If the forum is to be consistent, we need to start censoring people who promote atheism. I'm not actually advocating that but that is what it would look like if the forum was consistent.

Dude you have five discussions started in 7 days. Curb your enthusiasm a bit, and spend more time thinking and reading. Everyone argues for their views here, and you are doing that too. Perhaps you are overdoing it a bit. The forum is run by mere mortals, who are not perfect judges, but within the bounds of human imperfection, it seems to me that your views are well represented here on the front page. If you bombard us with new threads every day, it becomes tiresome. Your position is a minority one here, so you need to express yourself carefully and responsively rather than make hasty accusations like this.

There is no obligation for the site to be even-handed; some us are religious, and some are dismissive of religion, and we manage to allow that conflict to be aired and also to leave room for other discussions, by showing self-restraint and tolerance as best we can, along with honesty and clarity.

I am new to the forum, in what way have you been censored? Were there reasons given?

Theism, atheism. This is a philosophy forum, not an -ism forum. It says so in the title, "The Philosophy Forum." You want to push religion, then my vote is that you go push it somewhere else. If you want to discuss thinking about theism, that's another and a legitimate conversation to have - except very few people can actually have that conversation.

*Every 3rd thread on the front page is about religion*

"The forum is biased against religion!"

Lol.

I am new to the forum, in what way have you been censored? Were there reasons given? — DingoJones

I will explain this to you. Everything here needs to be based on "Reason". And "Reason" is that which operates from atheistic premises. That which goes against atheism is against "Reason".

And so if you go against "Reason" (which is code for atheism)- then you need to be censored.

Also yes, reasoning is a minimal requirement for posts here, if you don't like it, kindly find somewhere else you can be unreasonable among.

Every 3rd thread on the front page is about deligion*

"The forum hates religion!"

Get over yourself. — StreetlightX

Where is the debate over whether or not atheists should be allowed to express their views?
And where is the push to make sure that atheists only express their views in a way that is perceived as legitimate according to standards imposed by theists?

Marcus de Brun mentioned the issue of censorship being used to further subterranean agendas: "Censorship is good and is important. However on occasion it is used for personal or a general subterranean agenda. This happens when certain ideas are banned or moved or merged into other threads."

It's not hard to see the agenda when you've spelled it out explicitly:

Not enough indifference. Still treats the problem of God's existence as a legitimate question, even if answered in the negative. Only true atheism is: 'God? What's that?' 'Never heard of it' 'Lets get on with it then'. Ruthless, uncaring abandonment of the debate as beneath the dignity of sense, let alone truth.

To treat God like we treat Quetzalcoatl: an artefact of distant bemusement. — StreetlightX

Like I said:

Do the atheists want a discussion or do they just want a space where they can bash theism and where theists can't respond? — Ram

We both know I've been censored and I think it is being pushed to move things in the direction I just described in the above quote.

Also yes, reasoning is a minimal requirement for posts here, if you don't like it, kindly find somewhere else you can be unreasonable among. — StreetlightX

Yes, I'm all for reasoning. What I'm against the hegemony of the "Reason" I've described here:

"Reason" is that which operates from atheistic premises. That which goes against atheism is against "Reason".

And so if you go against "Reason" (which is code for atheism)- then you need to be censored. — Ram

Yes, that was a statement on a position I hold in a thread on the topic; not unlike a statement by a theist on his or her own views on God, which would here be perfectly fine. It's also not a position I'm going around advocating for. I don't care enough to.

As for you own case, your threads were poorly composed. The thriving of religious discussion on this forum puts paid to any idea that there is some kind of editorial bias against it. You're confusing the moderation of your own poor posting with an editorial bias against religion. No doubt you'll see consipiracy here regardless. Everyone who gets modded tends to think it's a matter of philosophical principle, and not the fact that their posts are garbage. Funny that. But the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is stuffed full of religious threads.

It's also ironic you're quoting Marcus on 'censorship', who was of the view that religious threads should be excluded from the forum on the grounds of not being philosophy - a sentiment which was roundly put down by all including the mods. That we've have two sides of the complaint within a week - on the one hand too much, on the other not enough religion - is something of a mark of pride for the forum I reckon.

The Forum is Biased for Atheism and Against Religion — Ram

"Somebody picks a fight with another, and a boxing match ensues. The instigator throws several punches to the opponent, the head clearly in sight. And, as you would have it, the opponent retaliates with their own suit of punches. The instigator is baffled momentarily and backs themselves to the corner.
But, they are not Muhammad Ali, and they do not stand a chance of surviving the onslaught. And because they are not Muhammad Ali, they get decimated in the corner."

Above is what has often happened when someone makes a statement in support of theism without sufficient reason/logic to back it up. And not just theism, other subjects too get the same scrutiny.

There is a saying, "those who never leave home think their mother is the best cook." You need to visit other threads to realise the bias isn't against religion/religious belief but against the lack of sufficient reason by those professed believers (and similar correspondents).

The above analogy, in philosophical arguments usually ends in a stalemate when the theist declares something to the tune of, "God is real to me!" And they shut out all further attempts at logical arguments thrown their way. Ironically, if that statement were the basis of the OP, I don't think anybody would have a problem with it. Nobody cares what you impose on yourself. On the other hand, what you try to impose on others... hmm. That's a whole other type of ball game. (**********)

Well, how do YOU define reason?

Not as a euphemism for atheism.

Thats not really a definition. Thats one way you wouldnt define reason. Fair enough.
How DO you define reason.

It is permitted for atheists to proselytize and not permitted for theists to promote their beliefs. — Ram

Yes, that is pretty common on all philosophy forums. We should however observe that everybody has every right to manage their own forum in any manner they choose, and that no crime is being committed by them doing so. If we don't like the way a particular forum is being managed, the solution it to keep on looking.

f atheism really has reason on its side, censoring theists shouldn't be necessary. — Ram

Agreed.

I will explain this to you. Everything here needs to be based on "Reason". And "Reason" is that which operates from atheistic premises. That which goes against atheism is against "Reason". — Ram

Admits Religion is unreasonable.
Oops.

Well, he is saying “unreasonable” according to reason as atheists define it. Apparently he has some other version but hasnt bothered to define it.
Perhaps he has the foresight to see that answering my query will lead to him actually having to defend his position here. If so, I am comfortable concluding that engagement is not his goal here.

"Reason" (which is code for atheism) — Ram

Now is that reasonable?

But seriously, if you don't like reason there are countless other forums that don't appear to like it as well.

I'm not a moderator and do not read every post as a member, so I cannot be sure whether what you are claiming is true or not.

My guess is that if an atheist claimed that theism was so irrational as to constitute insanity and ought to be treated with severe methods (lobotomy, shock treatment, political reeducation camps, execution, being forced to work in some incredibly tedious office) that they would be censored. Atheists are unlikely (but it's not impossible) to make such a claim. Why? Because atheism is a general rejection of all kinds of theisms, while theists generally affirm a particular variety. Nothing wrong with that, either.

What upsets the moderators (and the moderators are biased) is when someone makes a claim like "If you do not accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you are doomed to hell!" I have a sister who says that fairly often; she would be banned pretty quickly from here.

Some theists are fundamentalists (not just Christian ones, either) and they raise a lot of hackles because they reject cultural trends that most people on philosophy forums hold near and dear. A mainline Christian (Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran...) will be far less likely to make sweeping claims which will bother moderators.

Some atheists here have long histories of theistic belief and are not hostile towards theism. Like moi for instance.

I will explain this to you. Everything here needs to be based on "Reason". And "Reason" is that which operates from atheistic premises. That which goes against atheism is against "Reason".

And so if you go against "Reason" (which is code for atheism)- then you need to be censored. — Ram

Strange that these theists have no problem using reason to reject the existence of all other gods -
except their own.

If the existence of the Norse gods can be rejected with reason, what makes your god different?

You're an atheist too. You don't believe in the existence of any of the gods ever proposed by humans except for one. The only difference is that I believe in one less god than you do.

Where is the debate over whether or not atheists should be allowed to express their views?And where is the push to make sure that atheists only express their views in a way that is perceived as legitimate according to standards imposed by theists? — Ram

He's nailed you guys, man up and admit it.

That said, again, no forum on the Net is obligated to be fair. I've been booted from every Catholic site I've ever visited I think, and it's their right to do so, they don't owe me squat.

It is permitted for atheists to proselytize and not permitted for theists to promote their beliefs. — Ram

Examples of the former? I've seen plenty of examples of atheists making a persuasive case for their position in an appropriate enough manner, and in an appropriate setting, on this forum - and you're welcome to attempt the same for your own position, although I don't think that you've been very persuasive, at least to those of us who are put off by fallacies - but proselytising...?

Do the atheists want a discussion or do they just want a space where they can bash theism and where theists can't respond? — Ram

Eh? What would be the fun in bashing theism where theists can't respond? Theism can be bashed here, and theists can respond here, so long as it's all done in accordance with the guidelines, otherwise that content is at risk of deletion.

Ram, l've seen one of your posts wherein you declare a catechism of faith. I'll PM you about it


Just so people know though, other people that share your religion, do not think it's apt to just declare catechism of faith like that, out of context. You're not debating you're telling!

What upsets the moderators (and the moderators are biased) is when someone makes a claim like "If you do not accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you are doomed to hell!" I have a sister who says that fairly often; she would be banned pretty quickly from here. — Bitter Crank

It seems to me it's less important what claim is being made than HOW it is made. Can the theist or atheist make an at least somewhat interesting case? Are they somewhat articulate?

It seems to me it's less important what claim is being made than HOW it is made. Can the theist or atheist make an at least somewhat interesting case? Are they somewhat articulate — Jake

Of course they can, if they are able. My sister isn't stupid, but she is not educated, and given the doctrinaire version of Christianity she espouses, it's pretty much black and white. You're damned or saved.

Now in the larger world, there are subtle, insightful ways to look at belief and disbelief that plumb the depths of meaning. Not everyone is up to that task. Like my sister. I don't expect it of her.