LUGNET NNTP Server & Clients : 1532


Administrative / NNTP / 1532	1531 \| 1533

Subject:	Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is
Newsgroups:	lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.debate
Followup-To:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:41:14 GMT
Viewed:	7219 times

In lugnet.admin.nntp, Lee Meyer wrote:

Taking an active stance that religious beliefs have no part in making LUGNET decisions, is not a neutral stance about how LUGNET feels about those of us with religious beliefs. After all this decision has all the atheists here standing up and applauding (and FYI if you aren’t aware - atheism is a form of religion - the religion of man)...most often found in secular humanist groups.

I can’t say I agree-- by saying that, you’re absolutely forcing LUGNET into a position of choosing a religion by arguing that something that’s *unreligious* is a religion in and of itself.

Hence, you could argue that nothing ever was religion-neutral. IBM, The New York Yankees (read “evil incarnate”), the US goverment, a bottle of Cheez Whiz: all religious. The Cheez Whiz doesn’t believe in God, therefore it’s atheistic? A puppy doesn’t believe in God, therefore it’s atheistic? How about a newborn baby? A 2-year-old? A 5-year-old? A 38-year-old? How about an autistic 38-year-old?

The implication Todd made by saying that LUGNET is religion neutral is that it’s decisions should not be made based on religious merit-- decisions should be made based on criteria that visibly affect LUGNET. Now, you could argue that God affects LUGNET, but seeing as how you could also say the same for Allah, Zeus, or the Almighty Ford Prefect, all with similar visible evidence, we’re safer just relying on stuff we can visibly see.

Will it make community members happy? Some yes, some no. Will it cause people to leave LUGNET? Possibly, but hopefully not. Does it fit with the LUGNET plan? Sure. Will it violate any laws? Nope. Is having such a group detrimental to LUGNET readers? Not if we’ve got skip-filters. Does Zeus approve? Uh, I dunno! So I’m not gonna try and factor that one in, and apparently (and thankfully by my book) neither does Todd & co.

DaveE

FUT .debate

Message has 2 Replies:

		Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is
(...) Hi Dave, the point I was trying to make was that when you deal with a topic that has moral/religious implications (such as homosexuality), if before the discussion has even begun, you state that religious factors will not be taken into (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

		Too Froody Zaphod (was Re: False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is )
(...) Oh man, we're really gonna need a towel. (...) Don't Panic! :p -Alfred (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:

		False premise in this message needs to be identified as what it is
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Todd Lehman wrote: SNIP (...) SNIP As these new groups now exist, I feel no need to continue the debate about them. I do want to point out the fallacy that Todd espouses here about being religious-neutral and religious beliefs (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)

151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search