Timeline for Bias against religion
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 6 at 22:17 | comment | added | tkruse | No, same for all. But in a forum called philosophy, philosophy will be treated other than religion. As opposed to a forum called Christianity, as an example. Respectively assertions will be treated differently in both such forums. Not sure how you want to animal-farm this. But I am against proclaiming there is no god here as much as proclaiming any religion to be true. | |
| Nov 6 at 21:54 | comment | added | Matthew | "I would prefer clear rules that asserting any religious truth is inadmissible as pushing personal beliefs in both questions and answers". Does that include asserting that there is no God (a personal belief and considered by most believers a "religious truth" claim)? Or are some animals more equal than others? | |
| Sep 13 at 19:57 | comment | added | tkruse | Consider Islam stackexchange where it is routinely claimed that homosexuality is a disease to cure, maybe by forced marriage. Those are "philosophic answer according to the Quran", would be claimed. It's not against the rules there. I don't see how we could want that shit here. | |
| Sep 13 at 19:55 | comment | added | tkruse | "if the answers are bad (as that one is) they should be downvoted". Right, and when the forum is swarmed by fundamentalist Christians like the one cited, I assume you think they will adopt a balanced approach to voting? I am not sure if pushing personal beliefs in answers is actually as as much against the rules as doing so in question, but seems to they would have to be, else anyone can ask an open question and then push their beliefs in some answer. | |
| Sep 13 at 17:11 | comment | added | Kaia | I don't think "Refrain from declaring existence of gods" is actually policy, is it? It's totally possible to ask a good question/answer that involves Christianity, and if the answers are bad (as that one is) they should be downvoted, and if the questions are duplicates/not questions they should be closed. | |
| Sep 13 at 15:23 | comment | added | Rushi | Currently it's just my (marginal? fringe??) view. If you add, it becomes a plurality | |
| Sep 13 at 15:02 | comment | added | tkruse | I saw another answer containing it, so no value added | |
| Sep 13 at 2:50 | comment | added | Rushi | BTW your answer is a very valuable addition to the discussion. Pls undelete!! | |
| Sep 13 at 2:49 | comment | added | Rushi | I disagree some but agree more with this. Overall +1. As someone who is no fan of democracy, I don't believe in pushing equality unrealistically. In this case equality of religious affiliation. Christianity is special not so much in the 90% but in the fact that it is the most proselytizing. To that my response would be like narrow spectrum antibiotics are preferable, we should prefer narrow spectrum solutions — Evangelism not tolerated — rather than religion disallowed. Evangelism is after all spam! | |
| Sep 12 at 18:01 | history | answered | tkruse | CC BY-SA 4.0 |