[duffyd (OP)]

How can we approach this topic without breaking the rules? My theory is this: Spirituality is hard to define, but it is an important topic that deserves honest, respectful debate and consideration. My questions stem from the vaguery as the rules stand now.

The following are rules are in place to make this forum a more comfortable place for all its users.  We would urge all users of the forum to read the rules below, and abide by them. 

1. Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.

CHAT is not for science per se. This topic is directed specifically for the CHAT thread.

A rule states that evangelism of one's pet theory is not allowed.

Would someone offer the definitive terms for what is regarded as a pet theory? If individuals want to discuss their serious, well thought out, well established opinions on spiritual matters, and not on a pet theory, are they permitted? Many varied "religious" theories are promoted by different participants. When are they evangelizing a pet theory or just discussing it?

Many comments are deliberate, untrue and aggressively insulting of spiritual matters and those who make them. The rule governing all of our statements forbids this type of language, yet some continue doing so flaunting their defiance.

How are we to know, specifically, if/when we are violating this particular rule,  "evangelizing a pet theory" on N.S.?

If someone makes untrue, insulting accusations against spiritual opinions, persons, principles or their historic background, is everyone forbidden from responding, trying to make corrections?

If commenters try to prove their opinions on spirituality (not pet theories) are scientifically supported, are they automatically barred from doing so? What if they sound like they are evangelizing when, in truth, they are trying to demonstrate the rational explanations for their points of view? How does anyone assert his point of view without evangelizing? Where is the line? What are the boundaries? Can anyone answer these questions not in general terms, but in detail? 

Should/could we have a thread dedicated to discussing spirituality in which, as long as the comments are respectful, is given more latitude?

[Kryptid]

The rule says:

The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory.  It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.

The essence of the rule seems to be that it's okay to discuss a personal theory so long as actual debate takes place. My own interpretation would be that one should defend their position using rational arguments and evidence rather than ignoring or downplaying arguments against them, repeating a claim over and over without offering evidence (or in the face of counter-evidence) or simply advertising without any discussion at all.

I'm relatively new as a moderator, so these views may or may not be shared by the other moderators.

[duffyd (OP)]

The rule says:

The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory.  It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.

The essence of the rule seems to be that it's okay to discuss a personal theory so long as actual debate takes place. My own interpretation would be that one should defend their position using rational arguments and evidence rather than ignoring or downplaying arguments against them, repeating a claim over and over without offering evidence (or in the face of counter-evidence) or simply advertising without any discussion at all.

I'm relatively new as a moderator, so these views may or may not be shared by the other moderators.

Thanks. I appreciate your effort to address these issues. Still, I confess, I'm baffled. I don't know where the lines are drawn and the rules were established for the comfort of all here. I am not comfortable at all when my comments are removed and I'm told not to evangelize while other statements I make are fine. I do not intentionally make comments that are in violation of the rules, so that's why I'm confused and asking for very definitive input.

At that the same time very hostile, nasty, bitter, sarcastic language used by quite a few participants flourish and thrive throughout the same pages.

[duffyd (OP)]

I tried to correct some grammatical errors but when I clicked on save nothing happened

[Colin2B]

How can we approach this topic without breaking the rules? My theory is this: Spirituality is hard to define, but it is an important topic that deserves honest, respectful debate and consideration.

I would agree, but I would ask you to think carefully and ask yourself whether your topics are about spirituality in general or whether you are just promoting your specific spirituality eg Christianity.
If you are just promoting Christianity then you are evangelising and we would take the same attitude with any other religious group.

CHAT is not for science per se. This topic is directed specifically for the CHAT thread.

True, but at the end of the day we are not a platform for advertising your faith, no matter how important it is for you.

1. Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.

What might appear aggressive to one person might no to another. For example, when I pointed out that you had misquoted, you called me a liar. Do you consider that aggressive?

A rule states that evangelism of one's pet theory is not allowed.
Would someone offer the definitive terms for what is regarded as a pet theory? If individuals want to discuss their serious, well thought out, well established opinions on spiritual matters, and not on a pet theory, are they permitted? 

No, it is specifically left vague.
Usually it applies to a new/alternative theories (remember, we are a science site), but even established alternative theories eg flat earth, can become a pet theory. It is more about the attitude of the poster and how they promote their theory.

What if they sound like they are evangelizing when, in truth, they are trying to demonstrate the rational explanations for their points of view? How does anyone assert his point of view without evangelizing? Where is the line? What are the boundaries? Can anyone answer these questions not in general terms, but in detail? 

You also ask why a specific post might be removed and another left.
Again, no, it is specifically left vague. It is at the discretion of the individual moderator and some posts might be borderline and left, while another removed.
Much will come down to the use of language - eg does this sound like preaching; is it evangelising a particular religion. Many of your posts sound as though you are just expounding your faith and encouraging others to join you, rather than entering into rational debate.
I and the other moderators recognise that this means a lot to you and you have been given a lot of leeway, but the more you make these appeals, the more you will find censures.

If commenters try to prove their opinions on spirituality (not pet theories) are scientifically supported, are they automatically barred from doing so?

No, but if they ignore or misrepresent scientific evidence they should expect to be challenged.

Should/could we have a thread dedicated to discussing spirituality in which, as long as the comments are respectful, is given more latitude?

the idea of ‘the lighter side’ including ‘just chat’ and ‘new theories’ was intended to offer a wider discussion area.
You will notice that there is for example a discussion on universal moral standard, but if anyone there began to continually profess that we should use a specific religion as our standard, or that we should follow a specific religion eg “accept Jesus as our Lord”, etc, then we would judge that they were evangelising.
Again, I would ask whether you are interested in discussing spirituality or just your specific religious beliefs. The latter can easily be seen as evangelising.

PS, ‘save’ should work, but  in the current crisis there is often a lot of traffic on the servers and network response delays can cause failed actions. Give it another try.

[duffyd (OP)]

 Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.

I would ask everyone interested in this topic to note that nothing is mentioned about such language. It permeates CHAT.  Aggressive, insulting and demeaning comments are directed at me from several including a moderator and all of it is against the rules. Just look at the last few weeks (actually, it has been going on since the second day I joined this organization) in CHAT on topics related to God. Just read what is communicated. I have been hounded, repeatedly, by several without one word of warning by a mod. Is there a double standard, especially when a moderator joins  in? when more than a few continually engage in such behavior including a moderator?
The rules state we are not to evangelize a pet theory. I asked, are we evangelizing if we are not discussing a pet theory but well-formed, established, firmly held opinions? This was not addressed.
Advertising? How are we to discuss a topic and express our point of view when doing so is classified as advertising? Others promote hatred, negativity, and misinformation against spiritual content and those who present such information constantly. Isn't that evangelizing/advertising? Their tone is often pure delight at mocking others.
I have asked a couple of the offenders to stop and informed them I would not respond to them for calling me a liar. As a result, they have accused me of refusing to engage in discussion.
A moderator told me I don't have the reasoning/verbal skills worthy of his interacting with me.
One person left a link for someone else and then accused me of ignoring it for fear I'd be proven wrong. When challenged, the person said the link was on a public page. I don't respond to everything on every page.
My spirituality has nothing to do with any religion. I don't belong to any religion. Where is the respect demanded of all of us by Chris?

[duffyd (OP)]

"Usually it applies to a new/alternative theories (remember, we are a science site)" c
CHAT is not a scientific site according to the rules

[duffyd (OP)]

I and the other moderators recognise that this means a lot to you and you have been given a lot of leeway, but the more you make these appeals, the more you will find censures. c

Appeal! I asked for clarification.

And, what is wrong with appeals that someone would be censored for them? Where do the rules state that someone making appeals deserves censorship?

[duffyd (OP)]

I would agree, but I would ask you to think carefully and ask yourself whether your topics are about spirituality in general or whether you are just promoting your specific spirituality eg Christianity. c

Where in the rules am I forbidden to discuss and/or have a "specific spirituality"?

"If you are just promoting Christianity" c
If my spirituality seems similar to what you call "Christianity", why am I censored for my opinions? Christianity is a term used to describe a religion and I have nothing to do with a religion of any kind.

"then you are evangelising and we would take the same attitude with any other religious group."

I am not a part of any group. I am not discussing my "pet theory" either. Doesn't evangelize as referred to in the rules refer to something trivial? To be fair, I think there is more "evangelizing" if you like that word, on the despicable nature of those who hold to a religion and to the claims they construe about a religion, than the support any "religion" receives, but again, to be clear, I'm discussing my spirituality and why I believe it is legitimate.

[duffyd (OP)]

Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.

I would ask everyone interested in this topic to note that nothing is mentioned about such language. It permeates CHAT.  Aggressive, insulting and demeaning comments are directed at me from several including a moderator and all of it is against the rules. Just look at the last few weeks (actually, it has been going on since the second day I joined this organization) in CHAT on topics related to God. Just read what is communicated. I have been hounded, repeatedly, by several without one word of warning by a mod. Is there a double standard, especially when a moderator joins  in? when more than a few continually engage in such behavior including a moderator?
The rules state we are not to evangelize a pet theory. I asked, are we evangelizing if we are not discussing a pet theory but well-formed, established, firmly held opinions? This was not addressed.
Advertising? How are we to discuss a topic and express our point of view when doing so is classified as advertising? Others promote hatred, negativity, and misinformation against spiritual content and those who present such information constantly. Isn't that evangelizing/advertising? Their tone is often pure delight at mocking others.
I have asked a couple of the offenders to stop and informed them I would not respond to them for calling me a liar. As a result, they have accused me of refusing to engage in discussion.
A moderator told me I don't have the reasoning/verbal skills worthy of his interacting with me.

"I have never expected any intelligent replies from you, based on your previous posts. They lack an understanding of logic snd verbal reasoning." colin

One person left a link for someone else and then accused me of ignoring it for fear I'd be proven wrong. When challenged, the person said the link was on a public page. I don't respond to everything on every page.
My spirituality has nothing to do with any religion. I don't belong to any religion. Where is the respect demanded of all of us by Chris?

"I have never expected any intelligent replies from you, based on your previous posts. They lack an understanding of logic snd verbal reasoning." colin

[Bored chemist]

Would anyone care to put forward tentative definitions of "God", "credible", and "evidence"?

[duffyd (OP)]

"If you ever wrestle a pig in mud, you will realise after an hour or so that pigs enjoy it." Alan about me
"I must say, you have some really odd hobbies!
Point taken however." colin's response

[puppypower]

One way to address proof of God, is by using a well accepted and proven theory of science called Special Relativity. This theory was developed by Albert Einstein. In this theory, velocity has an impact on our perception of mass, distance, and time in other references. For example, a clock in a moving reference will appear to run slower relative to the same clock in a stationary reference. There are three equations one for mass, distance and time as show below:





In bible tradition, God is not matter but it referred to as spirit. Spirit is not easy to define, but matter can be defined since this tangible and addressable by science. We can address spirit by what it is not. It is not matter.

If we plug the speed of light or c, into the first equation for mass, we get a value of infinite. It would take infinite energy to make any size mass move at the speed of light. According to Einstein, the  speed of light is the cutoff, where mass and matter no longer apply. Although I cannot exactly explain spirit, I can at least infer that spirit would needs to exist where mass becomes discontinuous. Spirit would need to be  connected to a speed of light reference. To paraphrase Jesus, he said where I am going you cannot follow, since mass cannot go there according to Einstein. Only spirit can exist there.

If we then plug c into the equations for time and distance, which are the two attributes connected to space-time reference, again an infinity discontinuity appears within time and distance. This logically implies that at the speed of light there is also a discontinuity in space-time, since the two components of space-time are both discontinuous. In tradition, God is eternal, which is the same as infinite time and the speed of light reference.

If mass does not exist and space-time was to be become discontinuous, then the inertial relationships between space and time, that we define as space-time, breaks down. This means that time and space would no longer be connected, in a way where one implies the other. Rather, at the discontinuity at c, time and space could act independently of each other.

If we could move in time without the constraint of space, one would know the history of every place in the universe; simultaneously. This is classically called omniscience. If we can move in space without the constraint of time, this is called omnipresent. 

The classical attributes of God; spirit, omniscience and omnipresence, came centuries before science and special relativity. These were revealed in prophesy, at a time before science. Einstein's math, which is accepted and proven by science, leads to the same conceptual type  conclusions, if you plug in the speed of light. QED.

[Bobolink]

One way to address proof of God

After this opening line there were several paragraphs, but there was no proof of God, or even any supporting evidence of God.  All that was said is basically if there is a God and spirit, then maybe it works something like this.... 

Still looking for evidence.

[Bobolink]

Duffyd, you said you wanted to talk about evidence for God.  So why are you simply complaining about the moderation?  Get on with the evidence.

[duffyd (OP)]

Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
Metzger is considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th century

By whom
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
confirmed piece of ancient history is that the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.

That seems unlikely.
Is it, for example, as well confirmed as the fact that Nero was an emperor?

To tick that box it would need to be stamped onto all the coins of the era.

Is the Apostles' opinion really that well confirmed?

Even if it was; so what?
The question isn't about their belief, but about the fact.
And even if (this is now piling three levels of "what if" on top of eachother) he lived on after the crucifixion, couldn't it just be that the Romans botched an execution?

But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "? Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking. Bored

[duffyd (OP)]

Duffyd, you said you wanted to talk about evidence for God.  So why are you simply complaining about the moderation?  Get on with the evidence.

I am raising these issues because I'm trying to do exactly that. No matter what I include in my comments I'm mocked/insulted by several including a mod. I have my comments removed and then I'm warned that if I continue to evangelize I will be banned. Therefore, because I am not clear what it was specifically I said that was different from my other comments that weren't removed, and I wasn't threatened with banishment for making them, I asked for clarification and I still don't know what I'm allowed to say and what is forbidden. The moderator Colin said the rules are intentionally vague. It is more the tone. Then, the mod told me he and others gave me leeway. Apparently, some comments were borderline. If enough are close to the edge and I don't know why, I can easily say the wrong things.
I also pointed out how many comments are aggressively insulting toward me which violates the rules and nothing is done. The rules are not enforced equally, across the board, I believe, especially when a moderator who removes my comments joins in the insults. 

[Bobolink]

Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
Metzger is considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th century

By whom
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
confirmed piece of ancient history is that the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.

That seems unlikely.
Is it, for example, as well confirmed as the fact that Nero was an emperor?

To tick that box it would need to be stamped onto all the coins of the era.

Is the Apostles' opinion really that well confirmed?

Even if it was; so what?
The question isn't about their belief, but about the fact.
And even if (this is now piling three levels of "what if" on top of eachother) he lived on after the crucifixion, couldn't it just be that the Romans botched an execution?

But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "? Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking. Bored

Is anyone going to present credible evidence that God exists or have we decided there isn't any?

[duffyd (OP)]

Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
Metzger is considered the greatest textual critic of the 20th century

By whom
Quote from: duffyd on 07/04/2020 13:18:08
confirmed piece of ancient history is that the apostles were certain Christ rose from the dead.

That seems unlikely.
Is it, for example, as well confirmed as the fact that Nero was an emperor?

To tick that box it would need to be stamped onto all the coins of the era.

Is the Apostles' opinion really that well confirmed?

Even if it was; so what?
The question isn't about their belief, but about the fact.
And even if (this is now piling three levels of "what if" on top of eachother) he lived on after the crucifixion, couldn't it just be that the Romans botched an execution?

But seriously, did you actually believe the bit about " the most confirmed piece of ancient history "? Because if you did, it just shows a lack of clear thinking. Bored

Is anyone going to present credible evidence that God exists or have we decided there isn't any?

Others have decided it is all a big joke and worse and not just occasionally. When I present information to the contrary, I'm insulted by more than a few and face being banned. I am uncomfortable which is the opposite of the publicly stated goal of the rules according to Chris.

[Colin2B]

Appeal! I asked for clarification.

And, what is wrong with appeals that someone would be censored for them? Where do the rules state that someone making appeals deserves censorship?

Where in the rules am I forbidden to discuss and/or have a "specific spirituality"?

I am not a part of any group. I am not discussing my "pet theory" either. Doesn't evangelize as referred to in the rules refer to something trivial? To be fair, I think there is more "evangelizing" if you like that word, on the despicable nature of those who hold to a religion and to the claims they construe about a religion, than the support any "religion" receives, but again, to be clear, I'm discussing my spirituality and why I believe it is legitimate.

We are not here to argue the toss with you, nor do we have to give definitive answers.
You asked for clarification and that has been given. The ‘rules’ are sufficiently broad to give us the leeway to decide what is or is not acceptable usage.

Just a couple of comments for further clarification then that’s it.

You say “Doesn't evangelize as referred to in the rules refer to something trivial?”. No, for the person who believes in a flat earth, they are just as passionate and committed to their ideas as you are. They just cannot provide credible evidence.

You say “I am not a part of any group. ........ I'm discussing my spirituality and why I believe it is legitimate”. But you have identified yourself as part of a group (set) that believes in a particular god and a son of god called Jesus. The problem when discussing religions is that it is very easy for the enthusiast to cross the line into evangelising.  You may not like the term, but that’s what it is.

 No one is questioning the truth of your spirituality or of your belief, but proof of belief is not proof of the existence of that which is believed in.