Religion on ENWorld

[Crothian]

Au contraire, but because you agree with the religious viewpoints being given, then you apparently can't see it from the other side, i.e. how it might seem pushy and offend someone.

Well, don't assume I agree with the religious viewpoint given. I can judge a pushy post though, and this is not even remotely pushy.

 

[RangerWickett]

Think of it this way. Replace each religion - including atheism - with a sports team, and see if the conversation would be rude in that context.

"Ever since I discovered the New Orleans Saints, I've been much happier. They show me what a well-run game should be like."

Let's say the Saints represent Christianity. If you're not a fan of the Saints, you don't come out and say, "I don't like the Saints," at least not in the same conversation, unless the guy asks whether other people like the Saints. If someone's just saying his opinion, it can be touchy to tell him he's wrong, regardless of whether it's religion, or movies, or sports.

Now, say atheism is represented by the Atlanta Falcons. Have you seen people having anti-Falcon sentiment? If you say you like the Falcons, do people get offended?

Metaphors are a bad tool to give to a sleepy man.

 

[Crothian]

WEll, the way the Saints played and lost this weekend was defiantly more offensive then the way the Falcons played and lost

 

[Dinkeldog]

I think it has to do with tone.

Kai Lord's sig line seems to be intended to uplift and inspire those who read it.

Your previous sig line, on the other hand, was a harsh criticism of the very concept of religion.

Kai Lord's sig line isn't okay and needs to be changed. After the discussion with Alzrius, we agreed with that. Things sometimes move at a slower pace than some people would like, but that's mostly a function of how real life interferes with individual moderators.

 

[Belen]

One of the problems is that any counter post to a post about e.g. the good of religion is going to sound as an attack. While at the same time a post about how e.g. religion does everyone good is actually also an attack on the belief system that it (i.e. religion) doesn't. It's just more subtle because it takes it standpoint in an established, more widespread and accepted belief system.

That is because it is an attack. If someone posts "Have faith. That helps me deal with stress." And then you want to counter that with "Faith doesn't work. How can that help?" Then you are flinging a personal attack against someone.

The more constructive statement would be to tell the person what works for you. Not to "counter" another poster. It is not a contest to find out who is right.

Also, just because someone throws a generalization does not mean they that are flinging a de facto insult. A lot of people would say "milk does everyone good." It does not because some people are allergic, lactose intolerant or get gas, but for the majority of people, the statement would be true. The person who loves milk is not insulting those people who do not or cannot drink it.

So, basically, any kind of religious post is automatically going to annoy someone, but they can't give a reply because of the fear of retribution (whether from moderators or from religious posters who take offence by the "attack" on their beliefs). Hence it's actually the original religious post that's responsible for igniting any kind of no-no posts and therefore noone should be allowed to post such messages in the first place.

Posts about how 2nd edition sucked annoys me. I liked 2e. I usually do not respond with a flame because I'll have a bunch of 3e fanboys jumping on the bandwagon and then I will pee off p-kitty and Henry.

The more I read your argument, the more it sounds as if you're offended that anyone has religious beliefs. You blame someone for offering comfort to another person, then get mad because you cannot "counter" their argument. The problem is that the other person was not arguing his point.

If you find it annoying that some people have faith and are not afraid to hide it, then you have the option of "ignoring" those people. This way, you do not have to see their posts as they have the potential to offend your beliefs.

Personally, I do not want to live in a world of Goodspeak and Badspeak where certain thoughts are not allowed because they make people uncomfortable.

 

[RangerWickett]

Kai Lord's sig line isn't okay and needs to be changed. After the discussion with Alzrius, we agreed with that. Things sometimes move at a slower pace than some people would like, but that's mostly a function of how real life interferes with individual moderators.

Are you serious? How is it 'not okay'?

I mean, there's a poster who has 'better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven' in his sig. That's the closest I can think of to a 'pro-atheism' quote. I don't like the quote personally, but it doesn't offend me, and if someone said it did offend them I'd tell them to get over themselves.

I personally am very squeamish about injuries. I'm kind of revolted by imagery of things like severed limbs. Dinkeldog, could you change your avatar, please?

 

[Dinkeldog]

It breaks the no religion rule.

And no, I'm not changing my avatar.

 

[diaglo]

I personally am very squeamish about injuries. I'm kind of revolted by imagery of things like severed limbs. Dinkeldog, could you change your avatar, please?

you may not agree with him. but he stated his opinion to a mod. and that mod looked into it.

this was all done in private originally. now it is in the open. but still, now you are just mocking Alzrius.

 

[RangerWickett]

this was all done in private originally. now it is in the open. but still, now you are just mocking Alzrius.

How am I mocking him? I don't mean to offend him, but I don't know what you're seeing that could be called mocking.

I am, however, trying to get Dink's goat a bit. The point I was trying to make was that just because someone has a complaint does not mean you have to fix what they're complaining about. Judging by how he ignored my personal trauma and continues to flagrantly display vulgar depictions of human suffering, though, Dinkeldog seems to understand my point just fine, so while I disagree with his decision, I'll not complain. *grin*

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

One of the problems is that any counter post to a post about e.g. the good of religion is going to sound as an attack. While at the same time a post about how e.g. religion does everyone good is actually also an attack on the belief system that it (i.e. religion) doesn't. It's just more subtle because it takes it standpoint in an established, more widespread and accepted belief system.
So, basically, any kind of religious post is automatically going to annoy someone, but they can't give a reply because of the fear of retribution (whether from moderators or from religious posters who take offence by the "attack" on their beliefs). Hence it's actually the original religious post that's responsible for igniting any kind of no-no posts and therefore noone should be allowed to post such messages in the first place.

I'm not saying that the boards should be cleansed of any reference to real life religion, nor am I saying that one shouldn't be allowed to express one's differing views. Just as long as it has nothing to do with religion.
If you want to offer advice on something, particularly in the Off Topic forum, you can easily do so without bringing religion into it. And if you can't, then don't post. Simple as that.

First off I think you can't cleanse the boards of everything that offends people. There are all kinds of people and all kinds of ways to be offended. Ranger Wickett brought up sports. As a Boston sports fan, I am bothered by people who cheer when the Boston teams lose. It offends me somewhat. But I realize that is part of the culture, I should let it go, and if it bothers me when someone does that, maybe I should remember that and control myself when the New York teams lose. It may not stop other from ripping Boston, but at least I won't be making things worse.

Second, I don't understand why you think you cannot repsond to a posting with a religious tone. An example similar to ones used earlier:

Original poster: I'm so stressed about this, I don't know what I can do.

Religious reply: When this happens, I just have faith in God's plan.

Gentle Giant's alternate response: Or if you, like me, don't feel comfortable with relying on Faith and religion, maybe you could talk to a counselor or a friend.

You have expressed your opinion of an alternative without attacking the faith of the person who replied. Maybe a Mod could chime in here, but I would doubt that the example above would be edited unless the thread then started onto the path of whether faith works or some such.