I think we could say fairly categorically that if you don’t understand why theism is ruled out, you’re not ready to post here.
I feel like repeating myself here: just don’t foster the discussion concerned directly with religion. We don’t fight religion, we fight for people’s sanity. Otherwise, it’s like not allowing sick people to a hospital. In most cases, good hygiene within the community should be enough to keep the patients from harming each other.
Fair enough. More specifically, the problem is in the efficiency of this criterion: yes, there is a correlation, but is a rule worth enforcing, would it hurt more than help? So, I guess the point comes down to me not considering this particular feature as salient as you do.
The distinction isn’t quite as simple as I’m making—we are all actively fighting our own and each other’s irrationalities—but I still think there’s a line that can be drawn of whether a person is fundamentally in tune with the rationalist values that this site is all about.
However, I am given pause by the fact that everyone except Annoyance seems to disagree with me.
I agree with you in a weak sense . My position is that while we shouldn’t officially exclude theists from participation, we should nevertheless be free to take atheism completely for granted -- as would be manifested, for instance, in unhesitatingly using theism as a canonical example of irrationality. The kind of theist who will be welcome here is the kind who can handle this.
I feel like repeating myself here: just don’t foster the discussion concerned directly with religion. We don’t fight religion, we fight for people’s sanity. Otherwise, it’s like not allowing sick people to a hospital. In most cases, good hygiene within the community should be enough to keep the patients from harming each other.
So part of the question is whether this is a hospital or a medical conference.
Data point: I followed a link to OB from reddit, got (largely) cured, and am now doing my best to assist the doctors.
Fair enough. More specifically, the problem is in the efficiency of this criterion: yes, there is a correlation, but is a rule worth enforcing, would it hurt more than help? So, I guess the point comes down to me not considering this particular feature as salient as you do.
So in essence, you’re asking whether this is:
a place for experts on rationality to come and discuss / build on important developments, or
a place for people who need rationality to come and get better
ne?
The distinction isn’t quite as simple as I’m making—we are all actively fighting our own and each other’s irrationalities—but I still think there’s a line that can be drawn of whether a person is fundamentally in tune with the rationalist values that this site is all about.
However, I am given pause by the fact that everyone except Annoyance seems to disagree with me.
I agree with you in a weak sense . My position is that while we shouldn’t officially exclude theists from participation, we should nevertheless be free to take atheism completely for granted -- as would be manifested, for instance, in unhesitatingly using theism as a canonical example of irrationality. The kind of theist who will be welcome here is the kind who can handle this.