In Reply to: Journeys rules have been updated posted by Coordinator on September 01, 2006 at 14:10:33:
I have a bit of a problem with the following paragraph in the new rules for this board: "In this environment, skeptics, agnostics, atheists or anti-thesists who wish to contribute to discussions will be understood to have a belief system (or system of unbelief) of their own, and must adhere to these rules and guidelines accordingly."
Please explain what belief system a skeptic, agnostic, or anti-theist adheres to. While it is clear that atheists do have a belief system, that is, they believe there is no God or higher power, the same cannot be said for the other categories in the list. A skeptic is merely a doubter and the term does not imply any belief system. An agnostic is someone who does not believe or disbelieve there is a God or higher power, but instead waits for proof, as opposed to evidence, to settle the question. For an agnostic it is as presumptuous to say there is no God as it is to say there is a God. I have not heard of the term anti-theist before, but since a theist is someone who believes in gods or a god then I assume an anti-theist is someone who is opposed to such beliefs. The difference, then, between an atheist and anti-theist is a subtle one.
I am an agnostic and I challenge anyone to find in any post of mine where I have declared myself to be an atheist, contrary to the repeated claims, especially by OT2, that I am an atheist.
One of the comments WC made on the GenX board about this issue is that the rules would have to be changed to disallow "monolgues" from atheists. This seems to be at the centre of the rule change prompted by complaints mostly from Farmer and OT2 that they felt atheists and agnostics were getting away with breaking the rules that were enforced against Christian posters. There are very few regular posters who identify as unbelievers, atheists or agnostics. Off the top of my head I recall Zither said he was an atheist, I'm not sure if Susie has referred to herself as an atheist or an agnostic, and there is me, an agnostic. I cannot recall any post by us three or anyone else for that matter that constituted a "monologue", and by that I presume was meant preaching by unbelievers. I think that accusation was a bit of a red herring, as is the accusation of loading posts with links.
If anyone cares to search the archives for my posts they will see a very clear pattern to them. When I initially started posting it was very sporadic and I only posted news articles that represented aspects of my personal journey and which I thought others might find interesting. From the feedback I got, it seemed many people also found them interesting. In the beginning I rarely added any personal commentary other than a brief description of the article and the link to it. It is the rare post of mine that contains more than one link, in fact I don't recall ever including more than one link though it is possible I did. In contrast, countless posts by OT2 contain multiple links, so I find it hypocritical and a bit disconcerting that the coordinators would just accept the complaints and accusations by Farmer and OT2 on this point at face value.
Besides the misdirected complaint about multiple links, Farmer and OT2 both take issue with my reluctance to enter into debates with them and to reveal personal information about myself. Also, several recent posts by Farmer contain many insinuations and attempts at trying to guess who I am, which I think breaks at least the spirit of the rules, and is at the very least insensitive on his part. He is particulary upset that I don't reveal more about myself; however, there is no obligation on my part to reveal more than I am willing to. There is a reason that annonymity and multiply handles are allowed on this site, and given the animosity Farmer and OT2 have expressed towards me, why on earth would I reveal anything about myself on this public board that they could then take advantage of. That's what Family leadership did/does. They get you to reveal personal information which they then turn around and use against you. I had enough of that, thanks.
After I had been posting articles for awhile and generally getting positive feedback, I began to get drawn more and more into conversations/debates, but I don't think I ever entered into any atheistic or agnostic monologue, and I don't think anyone else has either. I'd sure like to see an example that backs up that accusation upon which the rule change was made. Who, exactly, is guilty of preaching on this board if not the Christians? My posting of various articles, sometimes written by Christians, was an attempt to provide a bit of balance on this board by showing interested readers that there are other ways of viewing matters, nothing more.
It seems to me the coordinators have caved into the pressure from certain Christians who feel threatened by any idea that does not conform to their narrow world view. Even after I stopped posting for about a month or so, Farmer & OT2 continued to mention me in posts that had nothing to do with me. OT2 is pissed off that I won't engage him in endless debate and Farmer is pissed off that I don't reveal more about myself. That is really what is behind their complaints and insinuations. I'm just sad that WC and the coordinators have been swayed by their disingenuous arguments that were designed to denigrate me and other unbelievers who have just as much right to post here as believers. That's why I find it so odd that the coordinators thought it was necessary to apply the phrase in the new rules "... and must adhere to these rules and guidelines accordingly" to the categories of unbelievers. We have always had to abide by the rules of the board just like everyone else. When we didn't we were corrected or deleted just like anyone else. To now single out unbelievers as needing that extra admonition to obey the rules implies that they were somehow operating outside of the rules, which just isn't true.