Religion again

I’ve brought this stuff up before, but there’s just been zero reaction.
The Religion Forum obviously mostly serves as a playground for people who hate religion and believers.
Nobody even reacts when things get reported, so I guess it’s fine to just write like this:

Nji Hao said:And he's right. The Christian God isn't any of those things. He isn't smart, wise, or good.

If you actually read the Bible with an open mind, it becomes pretty clear to you that this so-called God isn't any of those things—not smart, not wise, and certainly not good.

The God in the Bible is just like the people who made him up: merciless, vindictive, vengeful, selfish, and jealous. Calling such a being "God" is honestly an insult to the true God.

Christianity is built on the Bible. Since the Bible is a lie, that means Christianity is a lie right down to its very foundation.And since everything built on top of that foundation isn't any better, the whole thing called Christianity is basically one big scam.

Getting on God's good side has nothing to do with whether someone is actually a believer or not.
I'm not just saying this out of nowhere; I believe the stories from people who have witnessed moments where humans actually encountered God. From those encounters, it’s become pretty obvious that our faith doesn't mean much to God.

Even if faith itself is irrelevant, how people practice it definitely isn't. Time and again, we've seen believers cause massive damage—to themselves and others—through their practice, which has basically earned them negative points with God. In that sense, atheists actually have a slight edge over believers because at least they aren't following all this religious nonsense.

"Kissing up" is probably the best way to describe what believers do.
"I'll follow whatever you say, and in return, you'll reward me." For most believers, that’s exactly why they want to believe—if not consciously, then at least subconsciously.

"I do this for you, you do that for me"—that's the basic principle of every transaction. Believers act like God is some kind of merchant, thinking they can achieve something by just kissing his ass.

The Bible is responsible for this skewed mindset, because the Bible depicts God as a narcissistic egomaniac who demands we suck up to him through praise and worship.

That is so far from the truth. God doesn't need anything, not even our worship. Worship is for narcissists, and God isn't that.

Anyone who demands blind faith and total obedience, backed by the threat of punishment if you don't comply, isn't God—he's just a cruel, merciless dictator.

The Bible and all of Christianity is a lie.
It's better to be an atheist than a Christian.
It's better to think that God doesn't exist than to believe he's the way he's described in the Bible.

I know a lot of people, and I've noticed that faith and intelligence are usually inversely proportional.

But when I talk to believers, their stupidity isn't even the biggest issue. The much bigger problem is that they don't care about the truth. They only care about things that confirm their faith. They jump at anything that supports what they believe, but they reject anything that contradicts it—even when the truth is staring them right in the face.

That's why talking to a fanatic believer is totally pointless. You can present them with an argument, but it's like you didn't even speak; it just bounces off them. They're like a wall—nothing contradictory to their faith can ever penetrate.

"We speak in God's name," "we are God's representatives," "God told us," "we fight for God," "Holy Father," "Reverend," "Excellency."

That's how it sounds in "Catholic-speak," but here is how it looks if we translate those words into their actual meaning:
"we speak for ourselves," "we've appointed ourselves as representatives," "somehow God supposedly said so," "we're fighting for our own interests," "the average Joe," "parasite," "pedophile."

Rituals, celebrations, parades, masses, fancy dresses, baptisms... honestly, "farce" might be the best word for it.
It’s all just empty outward show that has nothing to do with God. Just plain old tradition without any actual substance. A total farce. Christianity is basically that—just an empty shell lacking any real internal value.

Look, I get that there are people out there who can't stand faith or believers, but constantly bringing up the IQ of believers and all those other pointed comments—bolded or not—really falls under hate speech, discrimination, and intolerance toward religious people. That kind of stuff is actually prohibited by anti-discrimination law, and I don't think it would fly if it were directed at any other group.
It's always the same small group posting things like this, and somehow it just gets tolerated. If that's how it's going to be, then maybe we should just close the religion thread altogether.

This is a scientifically established fact, and it's pretty hard to claim defamation when you're just disputing something based on the same data.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23921675/

The Constitution prohibits firing someone because of their faith, but it doesn't stop you from thinking they're an idiot. That’s not what anti-discrimination laws are for.

I’d really appreciate it if the moderators could weigh in here—honestly, your opinion doesn't really mean much to me anyway.

I have a suggestion for the moderators:
Instead of handing out penalties to users, could we just open up a specific skeptic sub-forum dedicated to religion?
Something similar to how things were handled with COVID or Bitcoin.
It’s pretty obvious that opinions here are so wildly different and irreconcilable—it feels like everyone is hunkered down in their own trench, much like during World War I, where people spent four years or more stuck in the mud without moving an inch forward or backward.
That way, everyone can have their own space to express their reasons for celebrating or commenting.

1. The Religion PDF doesn't have a moderator. Look, I absolutely LOVE Bubija, he's the best, but he isn't moderating that section here.

2. Speaking of this whole skeptic thing—if you're going to act like a believer, just move over to: (theology and religious practice). Honestly, any bickering from either side should get penalized. And seriously, why won't they look at point number 1?

3. Let's be real, 90% of the people posting in there are either believers heading to Mass for Christmas and Easter or just straight-up atheists and agnostics.

swiftmaker12 said:I have a suggestion for the moderators:
Instead of handing out penalties to users, could we just open up a specific skeptic sub-forum dedicated to religion?
Something similar to how things were handled with COVID or Bitcoin.
It’s pretty obvious that opinions here are so wildly different and irreconcilable—it feels like everyone is hunkered down in their own trench, much like during World War I, where people spent four years or more stuck in the mud without moving an inch forward or backward.
That way, everyone can have their own space to express their reasons for celebrating or commenting.

Honestly, that's not a bad idea... although we have had threads like "why I became an atheist" and stuff like that before.
Even in those "religious jokes" threads, there's a fair amount of mocking going on regarding religion (at least from what I've glanced at lately), so I guess I could hang out over there too.

They want to (again) sideline skeptics, atheists, and former believers into their own little "section,"
keeping the whole religion PDF just for themselves.

Then they’ll start bickering "only" with non-Catholics and Muslims, eventually demanding separate sections for them too.

In the end, all they really want is a pure American forum exclusively for Catholics who agree on everything, where they can just bash anyone outside their ideological bubble.

The thing is, they already have their own Catholic forums, but nobody actually visits them.... 🙂

Former moderator Meadow (honestly the best religion mod we ever had) worked her tail off trying to moderate that subforum, and she was great at it, but it makes you wonder if all that effort even matters...

swiftmaker12 said:I have a suggestion for the moderators:
Instead of handing out penalties to users, could we just open up a specific skeptic sub-forum dedicated to religion?
Something similar to how things were handled with COVID or Bitcoin.
It’s pretty obvious that opinions here are so wildly different and irreconcilable—it feels like everyone is hunkered down in their own trench, much like during World War I, where people spent four years or more stuck in the mud without moving an inch forward or backward.
That way, everyone can have their own space to express their reasons for celebrating or commenting.

Isolating people based on differing opinions defeats the whole purpose of having a forum as a place for debate.

You can't really compare this to the situation with COVID or the sections on natural science and health, where scientific expertise provides an objective criterion for selection. With religion, there isn't any of that; it's all just personal opinion.

bluemason3 said:Isolating people based on differing opinions defeats the whole purpose of having a forum as a place for debate.

You can't really compare this to the situation with COVID or the sections on natural science and health, where scientific expertise provides an objective criterion for selection. With religion, there isn't any of that; it's all just personal opinion.

Look, if you think things like IQ are a valid way to decide someone's worth—especially when it comes to whether their opinion matters in a discussion (which is what you're implying here)—then why even bother talking to them? If you've already decided a certain group is "lesser" than you, the conversation is dead before it starts.

In that case, we aren't talking about free speech anymore; we're just watching a group try to preach their own "superiority."
The end result? It's just plain old discrimination, trying to "clean up" public spaces by kicking out anyone they don't like.

I can think the other side is as foolish as I want, but the whole point of a debate is that it provides the opportunity to prove otherwise—especially to a third-party observer. If it were just two people talking back and forth, we’d be using a messenger app, not a forum.

The true value of a discussion lies in the arguments themselves. Someone's intelligence plays a role, sure, but it isn't the only factor. Just because there's a correlation between certain traits doesn't mean it's a guarantee; you have plenty of highly intelligent people who use their wits solely to ideologically double down on everything (using high IQ for sophisticated rationalizations), alongside "street smart," objective individuals with an average IQ. It's a bit more complex than just one isolated variable, even if, on average, one side usually ends up winning out.

bluemason3 said:I can think the other side is as foolish as I want, but the whole point of a debate is that it provides the opportunity to prove otherwise—especially to a third-party observer. If it were just two people talking back and forth, we’d be using a messenger app, not a forum.

The true value of a discussion lies in the arguments themselves. Someone's intelligence plays a role, sure, but it isn't the only factor. Just because there's a correlation between certain traits doesn't mean it's a guarantee; you have plenty of highly intelligent people who use their wits solely to ideologically double down on everything (using high IQ for sophisticated rationalizations), alongside "street smart," objective individuals with an average IQ. It's a bit more complex than just one isolated variable, even if, on average, one side usually ends up winning out.

Well, I think that’s how it works in theory, but unfortunately, in real life with actual people, it doesn't really function that way. Very quickly, the arguments tend to get replaced by unnecessary and exhausting attempts at outsmarting one another, or through belittling, insults, and provocation...
Maybe two machines could carry out a debate using pure logic without emotions taking over the conversation, but humans just aren't built that way, I suppose.

There is also another aspect to consider here. If there is a specific space where a group of people share common interests or hold similar views on a topic they enjoy discussing, and then people with opposing viewpoints show up, those original members will likely stop sharing their ideas and start avoiding that space altogether because others will begin mocking them, trying to prove them wrong, or simply dismissing them.

That is why I feel the right approach might be to open a dedicated skeptic or contra sub-sub-forum within certain sections. Maybe even one general skeptic/contra sub-forum for the whole Forum, which would then contain skeptic sub-sub-forums for every topic—ranging from Politics and Health to Religion, History, and so on. And perhaps we could let the Contras themselves moderate it, just to avoid a situation where the "opposing camp" is moderated by someone who fundamentally disagrees with them and holds completely different perspectives on the matter.
In that way, everyone would have their own freedom of expression within a community of like-minded people, and I imagine the moderators would end up having less work to do too.

Even though I am an atheist and an outspoken opponent of religion, I still believe that religious people on this Forum have an absolute right to their own peaceful corner where no one will attack them or their ideas. I guess the point is just to allow everyone at least that minimum amount of freedom and peace.

There are plenty of Catholic and other religious forums online that offer much more specialized topics and dedicated participants. If those three major local religions truly just wanted peace, they wouldn't need this site; they could exchange prayers in their own protected sandboxes on language-specific boards. They’d actually have more members if you only count the religious folks, plus a higher concentration of experts like theologians and priests. If they actually cared about that, they’d be spending their time there instead of here.

Everyone wants to get the upper hand on the other side—it goes both ways. There isn't any other reason to participate in a diverse public forum alongside active Catholics. These kinds of demands are just tools used to score points and try to force the administration to pick a side in their little wars, usually driven by people who lack the capacity to actually hold a real debate.

Removing atheists from the conversation would just make religion a poorer, smaller version of the larger Catholic forums, rather than making it more active.

Similarly, a specialized forum where skeptics have limited influence is usually just a theology board for that specific religion. In fact, following discussions like these, such spaces often open up, and we even see room for those narrower, more closed debates right here. But as I expected, nothing fundamental changes. You'll always find underqualified, frustrated believers constantly complaining because someone treats them like a fool—even though they can't flip the script. They claim they just want to be left alone in their own sandbox, but they choose to stay out in the street instead. It’s a nonsensical argument, though maybe it's just self-delusion that some people actually believe.

It’s all just transparent, empty talk masking a banal attempt to use the system—in this case, the forum's admin tools, but on a grander scale, the state apparatus—to fight personal socio-ideological battles. It’s basically instinctive tribalism and ego trips wrapped in pseudo-idealistic cellophane.

Once we identify with a group—whether they are ideological atheists or spiritual seekers—it's only natural to want our "tribe" to advance and occupy as much territory as possible. That's why diverse forums are so attractive, even though we constantly try to turn them into our own. But once our ideas are properly recorded, we’ll look for a new diverse space to write in, rather than being content within our own.

So, barring health issues or PZ concerns, I personally advocate for improving the framework of discussion by controlling trolling, rather than limiting ideas. Not all mods agree with that approach, obviously, and I'm no authority, even though I should be 😈 in fear of messy sand.

And this is a topic that pops up every few months, decade after decade, usually accompanied by that tired question of why a believer is never a moderator.

coastalfalcon61 said:Well, I think that’s how it works in theory, but unfortunately, in real life with actual people, it doesn't really function that way. Very quickly, the arguments tend to get replaced by unnecessary and exhausting attempts at outsmarting one another, or through belittling, insults, and provocation...
Maybe two machines could carry out a debate using pure logic without emotions taking over the conversation, but humans just aren't built that way, I suppose.

There is also another aspect to consider here. If there is a specific space where a group of people share common interests or hold similar views on a topic they enjoy discussing, and then people with opposing viewpoints show up, those original members will likely stop sharing their ideas and start avoiding that space altogether because others will begin mocking them, trying to prove them wrong, or simply dismissing them.

That is why I feel the right approach might be to open a dedicated skeptic or contra sub-sub-forum within certain sections. Maybe even one general skeptic/contra sub-forum for the whole Forum, which would then contain skeptic sub-sub-forums for every topic—ranging from Politics and Health to Religion, History, and so on. And perhaps we could let the Contras themselves moderate it, just to avoid a situation where the "opposing camp" is moderated by someone who fundamentally disagrees with them and holds completely different perspectives on the matter.
In that way, everyone would have their own freedom of expression within a community of like-minded people, and I imagine the moderators would end up having less work to do too.

Even though I am an atheist and an outspoken opponent of religion, I still believe that religious people on this Forum have an absolute right to their own peaceful corner where no one will attack them or their ideas. I guess the point is just to allow everyone at least that minimum amount of freedom and peace.

Meaning.The skeptic sub-subforums.Providing a platform for "opinions"—or whatever you want to call this misinformation—is dangerous. Because these ideas are so unconventional, they can be harmful from an educational standpoint. In certain cases, like when it comes to health, they can actually be fatal.

Separating posts filled with such "opinions" and "information" into their own section sends a clear message: don't just take what's written here at face value. It’s a hint that you actually need to verify these claims instead of blindly accepting them as truth.

An example of a solid reason to open it.Skeptics.In one sub-forum, there was a sudden surge, for instance. On the sub-forum regarding the Corona pandemic. All those "opinions" and "information" coming from the sidelines. (At least regarding the subject matter) the relentless, gullible, and irresponsible users on this Forum..

A "Contra sub-subforums.By their very name—let alone their intended purpose—they can't possibly make any sense.

To what exactly? On the "contra" sub-forum...To go against.I?
Some post published on a regular sub-forum? Fine, whatever...
But... And then what?
The one we chose to go contra against in that manner, He’ll show up on the Contra sub-forum just to try and debunk our position.?

I think... The "contra" sub-forum was created for one specific reason: to give that user some peace on the main board. It exists so they can state their claims without being constantly picked apart by everyone who disagrees. 🤷

And why on earth would any rational person walk out of a room just because a claim was made, only to go around "contravening" that very same claim against the walls of some other room?

coastalfalcon61 said:Maybe we should just establish a general skeptic/contra sub-forum across the entire Forum. We could then nest specific skeptic sub-sub-forums under it for everything—Politics, Health, Religion, History, and so on.

And there it is—an even better idea at this point. 🙂

coastalfalcon61 said:And that’s exactly why you hand moderation over to the Contras. It prevents the "opposing camp" from being moderated by someone who disagrees with them or holds a different perspective on the matter.
That way, everyone would enjoy true freedom of speech within a community of like-minded people. Plus, the moderators wouldn't have nearly as much work to do.

What "opposing camp"?
If those proposals actually pass, you won't find anyone from the opposing camp left on this Forum.
There will only be. Subforums i Sub-forums Like-minded people. Looking at it. (quoting you):
"We should probably add some skeptical sub-forums for every topic, from everything to... Politics, Health, Religion, History, etc."

coastalfalcon61 said:... even though I'm an atheist and a vocal opponent of religion, I believe religious people on the Forum have an absolute right to their own quiet corner where no one will attack them or their ideas. The point is to grant everyone at least that minimum level of freedom and peace.

Religious users can simply make their threads
"their own quiet corner where no one attacks their arguments."

If their topic is legitimate (and if such a topic is opened in the appropriate section*), then they can discuss the subject in peace, provided they strictly stick to the subject matter itself.
(*such a quiet corner was precisely what the newly opened sub-sub-forum 'theology and religious practice' was intended for)

In short, there will certainly be peace in threads covering topics such as
proper mass etiquette (when to kneel, when to stand, etc.), advice on preparing for sacred rites, descriptions of necessary liturgical procedures, and so on... Basically, topics that are generally not debatable, since we are talking about 'rules of service' or membership protocols and similar matters...

In my opinion, the setup actually makes perfect sense on paper. Dividing everything into a general section where people can just chat casually about current events regarding religion, and then having a more "specialized" section for "theology and religious practice" where different denominations can lay out their doctrines and answer specific questions from their own perspective... I think that's a really solid way to go.

The real issue, though, is that it just isn't working in practice because, well, nobody is actually moderating that part of the Forum. It feels like total chaos, and honestly, it’s mostly being caused by just a handful of people (regardless of what they believe). I guess if we just had a few warnings issued here and there, things would settle down. We don't need some ultra-religious moderator acting like a zealot, jumping into every single thread to push a specific agenda—we've already dealt with one of those, haven't we? No thanks! What we really need is just someone normal. Someone who can tell the difference between an insult and a simple statement of fact, or distinguish between actual questioning and just trolling. Most importantly, we need someone with zero tolerance for anyone calling for violence.

I suppose an atheist discussing Religion is somewhat akin to a flat-earther posting in a Natural Science forum.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I suppose an atheist discussing Religion is somewhat akin to a flat-earther posting in a Natural Science forum.

🤣 That’s a decent one—a classic little troll post, obviously.

And in reality, he's just an atheist.Religion.' Someone with a...Natural science.Straight into the flat Earth conspiracies.Alternatives.')

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I suppose an atheist discussing Religion is somewhat akin to a flat-earther posting in a Natural Science forum.

Would Buddhists or Jainists, as followers of an atheistic religion, be allowed on the PDF, or does this rule only apply to materialists? And what about us metaphysical agnostics who don't fall under materialism?

What about those Levey-style atheistic Satanists? Or religious Satanists? 😁

If the PDF is strictly religious, then you could have just as much conflict between different religious worldviews as you would with materialists. It's not as if all religions share the same metaphysics, nor is it true that there aren't massive differences between Catholics and materialists. Not all theists or all atheists share the same mythology or epistemology.

The logical move would be to have isolated forums for each denomination. Though, even then, you'd just end up with people arguing over, say, traditionalists versus progressives on a Catholic 🤣
Unless everyone gets their own private PDF, we’ll never have peace. 🤣

It makes zero sense.

We see the same thing with moderators—problems that are purely religious in nature, or even spiritual issues driven by people with very specific ideological and social agendas. Paradoxically, the most practical ones are the casual atheists. I highly doubt a Catholic, when trying to act like a modern believer, is worrying about whether a religious Satanist might show up and cause trouble.

In my opinion, the urge to shut things down and administratively control ideas points to a fundamentalist mindset and a desire to force a personal narrative. That's the real issue, not the atheists.

Whether a moderator is being a jerk or just enforcing rules is a separate conversation, but there's really no need to change the core policies of the PDF.

bluemason3 said:Would Buddhists or Jainists, as followers of an atheistic religion, be allowed on the PDF, or does this rule only apply to materialists? And what about us metaphysical agnostics who don't fall under materialism?

What about those Levey-style atheistic Satanists? Or religious Satanists? 😁

If the PDF is strictly religious, then you could have just as much conflict between different religious worldviews as you would with materialists. It's not as if all religions share the same metaphysics, nor is it true that there aren't massive differences between Catholics and materialists. Not all theists or all atheists share the same mythology or epistemology.

The logical move would be to have isolated forums for each denomination. Though, even then, you'd just end up with people arguing over, say, traditionalists versus progressives on a Catholic 🤣
Unless everyone gets their own private PDF, we’ll never have peace. 🤣

It makes zero sense.

We see the same thing with moderators—problems that are purely religious in nature, or even spiritual issues driven by people with very specific ideological and social agendas. Paradoxically, the most practical ones are the casual atheists. I highly doubt a Catholic, when trying to act like a modern believer, is worrying about whether a religious Satanist might show up and cause trouble.

In my opinion, the urge to shut things down and administratively control ideas points to a fundamentalist mindset and a desire to force a personal narrative. That's the real issue, not the atheists.

Whether a moderator is being a jerk or just enforcing rules is a separate conversation, but there's really no need to change the core policies of the PDF.

Meh. Nobody is actually moderating the religion discussions. A handful of users (Anthony Perez9, Bryan King3, Carl Hughes) basically just run wild across the site. There isn't any coherent discussion or meaningful exchange of ideas happening. They just troll everything in the 16 section, and honestly, they would get banned from almost any other sub-forum. Yebo, such moderation and Yebo, such communication.

coppersailor28 said:Meaning.The skeptic sub-subforums.Providing a platform for "opinions"—or whatever you want to call this misinformation—is dangerous. Because these ideas are so unconventional, they can be harmful from an educational standpoint. In certain cases, like when it comes to health, they can actually be fatal.

Separating posts filled with such "opinions" and "information" into their own section sends a clear message: don't just take what's written here at face value. It’s a hint that you actually need to verify these claims instead of blindly accepting them as truth.

An example of a solid reason to open it.Skeptics.In one sub-forum, there was a sudden surge, for instance. On the sub-forum regarding the Corona pandemic. All those "opinions" and "information" coming from the sidelines. (At least regarding the subject matter) the relentless, gullible, and irresponsible users on this Forum..

A "Contra sub-subforums.By their very name—let alone their intended purpose—they can't possibly make any sense.

To what exactly? On the "contra" sub-forum...To go against.I?
Some post published on a regular sub-forum? Fine, whatever...
But... And then what?
The one we chose to go contra against in that manner, He’ll show up on the Contra sub-forum just to try and debunk our position.?

I think... The "contra" sub-forum was created for one specific reason: to give that user some peace on the main board. It exists so they can state their claims without being constantly picked apart by everyone who disagrees. 🤷

And why on earth would any rational person walk out of a room just because a claim was made, only to go around "contravening" that very same claim against the walls of some other room?

And there it is—an even better idea at this point. 🙂

What "opposing camp"?
If those proposals actually pass, you won't find anyone from the opposing camp left on this Forum.
There will only be. Subforums i Sub-forums Like-minded people. Looking at it. (quoting you):
"We should probably add some skeptical sub-forums for every topic, from everything to... Politics, Health, Religion, History, etc."

Religious users can simply make their threads
"their own quiet corner where no one attacks their arguments."

If their topic is legitimate (and if such a topic is opened in the appropriate section*), then they can discuss the subject in peace, provided they strictly stick to the subject matter itself.
(*such a quiet corner was precisely what the newly opened sub-sub-forum 'theology and religious practice' was intended for)

In short, there will certainly be peace in threads covering topics such as
proper mass etiquette (when to kneel, when to stand, etc.), advice on preparing for sacred rites, descriptions of necessary liturgical procedures, and so on... Basically, topics that are generally not debatable, since we are talking about 'rules of service' or membership protocols and similar matters...

I guess that’s one reason, though unfortunately, you'll probably find "uninformed, gullible, and irresponsible" types equally present among the Skeptics and those who believe they are the ones representing truth and objectivity.

Another reason for creating the Skeptics section is to give people with different viewpoints a place where they can feel free to express and share what they think they know, since we live in the 21st century where we all love to brag about respecting others' rights—so maybe at least respecting the right to a (different) opinion. A third reason is just practical, really—it helps drive traffic to the Forum and keeps users around longer.

And honestly, " contra sub-subforums " don't make much sense by their very name, let alone their actual purpose.

What exactly is the point of " arguing against " something in a 'contra' sub-subforum?
Maybe arguing against a post made in a regular subforum? Okay, sure...
But then... what happens next?
Is the person we were just "arguing against" going to show up in the 'contra' sub-subforum just to debunk our rebuttal?

I mean... the 'contra' sub-subforum was likely opened specifically so that user could have some peace on the main subforum without being constantly challenged by people who, because of their specific claims, just happen to disagree with them. 🤷

"Contra" is really just a term suggested as a synonym for the Skeptics. It might be a clunky word, but it was just a random suggestion, and I don't think it's worth overanalyzing it too much. Maybe the focus should stay on the concept rather than the specific wording. And hey, you're more than welcome to suggest a term you think fits better.
The point is that both groups (the skeptics/contra folks) should have their own corner where they can share thoughts freely, without someone from the opposing side jumping in to smooth things over or correct them, especially since that person often isn't truly qualified to do so because they don't fully grasp their perspective. Of course, it works both ways, so a skeptic shouldn't be trying to lecture the "believers" in their own space either. Truth is a pretty relative thing, and I don't think anyone has an exclusive monopoly on it.

And why would any rational person ever leave a room where a claim was made just to go 'argue against' that claim inside the walls of some other room?!

I don't think anyone is actually going to walk away just because of one single claim. But I suppose if a certain group of people is having their own discussions, and within those talks, someone is constantly pushing the envelope toward being offensive or dismissive on a daily basis, any *reasonable* person would probably just grab their friends and head somewhere else to finish the conversation, or maybe they'll just give up entirely. On the other hand, an *unreasonable* person might stay and keep arguing with them, which I guess just ends up being a waste of their time and energy.

And hey, at this point, there might even be a better idea: :five

Well, please feel free to suggest a better way of doing things if you happen to have one.

What do you mean by an 'opposing camp'?
If these suggestions actually happen, I guess there won't really be any opposing camps left anywhere on the forum.
There will only be subforums and sub-subforums consisting of people who agree regarding (quoting you here):
"... adding skeptical sub-subforums for every topic, from Politics, Health, Religion, History, and so on"

The term "opposing camp" was mentioned because, in my view, a skeptic’s opinions shouldn't be moderated by someone who holds completely different views. It seems to me that a believer shouldn't be the one moderating an atheist in a space specifically designated for expressing atheistic views. If an atheist shares an opinion, it might—and quite often does—come across as offensive or dismissive to a believer, even if the atheist didn't necessarily intend to be hurtful and was just trying to state an objective fact. A believer might approach certain questions emotionally since they experience faith in a way that is fundamentally different from an atheist, and because of that, they're going to perceive other viewpoints differently. And I suppose that's their right, which should be respected.

Religious users also have the option to start threads that could serve as
"their own quiet corner where no one will attack their arguments."

Okay, fair enough. I wasn't looking at the Religion section, so I didn't realize they had their own "protected" area.
From the original post, I mostly gathered that they felt bothered by the influx of atheists and the way they talk to believers, and that they were looking for some kind of solution to that situation.

bluemason3 said:Would Buddhists or Jainists, as followers of an atheistic religion, be allowed on the PDF, or does this rule only apply to materialists? And what about us metaphysical agnostics who don't fall under materialism?

What about those Levey-style atheistic Satanists? Or religious Satanists? 😁

If the PDF is strictly religious, then you could have just as much conflict between different religious worldviews as you would with materialists. It's not as if all religions share the same metaphysics, nor is it true that there aren't massive differences between Catholics and materialists. Not all theists or all atheists share the same mythology or epistemology.

The logical move would be to have isolated forums for each denomination. Though, even then, you'd just end up with people arguing over, say, traditionalists versus progressives on a Catholic 🤣
Unless everyone gets their own private PDF, we’ll never have peace. 🤣

It makes zero sense.

We see the same thing with moderators—problems that are purely religious in nature, or even spiritual issues driven by people with very specific ideological and social agendas. Paradoxically, the most practical ones are the casual atheists. I highly doubt a Catholic, when trying to act like a modern believer, is worrying about whether a religious Satanist might show up and cause trouble.

In my opinion, the urge to shut things down and administratively control ideas points to a fundamentalist mindset and a desire to force a personal narrative. That's the real issue, not the atheists.

Whether a moderator is being a jerk or just enforcing rules is a separate conversation, but there's really no need to change the core policies of the PDF.

I guess you could say there isn't really any imposition of a personal narrative happening, provided that we give different interest groups enough space under fair conditions, where they can operate and have discussions relatively freely without being interfered with.