Regarding the absence of an "arena" --

Discussion in 'Site News and Updates' started by Captain Cassidy, Jul 27, 2017.


Arena: yes/no?

Poll closed Aug 3, 2017.
  1. Yes please!

    0 vote(s)
  2. No thanks.

    15 vote(s)
  3. Maybe--see comments.

    0 vote(s)
  1. Captain Cassidy

    Captain Cassidy Yr Loyal &Etc. Corr. Staff Member

    You'll note that there's not really any "arena" forum or thread around here where religious folks can take a whack at persuading us somehow that their religion has some kind of merit or validity--where Christians can debate/argue/harangue/threaten non-Christians and get cut down to size in turn.

    That omission is quite intentional, and unless y'all want it, I don't see any reason for one. I've noticed that on the blog, we don't have a lot of patience for people like that (which is why I tend to ban them out of hand if they don't appear to be bringing anything entertaining or useful to the community). There are lots of places online that allow and encourage that kind of arguing, so it's not like they'll suffer for their lack a lack of platform here.

    Plus, I think we've all heard all their various talking points and arguments by now. We won't be hearing anything new or interesting from such folks. There is no credible reason to believe in any supernatural claim, and we're not likely to get any such reason from some fundagelical rando who thinks his or her god said to go god-bother skeptics here. None of us are going to change our minds, and certainly very few of the Christians involved are going to either--not right then at least. All the good that'd come of such engagement is that newer folks might get a good view of a religious argument being dismantled--and I'm not sure that'd be worth the hassle of participation in them. Again, if some folks want to, I can open one up!

    If any Christians want to hang out here and listen and learn, or ask earnest questions in the appropriate venues, they are absolutely welcome to do so :) We were all there once--learning and asking and figuring this stuff out is how humans were always meant to get through life.

    If we did do this, then I would institute very strict rules about logical fallacies and the like. A while ago I was on a forum that had a "3 fallacies and you concede" rule; if the people involved were caught using 3 fallacies, they were considered to have conceded to the other side. That'd likely keep most of the Christians in check (as well as keeping us on our toes and teaching newer folks what those fallacies look like and how to spot them in the wild!).

    If you think we need something like this.... then feel 100% free to talk about it below!
  2. Azel

    Azel Asian contigent, expat edition

    I think that while it could help people not used to them with logical fallacies, the wiki might suffice for it no? We probably get enough of them with the banned fundies occasionally swinging by to furnish it with examples.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Glandu

    Glandu Horrible person

    Voted no. We don't need to attract unpleasant elements.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  4. dangitbobby

    dangitbobby Administrator Staff Member

    I'm in favor of a no as well.

    I'll admit that it's sometimes fun to troll the christian trolls we get on patheos and blasting them here with wit, snark, and solid arguments could be playful. But, there are places online for that sort of thing, and I see this more of a safe space for ex-believers or those who are doubting and wish to express those doubts without fear.

    If anyone wants formal or informal debate, we should just point them to, specifically the arena or lions den and let that group there pound them. (And, despite its flaws, has some great people who can pound the fundies pretty damn good)
    • Agree Agree x 6
  5. Lady Alexandra

    Lady Alexandra Active Member

    No. I don't want to discuss why my religion is sending me to hell with any more Christians than I have to already.
    • Feels Feels x 2
  6. Clancy

    Clancy I'm never sarcastic.

    No. I come here for a pleasant conversation, not an argument. Sometimes that happens, and that's OK, but why invite something that makes me angry?
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. BlackBird

    BlackBird Active Member

    Yeah, if I thought they would be respectful and thoughtful, it'd be one thing, but the kind of person who would go out of their way to come here for debate? No thanks.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Critter

    Critter The Nameless One

    I vote no. As it is, people have been willing to open up and share parts of their lives because they know we're all friendly here. The last thing I want is to encourage fundies to join this forum and have them go poking around in the "share your deconversion story" threads.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. Ubi Dubium

    Ubi Dubium Member

    I was about to say the same thing. already has a forum set up for that purpose, we don't need to duplicate it here. Let's just refer the god-botherers there, and use the banhammer if they won't go.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  10. Timperator of Mankind

    Timperator of Mankind Actual Reverend High Loreteller Staff Member

    I've already had to moderate Thunderdomes like the NationStates General forum. I'd prefer not to do that again. That and my inherently anti-clerical nature are two dings as to my confidence in my ability to assist in enacting such a policy. The third is that... if I want to see fundamentalists arguing why they're so great, I'll go to right-wing Facebook or Twitter.
  11. Captain Cassidy

    Captain Cassidy Yr Loyal &Etc. Corr. Staff Member

    Sounds like a resounding NO so far! I can't say that I'm sad either. I just don't get a lot out of engaging people who don't want to sincerely communicate.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Erinys Trace

    Erinys Trace Member

    Just to add my two cents - nope, not necessary to add such a feature
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Lambchopsuey

    Lambchopsuey Active Member

    I'm a "No" as well.
  14. Artor

    Artor New Member

    I like the 3 Fallacies rule, and I think we should insititute that in the regular threads. Call each other out when we see it, (I am not above using a salty ad-hominem sometimes) so we are all in practice to spot them when Xians & trolls try to slip them in. As for an arena in the forum? Not unless there will be lions and gladiators too.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. I'm AG

    I'm AG Active Member

    I'm glad to see all the no votes. I was on an ex church of christ forum once. There was a variety of converts to different branches of christianity and some other philosophies, but those who remained some version of fundagelical tended to be royal pains. Though most people were respectful, there were a couple that wanted to question every darn thing I said because I was an atheist. They didn't seem to want to understand my answers and kept repeating the same arguments, even when I told them I was done engaging. No boundaries.

    I left that board because the moderators were not willing to address the issue.
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. Captain Cassidy

    Captain Cassidy Yr Loyal &Etc. Corr. Staff Member

    I'm glad to see them as well. And yeah, I think the "3 Fallacies and You're Out" rule sounds like a wonderful one to institute in general. I'll get it added to the RoE. We haven't needed a formalization of it really; I just ban those who tend to argue using them overmuch. But it's good to get the idea into the general consciousness. I've noticed variants of the RoE popping up on all kinds of skeptics' blogs online and it makes me really happy :)

    (It shocked me to learn that most blogs lack any kind of community statement or guidelines. Maybe it's the ex-fundie in me, but I can't even imagine how those communities function in times of stress.)
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. WereBear

    WereBear Cat Guru

    I always attributed it to the techie love of "letting it roam wild and free!" but some people do not deserve such responsibility, of course.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Glandu

    Glandu Horrible person

    score is currently at 14-0. It's nearly too much. It's probably the sign that we all have been traumatized by that kind of talks. One way or another.
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 5
  19. SheepleNoMore

    SheepleNoMore Moderator Staff Member

    I'm a "no" primarily because 1) as stated above, there are other places to debate and 2) I have never benefitted from conversations with trolling Christians. Because of my CPTSD from religion, Christians' comments will often confuse and terrify me, and we want this place to be supportive, so I don't want anyone to experience what I experienced and get triggered and confused.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Feels Feels x 2
  20. Clancy

    Clancy I'm never sarcastic.

    One advantage at RtD is, as triggering as it may be, you are not required to interact. You can just lay low until the troll(s) are banned and their comments deleted. We have plenty of combative folks to stand up for us all in the interim.
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. WereBear

    WereBear Cat Guru

    It wasn't that long ago that I ran into the concept of "spiritual abuse," and I instantly understood the concept. People who suffered from it (I got better) were abused, full stop.
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2017
  22. Clint W.

    Clint W. Guardian of the Chocolates

    I see the poll is closed, but had I seen it before that time, I would surely have voted "no."
  23. Captain Cassidy

    Captain Cassidy Yr Loyal &Etc. Corr. Staff Member

    Gotta move fast around here ;)
  24. Clint W.

    Clint W. Guardian of the Chocolates

    True, that.

    And I guess one reason why I feel we don't need an arena is that Christians have so damn many places to preach their crap, I don't see any reason to give them yet another outlet.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  25. Captain Cassidy

    Captain Cassidy Yr Loyal &Etc. Corr. Staff Member

    Exactly--they can go preach at people elsewhere. There was a time when I was a lot more generous about at least listening to their pitch because hey who knows maybe this Christian really did find some actual evidence for their claims. But over time, that proved to be simply a time-waster. I don't have that kind of time anymore. And I seriously doubt some schmuck on the internet is going to be the one who figures out some tangible way to validate the religion's claims. Nope, all they have is words, words, words: arguments that go nowhere and logical fallacies and assumptions and shitty metaphors. Fuck that, they can take their smoke and mirrors somewhere else.
  26. Clint W.

    Clint W. Guardian of the Chocolates

    This is also why I have come down hard on creationists and climate change deniers on Godless in Dixie. That, and they're trying to convince the wrong people. If what they're saying is true, then we wouldn't hear about it from idiots and assholes like them (and they always seem to be either idiots, assholes, or both). We'd hear about it from the people who actually study these things.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  27. Captain Cassidy

    Captain Cassidy Yr Loyal &Etc. Corr. Staff Member

    Exactly so.

    If the world ever gets any kind of evidence that any supernatural beings exist, much less any gods, we won't hear it from apologists and weirdos who somehow get wifi through their tinfoil helmets. It's sad that apologists have convinced their flocks to pay good money to learn to recite lame arguments and specious claims in lieu of presenting good solid reasons to believe in their hooey, but they can trot that bullshit out on another site.
    • Funny Funny x 2

Share This Page