Originally posted by Zahlanzi
why do you assume a spirituality thread must be about religion?

Why do YOU assume that debate must follow rules set up by atheists?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
We all know that many interesting debates on
here are scuppered by one side or the other.
(Actually it is always Mad Christians 😉 )

And Suzi pops up to prove the point!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
why do you assume a spirituality thread must be about religion?

Clearly, the topic being entertained is not some "generic spirituality" topic.

It is clearly set up to bash the Bible. So yeah, it was originally about religion.

Sorry, I don't see an atheist credibly having anything to say (other than bashing) about the Bible.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
And Suzi pops up to prove the point!

Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware this was the "Atheist Forum".

Originally posted by wolfgang59
And Suzi pops up to prove the point!

It can't really be called honest debate if one side is stacked.

When the bias is inherent in the question, it's not really a fair debate, is it?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Why do YOU assume that debate must follow rules set up by atheists?

would you feel better if I would propose those rules? i am a theist. christian even.


does it matter what personal beliefs the moderator has? all it matters if you trust him to be impartial and capable of moderating.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Clearly, the topic being entertained is not some "generic spirituality" topic.

It is clearly set up to bash the Bible. So yeah, it was originally about religion.

Sorry, I don't see an atheist credibly having anything to say (other than bashing) about the Bible.

"It is clearly set up to bash the Bible."
i for one would trust bbarr to be impartial.


"Sorry, I don't see an atheist credibly having anything to say (other than bashing) about the Bible."
why? do you think atheism would make someone unable to be objective? do you think no atheist looking at psalms or proverbs wouldn't agree some are quite beautiful?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
We all know that many interesting debates on
here are scuppered by one side or the other.
(Actually it is always Mad Christians 😉 )

Could we have a debate with a moderator we all respect?

I nominate
CalJust
bbarr
DeepThought
Zahlanzi

I suggest they determine the object of debate by means of an opening
post and thereafter do not participate in the debate except as mediator.

Other nominations?
Opinion?

Methinks the avoidance of excess or extremes, both in one’s behaviour and on political, religious, philosophical and any other opinions is supposed to be conducted by each poster according to the evaluation of the mind of each poster and within the rules of the site. To me, the final evaluation, if any, of each poster’s thesis and beliefs is to be done by each participant. I think that no other moderation is needed; if I conclude that a poster is a troll or derailed or gets out of bounds, I simply point out this conclusion of mine in the context of the thread or I simply don’t pay attention to his posts.
😵

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"It is clearly set up to bash the Bible."
i for one would trust bbarr to be impartial.


"Sorry, I don't see an atheist credibly having anything to say (other than bashing) about the Bible."
why? do you think atheism would make someone unable to be objective? do you think no atheist looking at psalms or proverbs wouldn't agree some are quite beautiful?

Objectivity is non-existent. Existent is the collective subjectivity, that is misunderstood as "objectivity"
😵

Originally posted by wolfgang59
CalJust
bbarr
DeepThought
Zahlanzi
Lemonjello
JS357

You have been nominated ... if you are willing please volunteer!

Ok. I'll do it. But expect a light touch.

Originally posted by Suzianne
It can't really be called honest debate if one side is stacked.

When the bias is inherent in the question, it's not really a fair debate, is it?

Why do you assume that because a thread is moderated the moderator will favour one side or the other. The moderator is not a judge of who has "won" the debate but one who hopefully ensures that it stays on topic and with a reasonable degree of politeness. If you want to ensure that things are balanced then why not volunteer as a moderator?

Originally posted by bbarr
The Bible is a really reliable source of knowledge concerning that which is in the Bible. We might want to narrow that topic down.

I though perhaps the debate would include ways some us think the Bible is more reliable and less so.

But after seeing how this thread has gone I withdraw my suggestion that the topic be the Bible is a reliable source of knowledge and l decline the nomination. Sorry about the punctuation on this kindle.

Originally posted by Suzianne
It can't really be called honest debate if one side is stacked.

When the bias is inherent in the question, it's not really a fair debate, is it?

How is my proposed topic biased...

The Bible is a reliable source of knowledge.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So a "good thread" is only those conforming to atheist rules on what a religious debate should be?

Please.

Ooookay, let's try to make some sense out of this ...

I said ...

Call me a pessimist but what happens when the likes of Dasa and "friends" are on the case? How exactly can even a good thread be moderated once it devolves into a mud fight? (as is often the case these days)

And from this you responded (omitting the please)

So a "good thread" is only those conforming to atheist rules on what a religious debate should be?

The only parts of the bit you quoted that would have any impact on the goodness of a thread (or more importantly a regression of goodness) are either of:
Dasa and "friends" [joining in], or mud fight.
And the only part of the bit you responded with that would have the same impact is
[NOT] conforming to atheist rules on what a religious debate should be.



So essentially, in your world, NOT conforming to atheist rules on religious debates is for all intents and purposes synonymous with posting crap when it bears relevance to how good a thread is!!

Well yeah, erm ... Reveal Hidden Content 😕

Originally posted by JS357
I though perhaps the debate would include ways some us think the Bible is more reliable and less so.

But after seeing how this thread has gone I withdraw my suggestion that the topic be the Bible is a reliable source of knowledge and l decline the nomination. Sorry about the punctuation on this kindle.

That's really unfortunate. The questions of the Bible's historical accuracy and moral wisdom I find particularly fascinating. If winnowed down to a more definite field of knowledge, this topic could have made for a great discussion. I think you should reconsider.