we should do so in a civil way.

For example it may be inappropriate to just call Yahweh a jerk or an evil monster, but it should be fair to say 'Hezekiah 13:13 states "blah blah blah" and this clearly demonstrates that God, out of his own mouth, has announced he is an angry, unfair God.' We should be free to argue our points of view, but do so with some care and respect for others.

Anyway, what I want to explore in this thread, is not the arguments themselves, but where the line is between powerful exposition and uncivil language.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #4

Post by Divine Insight »

Danmark wrote: Anyway, what I want to explore in this thread, is not the arguments themselves, but where the line is between powerful exposition and uncivil language.
Yes, that would be nice to have a good idea of what people consider to be civil versus uncivil.

Especially to know how the mods feel since they are the ones who would be issuing citations.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20520
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Post #5

Post by otseng »

Divine Insight wrote: So if it's considered "uncivil" or "ranting" to make these kinds of arguments, then my argument against these religions become null and void.
I give freedom in attacking ideas, including God and Jesus. So, I do not really have too much of a problem with calling God immoral, absurd, or even insane. But, I have a greater problem when it is continually brought up when it's not related to the OP or to what is being discussed. The counterpart to this is in regards to preaching. Preaching itself is not against the rules, provided it directly relates to the OP or is related to what is being discussed. But, if it is not related, then it is a problem.

Post Reply