We have been wrong to suppose that our view is better than someone else's. Regardless of whether it is or not, or whether no one's view is ever better than someone else's, regardless of whatever you may think about this issue, we can't do it because it will always lead to fights and never (or very rarely) to someone changing their mind, especially in matters of ideology (which I still firmly believe should have been the subforum).

I'm for this subforum. I don't see it as giving a subjective view (as in "pushing" it on people - for example, Taoism or Gaianism are specific views, spirituality is the general school of thought they fall under) more like giving a place to discuss a school of thought if that is what people wish. IMO spirituality as a whole is general enough to justify a subforum. Besides, we already have a science subforum, why not give people the other half of the philosophy coin?

And if you feel like you won't be able to stay civil there, the answer is simple, just don't go. Tbh if you don't have the self control to avoid topics you don't want to be a part of for anything other than trolling, you don't have the maturity to be on forums in the first place.

$0.02. Sorry if anything is redundant to the thread as a whole. I've been gone all Labor Day weekend and am too tired to read through all this right now.

That is true..How would the arguers be separated from the other posters though? That's something I would ponder because arguments aren't always on the debate subforum.

There's never going to be a way to.

If people feel they need to have a special subforum to be what the entire forum should be, then something is very wrong, because of the expectation of 'debates'.

Wouldn't you say that given the debates going on over the last few months that the expectation of more debates is a valid worry?

That's just one of the reasons why some of us want a spirituality subforum, alongside the technology and environmental ones. The other reason I can think of is that we can fit our discussions about spirituality somewhere.

Just for something interesting I found this on the net. Just excuse this guy's pronunciation of Eywa.

In response to the above IRC logs:

A subforum does not cause "division" among the members - on the contrary, it allows them to discuss things they are interested in in a structured manner - that's why we have subforums in the first place. The spirituality subforum would decrease division among the members, since it'd prevent flamewars, argues and other things that could create hostility.

And, as a further response - here are the *rest* of the IRC logs:


---

[2011-09-06 01:02:15] <tbw> like, as a whole ... seems to me that none of this rubbish would've been an issue
[2011-09-06 01:02:43] <HumanNoMore> :(
[2011-09-06 01:03:17] <Eltu> Indeed.
[2011-09-06 01:03:19] <tbw> just my luck, the first several threads I read when pulling up ToS for the first time in a while are all people at each others' throats
[2011-09-06 01:03:20] <Eltu> It's what worries me
[2011-09-06 01:03:35] <Eltu> I simply cannot understand why this can lead to such a huge debate.
[2011-09-06 01:03:39] <tbw> ^
[2011-09-06 01:03:50] <Eltu> It's such a simple matter - try out a new subforum.
[2011-09-06 01:03:58] <Eltu> And yet it's made such a big deal out of.
[2011-09-06 01:04:04] <Eltu> :(
[2011-09-06 01:04:20] <Eltu> Also, HumanNoMore - I read it. Three times.
[2011-09-06 01:04:21] <tbw> I recognize that there are people on the forums who can't stand people expressing religious or spiritual or whatever views
[2011-09-06 01:04:42] <HumanNoMore> Eltu: becuase we do not want any view to be official.
[2011-09-06 01:04:44] <tbw> but can't we be *friendly* about it?
[2011-09-06 01:05:10] <HumanNoMore> tbw: it's not banned, but officially endorsing it is a complete game changer
[2011-09-06 01:05:12] <tbw> I mean, Avatar's a largely spiritual movie (or maybe it isn't, I haven't seen it in half a year, so I could be wrong)
[2011-09-06 01:05:22] <HumanNoMore> one which would make me uncomfortable having my name associated with ToS.
[2011-09-06 01:05:26] <Eltu> tbw: Depends on interpretation
[2011-09-06 01:05:29] <Eltu> I see Avatar as very spiritual
[2011-09-06 01:05:31] <Eltu> Many other does
[2011-09-06 01:05:35] <Eltu> And many don't
[2011-09-06 01:05:37] <Icu> tree of SOULS
[2011-09-06 01:05:38] <HumanNoMore> much like logic is not offically endorsed either
[2011-09-06 01:05:44] <HumanNoMore> and I am fine with neither.
[2011-09-06 01:06:04] <HumanNoMore> oh, wow, next you'll be pointing out that ther name Pandora is from greek mythology
[2011-09-06 01:06:13] <HumanNoMore> names mean different things to different people.
[2011-09-06 01:06:24] <Eltu> Yeah, and to some people they have spiritual meanings.
[2011-09-06 01:06:29] <Eltu> Not everyone sees Avatar seicntifically.
[2011-09-06 01:06:34] <Eltu> *scientifically
[2011-09-06 01:07:05] <tbw> I certainly don't -- its magic doesn't lie in hard science for me, though that's an interesting bonus
[2011-09-06 01:07:18] <Eltu> 01:04:42 <HumanNoMore> Eltu: becuase we do not want any view to be official.
[2011-09-06 01:07:20] <Eltu> HumanNoMore: I really don't understand that. And even IF people see it as "official", really, what's the big deal? As long as we all get along, I don't see the problem.
[2011-09-06 01:07:33] <tbw> <~HumanNoMore> oh, wow, next you'll be pointing out that ther name Pandora is from greek mythology
[2011-09-06 01:07:39] <tbw> HumanNoMore, are you talking to me when you say this?
[2011-09-06 01:07:48] <Eltu> See, that's what I mean
[2011-09-06 01:07:51] <Eltu> That kind of hostility
[2011-09-06 01:08:06] <Eltu> It may seem like nothing, but it takes place *constantly*.
[2011-09-06 01:08:10] <Eltu> That adds up. Quite a bit.
[2011-09-06 01:08:50] <HumanNoMore> no, Icu.
[2011-09-06 01:09:05] <HumanNoMore> you didn't say anything, tbw.
[2011-09-06 01:10:06] <Icu> just pointing out that the world "spiritual" is in the first definition of "soul". not trying to generalize or anything.
[2011-09-06 01:10:46] <HumanNoMore> first... and only?
[2011-09-06 01:11:09] <HumanNoMore> some people use it to refer to the mental software, which is actually a more apt definition for the context
[2011-09-06 01:11:18] <HumanNoMore> ie. not a flying ghost thing
[2011-09-06 01:11:28] <tbw> HumanNoMore, out of curiosity, do you equate spirituality with organized religion?
[2011-09-06 01:11:36] <HumanNoMore> not all of it, but some.
[2011-09-06 01:11:40] <tbw> do you object to stuff like "feeling a connection with the trees" or what have you?
[2011-09-06 01:11:53] <HumanNoMore> the latter is part of the former as a category.
[2011-09-06 01:11:54] <HumanNoMore> no.
[2011-09-06 01:12:23] <tbw> I'm not particularly interested in organized religion (though, fwiw, I was raised in a religious family and I do feel uncomfortable seeing hostility towards religion as a whole)
[2011-09-06 01:12:24] <Icu> i didn't say it was the only :/
[2011-09-06 01:12:24] <HumanNoMore> but I would just point out that that isn't anyting necessarily supernatural, just an emotion.
[2011-09-06 01:12:43] <Icu> same tbw
[2011-09-06 01:12:48] <HumanNoMore> some people might like to perceive it one way, but that isn't the only interpretation
[2011-09-06 01:12:57] <tbw> but I am interested in the sort of "spirituality" that people seem to want to discuss, and I'm confused as to why there's so much ... going wrong ... here
[2011-09-06 01:13:01] <Eltu> HumanNoMore: Exactly my point.
[2011-09-06 01:13:07] <Eltu> It *isn't the only interpretation*.
[2011-09-06 01:14:19] <Icu> so what should I have for dinner, eh? I've got a car and a credit card....
[2011-09-06 01:14:36] <Eltu> 00:58:10 <Eltu> Ninat
[2011-09-06 01:14:39] <tbw> Icu, have you got an iPhone?
[2011-09-06 01:14:54] <tbw> or android? (was going to recommend an app, but it's not out on android yet)
[2011-09-06 01:15:10] <tbw> or do you avoid smartphones like the plague?
[2011-09-06 01:15:24] <HumanNoMore> Eltu: that is why I have been saying we should have one with a less partisan name, which caters for both sides
[2011-09-06 01:15:35] <tbw> HumanNoMore, how is "spirituality" partisan? that's what I'm not getting
[2011-09-06 01:15:41] <Icu> ^yes
[2011-09-06 01:16:01] <Icu> and neither tbw
[2011-09-06 01:16:03] <HumanNoMore> its presence in the absence of an equivalent opposite implies an official position
[2011-09-06 01:16:08] <HumanNoMore> much like 'environmentalism' does
[2011-09-06 01:16:33] <HumanNoMore> and, again, this would be the ONLY subforum where _only_ a specific way of thinking is allowed
[2011-09-06 01:16:35] <Eltu> HumanNoMore: "Both sites"?
[2011-09-06 01:16:37] <Eltu> *sides
[2011-09-06 01:16:48] <tbw> HumanNoMore, hang on, what? only a specific way of thinking is allowed?
[2011-09-06 01:16:52] <HumanNoMore> yes.
[2011-09-06 01:16:53] <Eltu> And yeah
[2011-09-06 01:16:54] <Eltu> What.
[2011-09-06 01:17:00] <tbw> I thought the idea was "let's have this sort of conversation over in that 'folder' or 'forum'"
[2011-09-06 01:17:06] <HumanNoMore> Eltu has siad t hat things in this subforum must be unscientific only
[2011-09-06 01:17:09] <Eltu> Spirituality can mean a whole lot of different things to different people
[2011-09-06 01:17:16] <HumanNoMore> yes there is no 'scientific only' one.
[2011-09-06 01:17:18] <HumanNoMore> yet*
[2011-09-06 01:17:20] <Eltu> There is hardly *one* single way of thinking
[2011-09-06 01:17:40] <Eltu> HumanNoMore: for the last time, I see no problems in adding a "scientific only" subforum if there's a demand for it
[2011-09-06 01:17:45] <tbw> HumanNoMore, would you be satisfied if there were a "rationalist" forum to counter the "spiritual" forum?
[2011-09-06 01:17:55] <HumanNoMore> Eltu, THERE IS DEMAND, which you ignore
[2011-09-06 01:17:56] <HumanNoMore> and yes.
[2011-09-06 01:17:59] <Eltu> I don't ignore it
[2011-09-06 01:18:05] <Eltu> I just said
[2011-09-06 01:18:10] <Eltu> I *see no problems*.
[2011-09-06 01:18:13] <HumanNoMore> although I would prefer a single one where people can use their own way as implied by the thread
[2011-09-06 01:18:29] <tbw> well, what sorts of conversations would happen in the rationalist forum?
[2011-09-06 01:18:30] <Eltu> HumanNoMore: Yeah... that's called ToS, and it isn't working out all that well atm.
[2011-09-06 01:18:34] <HumanNoMore> that way the whole issue of implicit suppoty can be avoided.
[2011-09-06 01:18:49] -!- zongtseng [~zongtseng@AE7CF595.B8ECA5C1.610C3CA2.IP] has joined #TreeOfSouls
[2011-09-06 01:18:49] -!- mode/#TreeOfSouls [+ao zongtseng zongtseng] by ChanServ
[2011-09-06 01:18:50] <Neytiri> Zola'u niprrte' ma zongtseng, oel ngati kameie. Ngaru lu fpom srak?
[2011-09-06 01:18:51] <HumanNoMore> tbw, for one I'v used as an example, about how the placebo effect affects human senses
[2011-09-06 01:18:53] <Icu> :O
[2011-09-06 01:18:56] <Icu> hi zongtseng
[2011-09-06 01:19:06] <tbw> hey zongtseng
[2011-09-06 01:19:08] <HumanNoMore> e.g. give people non alcoholic beer, tell them it's alcoholic, and watch them act drunk
[2011-09-06 01:19:16] <HumanNoMore> because they expect it.
[2011-09-06 01:19:23] <tbw> HumanNoMore, doesn't that seem more suited for "general discussion" though?
[2011-09-06 01:19:30] <tbw> I mean, that's "hey, random interesting scientific stuff"
[2011-09-06 01:19:33] <Eltu> What tbw said.
[2011-09-06 01:19:39] <tbw> which is cool, and everyone should be interested in it
[2011-09-06 01:19:43] <HumanNoMore> no, because it related to 'spirituality', just from a logical perspective
[2011-09-06 01:19:45] <tbw> it doesn't run counter to spirituality
[2011-09-06 01:19:54] <HumanNoMore> it relates to it though

IRC conversation continued:

---

[2011-09-06 01:19:56] <Eltu> HumanNoMore: Then it isn't related to the spirituality *subsection*.
[2011-09-06 01:20:09] <Eltu> I've mentioned *so* many times what this section would include.
[2011-09-06 01:20:14] <Eltu> And yet you ignore that
[2011-09-06 01:20:16] <HumanNoMore> Eltu: so there will be only one subsection where only a specific view is allowed.
[2011-09-06 01:20:18] <tbw> HumanNoMore, how? I mean, sure, if you have some sort of religion that says "the placebo affect doesn't exist", then you're funny in the head
[2011-09-06 01:20:25] <tbw> but that's not what people want to discuss
[2011-09-06 01:20:26] <HumanNoMore> that is hugely exclusive to people who don't share it.
[2011-09-06 01:20:28] <Eltu> HumanNoMore: But if you really has such a huge problem with what's discussed in there - why not just stay out of it entirely then? I mean, as long as the community is happy...
[2011-09-06 01:20:33] <zongtseng> every subsection has a topic...
[2011-09-06 01:20:34] <HumanNoMore> Eltu: so there will be only one subsection where only a specific view is allowed.
[2011-09-06 01:20:35] <HumanNoMore> that is hugely exclusive to people who don't share it.
[2011-09-06 01:20:43] <HumanNoMore> it sets a bad precedent.
[2011-09-06 01:20:48] <zongtseng> if you post about books in movies, its going to get moved
[2011-09-06 01:20:52] <Eltu> HumanNoMore: Yeah, and you're only allowed to talk about books in the books subsec-
[2011-09-06 01:20:53] <Eltu> Yeah.
[2011-09-06 01:20:55] <Eltu> What zongtseng said.
[2011-09-06 01:21:01] <Icu> in the same way music forum is exclusive to people who like music. there's only a problem if you think about it in black and white terms
[2011-09-06 01:21:01] <tbw> HumanNoMore, how is it exclusive? I'd view it more as "hey, this is what I believe or how I feel"
[2011-09-06 01:21:08] <HumanNoMore> again, but what if there was no 'books' section, just a 'lord of the rings' section?
[2011-09-06 01:21:17] <tbw> if it's to foster friendly discussion, then that's fine, and that's what we had back in the old days
[2011-09-06 01:21:18] <zongtseng> um, why would that happen?
[2011-09-06 01:21:19] <HumanNoMore> would posts on other books be 'off topic'?
[2011-09-06 01:21:23] <HumanNoMore> that's what this is
[2011-09-06 01:21:27] <HumanNoMore> it's a single subset of something
[2011-09-06 01:21:32] <Eltu> I still don't understand what you mean there, HNM
[2011-09-06 01:21:37] <HumanNoMore> oh for fu-
[2011-09-06 01:21:39] <zongtseng> you're comparing spiritual ideals to a SINGLE BOOK? REALLY?
[2011-09-06 01:21:45] <Eltu> What zongtseng said.
[2011-09-06 01:21:49] <HumanNoMore> 'spirituality' is a subset of ways of perception
[2011-09-06 01:21:57] <zongtseng> something that the vast majority of the world holds, in one way or another
[2011-09-06 01:22:01] <HumanNoMore> so making a subforum only for it excludes others
[2011-09-06 01:22:10] <zongtseng> no, it doesn't
[2011-09-06 01:22:13] <HumanNoMore> I'd dispute that.
[2011-09-06 01:22:19] <HumanNoMore> one book series is a subset of all books
[2011-09-06 01:22:23] <zongtseng> I don't like programming/development
[2011-09-06 01:22:28] <HumanNoMore> so only having a subforum for that series excludes other books
[2011-09-06 01:22:30] <zongtseng> does that mean that having that forum excludes me?
[2011-09-06 01:22:34] <zongtseng> I demand it be removed immediately
[2011-09-06 01:22:34] <Eltu> Yeah, exactly.
[2011-09-06 01:22:38] <Eltu> @ zongtseng
[2011-09-06 01:22:50] <HumanNoMore> no, becuase there's a differened between no interest' and 'interest but with a countering viewpoint'
[2011-09-06 01:22:59] <zongtseng> for that matter, I won't be able to go to the 2012 meetup
[2011-09-06 01:23:05] <HumanNoMore> you wouldn't be unwelcome because you preferred Python over C++
[2011-09-06 01:23:07] <zongtseng> I'm being excluded, remove it please
[2011-09-06 01:23:12] <HumanNoMore> no, becuase there's a differened between no interest' and 'interest but with a countering viewpoint'
[2011-09-06 01:23:13] <HumanNoMore> you wouldn't be unwelcome because you preferred Python over C++
[2011-09-06 01:23:29] <Eltu> You're reading WAY too much into this, HNM.
[2011-09-06 01:23:34] <Eltu> Again,
[2011-09-06 01:23:34] <Eltu> 01:20:28 <Eltu> HumanNoMore: But if you really has such a huge problem with what's discussed in there - why not just stay out of it entirely then? I mean, as long as the community is happy...
[2011-09-06 01:24:57] <zongtseng> it still really bothers me to see you compare such a vast topic like spirituality, with... a specific kind of music, or a specific book
[2011-09-06 01:25:08] <zongtseng> the scope is so entirely different in those examples
[2011-09-06 01:25:08] <HumanNoMore> again, I could not in good conscience admin a site that implicitly supports such a view
[2011-09-06 01:25:14] <tbw> HumanNoMore, I think I'm missing something. given that "spirituality" doesn't mean "organized religion", what kind of countering viewpoint could even exist?
[2011-09-06 01:25:16] <zongtseng> it doesn't support any view....
[2011-09-06 01:25:26] <HumanNoMore> if it had an equivalent for logic, there would be no issue
[2011-09-06 01:25:28] <tbw> it's, "I feel a connection to the trees" or "well that's impossible because of XYZ"
[2011-09-06 01:25:29] <Eltu> You *are* in a minority here - 3 out of 4 admins agree that the subforum should be added, and given the thread and talks in the past, most of the community seems to, too.
[2011-09-06 01:25:29] <Eltu> I'm not saying you have to agree with the descision - but cannot you respect the community's wishes?
[2011-09-06 01:25:33] <Eltu> @ HNM
[2011-09-06 01:25:39] <zongtseng> the whole forum is the equivalent...
[2011-09-06 01:25:43] <HumanNoMore> tbw: it's a subjective rather than objective view
[2011-09-06 01:25:47] <Eltu> It may seem harsh - but as a final solution, it's not unthinkable.
[2011-09-06 01:25:53] <zongtseng> but by all means, create another subforum and call it "logic"
[2011-09-06 01:25:57] <HumanNoMore> again: this will create ONLY ONE subforum where only a single specific view is allowed
[2011-09-06 01:26:02] <zongtseng> done deal then? "spirituality" and "logic"
[2011-09-06 01:26:06] <zongtseng> Ill go make them
[2011-09-06 01:26:07] <HumanNoMore> there will not be one for logic only.
[2011-09-06 01:26:31] <HumanNoMore> well, we still haven't heard comment on possible names
[2011-09-06 01:26:37] <tbw> but... how is only one specific view allowed plausible?
[2011-09-06 01:26:43] <tbw> spirituality is an intensely personal thing
[2011-09-06 01:26:46] <zongtseng> its not
[2011-09-06 01:26:52] <HumanNoMore> one specific view system then.
[2011-09-06 01:26:59] <Eltu> What tbw said.
[2011-09-06 01:27:00] <HumanNoMore> subjective vs objective
[2011-09-06 01:27:02] <zongtseng> its not a specific view system....
[2011-09-06 01:27:05] <HumanNoMore> opinion vs evidence
[2011-09-06 01:27:08] <zongtseng> there are literally thousands of views in that
[2011-09-06 01:27:15] <tbw> spirituality doesn't exclude objectivity, though, does it?
[2011-09-06 01:27:15] <HumanNoMore> they all have common elements.
[2011-09-06 01:27:21] <zongtseng> no they don't
[2011-09-06 01:27:30] <zongtseng> again, you're really confusing religion and spirituality
[2011-09-06 01:27:38] <HumanNoMore> then THAT is why it needs a better name.
[2011-09-06 01:27:44] <tbw> I mean, I'm a computer science major, for Eywa's sake, but that doesn't mean I can't, say, "feel right" when I'm in the woods
[2011-09-06 01:27:52] <HumanNoMore> tbw, I can't either
[2011-09-06 01:27:52] <tbw> or "feel some connection to something"
[2011-09-06 01:27:57] <zongtseng> no one else is confusing it
[2011-09-06 01:27:59] <HumanNoMore> but for me, that's an emotion, not something magic.
[2011-09-06 01:28:01] <Eltu> HumanNoMore: So far I haven't seen *you* suggest another name, and everyone else seems to be fine with the suggested one.
[2011-09-06 01:28:05] <zongtseng> spirituality is the proper name, thats what the topic would be
[2011-09-06 01:28:14] <Eltu> Indeed.

Ok .. I want to give this some thought as I digest the information ....

For now a quote:

"With your permission, I will speak now. You would honor me by translating."

To all my fellow Spiritualist brothers and sisters~

The Sky People have sent us a message...
(the purely scientific only fans have sent us a message)

that they can take whatever they want.
(that only scientific topics can be discussed)

That no one can stop them.
(as they can set and decide the policy on this forum)

Well, we will send them a message.
(Its time to speak up loudly now)

You ride out as fast as the wind can carry you.
(Let your Spirits and Spirituality carry you)

You tell the other clans to come.
(Send the Message to other forums)

Tell them Toruk Makto calls to them!
(The Avatar Symbol of the Great Spirit)

You fly now, with me! My brothers! Sisters!
(Let your Spirits soar)

And we will show the Sky People...
(and we will show the purely Scientific People)

that they cannot take whatever they want!
(That they cannot arbitrarily decide for all of us)

And that this... this is our land!
(That we all make this forum and Avatar embraces a Spiritual Way of Seeing the World)

:)

That warms my heart to read - as this quote has always been synonymous with change, ever since ToS was founded. :)

*Smiles at reading Mika's Quote* That stirs my heartstrings. :D

I'm not sure what Human No More is trying to argue, honestly I've tried but I just get more and more confused..Why don't we have the spiritual thread where people who aren't spiritual can add stuff in to if they want, that's no problem.
However, I see this blowing way out of proportion, to look at this logically. Most of the admins are in favour of having a spiritual sub forum, there has been demand for it, there is no privatization of this subforum and anyone can view and add stuff..So what's the problem..We should of just put in this subforum ages ago and the conflict could of been avoided. A select few shouldn't can something...especially if it could keep members here happily.

I completely agree, Pa'li, with everything you've said - especially blowing this all out of proportion. As mentioned in the IRC logs above, I really do not understand why it's such a horrible thing to some. It's just a subforum like any other.

Thanks Eltu, I agree and Tbw and zongtseng make sense as well. If the majority of us see no problem and we can happily post somewhere there really shouldn't be any of this debate. Spirituality helps some of us in our daily lives and we can't discuss it on this forum..It's hurtful because it's the very essense of both Avatar and the Na'vi and humanity and yet we're gagged from discussing it because of one strong disagreer.

I honestly don't see what all the bull**** is about. I see atheists often showing their views on this forum, sometimes insulting the religious users here. Nobody really cares when that happens. And I can imagine the more spiritual people here don't feel completely welcome either.

It's just a subforum for people to discuss their beliefs. It's not a division. The only reason people would 'stir up trouble' would be misunderstandings and lack of sense.
If people don't want to go on the debate forum, they stay away from it. If people don't like the technology forum, they don't go on it. So if you don't like the idea of a theology subforum, then just don't go on it. It's quite simple.

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up earlier, actually.

I agree to 100%, Advent. Well said.

Atheist, here - and anti-religion, not exactly spiritual at all (although that may change, for a certain definition of 'spiritual') - and I don't see a problem with the subforum at all. It would be a place for those like-minded to discuss things in an area dedicated to it, which also means it's easily avoidable for those of us who don't care for it.

I fail to see why there is the need for drama. I get that we atheists can be quick to lash out and mock and tear down, it's a natural by-product of being a minority, particularly one that has been, and in certain areas, continues to be, persecuted/discriminated. But this a SUB-FORUM that everyone is talking about, not a forum-wide implementation of a policy to be pro-theist.

I really, really am at a loss as to why there is so much drama attached to this idea.

TRUE!! :D I still don't get why there is an issue here with creating a subforum.

Again, as with Pa'li makto, I fully agree. This whole thing is blown way out of proportion of you ask me.

Honestly, I don't understand what HNM is trying to argue here, with the greatest of respect.

Surely, if subforums create tension and division, then why not have just one big forum titled 'Stuff' that everything would fall into, that way... If someone brought up a book that was also a movie for example, then both coud be discussed with no problems. Well, when it comes down to it, subforums only dictate the context and content of discussion, that way... When someone comes into the book forum to talk about a LoTR book, for example, they know that the topic will be the *book* version, and not the *film* version. To run with the analogy, some people might not like the books, they might find them boring... Which is why they then go to post about the same subject in the film section.

I see it as exactly the same with this Spirituality subforum.

Another thing I don't understand is the idea of 'endorsement'... I mean, if we supposedly don't want to be associated with something, that's not really going to happen. This is an Avatar forum... That right away associated us with a film that has strong spiritualist content and a heavy-handed pro-environmentalist message. (If not to you personally, then to the general public as a whole.) And that really defeats the point. Don't forget (as previously mentioned) we also have environmentalist and science and technology subforums... Surely these two things also represent an opinion, even if that opinion does seem one-sided from an outside point of view.

Right now, I feel what we're communicating is that "we are a solely scientific and pro-environmentalist fan forum" whereas if we introduced something like Spirituality, we would only show our broadness and diversity as a fanbase.

Naturally, this forum would be a tempting prospect for any spiritualist - myself included - but why shouldn't it be? In recent times, we've felt pushed out and unwanted by our own forum members, let alone our 'family', so of course we're fighting for our right (to party lol) to a place we can all discuss again, like we used to be able to.

Because the existing subforums aren't divided by opinion. They are divided by subject.

Also, I see HNM's point. If you do create a spirituality subforum, and exclude discussions of spirituality from a logical/other perspective, then you are creating a division in the userbase. You are excluding those people who disagree with the premise the subforum is founded on, and I am fairly sure that the validity of that premise is entirely opinion. Excluding people based on their/your opinion, rather than evidence or objectively-followable reasoning, is almost the definition of totalitarianism.

As I saw comparisons with the science forum earlier, I object: the science subforum is not about philosophy. It is about news of scientific developments. I'm not sure whether the admins would let us use it to discuss philosophy, but "What does development X mean socially/ethically/spiritually?" is certainly a valid question that could be discussed somewhere, if not in the science forum.

Also, Mika, please try to avoid appealing to emotions. :P

Debate is really the only place set side that is specifically divided from the forum by opinions. (At least, it should be... But we all know the situation right now.) Spirituality is is subject just as science, technology, environmentlalism are... Surely, if you're going to claim that it is only opinion-based, then nothing on this forum is 'right' to exist, as *everything* is poinion-based. There is nothing without bias, even of the slightest kind.

Once again, as we have seen countless times... This is straying into the 'spirituality is all nonsense' subject, which I find personally insulting. Just because it is not logical, does not mean it is a) invalid or b) a school of thought nonetheless. To use an example; Being homosexual is not 'logical', but it still happens, doesn't it? Who is anyone to claim that someone who is gay is 'invalid'.

The creation of a subforum is not about eitism or exclusion, it's simply a place for people of a spiritualist tint to go nd discuss things of a spiritualist nature. Scientists, or people who haven't had experience with spirituality aren't ever *going* to understand, because we work on different terms. Like it or not, we are naturally divided from the scientists of this forum, because we fundamentally operate on different premises. Does not mean we are any better or worse than people who think differently, but also does not mean we are denied the right to ask and answer questions in the domain of spirituality, because it is a part of who we are.

Even if, to you, the questions might not make sense, to spiritualists, they can. Not all the time, i'm sure if this goes ahead, there will even be questions and disagreements between the spiritualists - but there is a large chance that someone spiritual will have had a relatable experience which can help the other person find their way. A 'humanised' relation that science cannot and will not ever provide. Hence why you cannot answer a humanist's question with a scientist's answer.

Alright then, in that case... We go ahead with the alternate/opposite science forum to allow such discussions to carr on there, too. Just because there are two different forums, does not necessarily mean that the two will become completely separated. There was this thing a long time ago called the 'Debate' forum, where people of opposing views could discuss things and theorise. I think it's still around here somewhere.

*roots around in the 'box'*

:P

Usually, I support you Mika, but I have to agree... We are speaking up now... There's maybe not much call for an approach like that... (Although I did enjoy the translation of it. ;))

Fkeu'itan - not surprisingly, I fully agree with all you said.

Clarke, what about the Environmentalism subforum, then? It's not divided by a subject, but rather a way of looking at things (environmentally). And that sure hasn't created any kind of division in the community.

And we already have the community split up, to an extent - but that doesn't have to be an entirely bad thing. We have the "people who loves books", and "people who aren't that interested in books" - the "people who like to discuss environmental issues", and "people who doesn't like to discuss environmental issues", etc, etc. These kind of "divisions" are something good, since they make us able to pick and choose what we are interested in, and discuss these things easily.

What binds us together is our love for the movie and/or respect for each other. And no spirituality subforum would change that. We'd simply have yet another group of people - "people who are interested in discussing things non-scientifically". Just like with any other subforum, this is defined by interest.

Why? I don't find your disagreeing with me insulting.

(I've cut out everything else because I really want an answer to that question.)

What about the people who want to discuss non-science scientifically?

They have all the other subforums to use - such as the general one, for instance. There will always be subjects that fit into no specific subforum, and that's why we have a general section. Naturally, if there is a high demand for a forum especially dedicated to "discuss non-science scientifically", it can be implemented. ;) But that's irrelevant in this discussion.

It's not the disagreement that is insulting me, it's the way you disagree. Telling spiritualists a large part of their lives is just lies induced by the brain and profess to know the 'real' answer is no intelligent debate, that is blatantly saying 'i'm right, you're wrong' - but dressing it in flowery language.

nope.avi - YouTube

A scientist isn't going to get anywhere by having witty opinions, because science doesn't work that way. Opinions aren't worth anything, only the things you can objectively prove matter, since building upon assumptions makes bad science.

All our opinions are equally meaningless, only the facts matter.

Aquaplant, I am going to say this once only - I understand your opinions in this matter, but they are not the same for everyone, and in this discussion they are irrelevant. The last time we started discussing this, that thread derailed greatly. You are of course free to talk about this, but please keep it to another thread - this is for discussing the implementation of the subforum only.

But yu are still human, are you not? You are still restricted to a human brain, and a human perception of the world, even with a languages like Mathematics, we still apply it as *humans*. We see in 2d, we exist in 3d. There may be other forms that we cannot ever contemplate with our restrictions,but can make vague allusions to.

I agree actually, assumptions *are* bad science, it is foolish to assume that something is there because somethig else indicates it. But that said, science is entirely built on theories. A set of assumptions.

Anyway... This is not what the thread is about, I don't wish to derail it, nor do I wish to discuss it, as I have done with people many, many times before, to no avail.

You're being naive.

Subforums are for organisation. The issue HERE is that people wanted one because they did not want to discuss something somewhere else. This shows a big problem, it shows how things have changed over time and not for the better.

Creating it simply promotes the perception that there is a division between 'spiritual' and logical users.
that division, that perception, does not remain within the subforum. It makes its way into every post. THAT will destroy ToS.

Another thing I don't understand is the idea of 'endorsement'... I mean, if we supposedly don't want to be associated with something, that's not really going to happen. This is an Avatar forum... That right away associated us with a film that has strong spiritualist content and a heavy-handed pro-environmentalist message. (If not to you personally, then to the general public as a whole.) And that really defeats the point. Don't forget (as previously mentioned) we also have environmentalist and science and technology subforums... Surely these two things also represent an opinion, even if that opinion does seem one-sided from an outside point of view.[/quote]
I've already said that the environment subforum is an implicit endorsement of a view. Science and technology is not, because that is a thing, not a view.

I don't see how - the science and technology subforum is not for only logical views - indeed, there has been a LOT of bashing of logic by a few users.

In that case, then I fail to see why there can't be a subforum for 'philosophy' or any other variation to cater for people who want 'spiritual' or logical views.

But if a subforum covers spirituality, a discussion of spirituality logically goes into that forum. What I object to is a forum discussing spirituality with the explicit or implicit restriction that you must agree with a specific idea (i.e. "spirituality" itself is a unflawed method of thinking) in order to discuss in that forum.

"You are wrong because evidences X, Y and Z disagree with you," appears to me to be relatively non-hostile. I know that most people strip out the second half, but there is a difference between being antagonist and disagreement.

Thank you.

This is the critical difference.

This is why I think that a single subforum, not dedicated to either view, and closely moderated (along with much closer moderation of the 'debate' forum,
would serve the interests of people who want this for organisational purposes. People who want this for a 'safe place', on the other hand, their interests are valid, but creating a special subforum for that is going the wrong way about it, I think, as it will create different camps of users, who become split on differences of how they think, and that WILL be reflected in posts elsewhere. The 'debate' forum does it to a degree.

Clarke: Again, you are misunderstanding the purpose of the subforum. I'll sum it up for you:

It's a section where users could discuss anything from a non-scientific perspective.

That's it. It's the most wide definition of spiruality there can be, and thus it's the one that should be used considering we all have different views of the thing. Nobody has to agree with anything at all. But just like I couldn't go into the Environmentalism section and say that Earth should be destroyed (since that'd be offtopic), one couldn't go into the Spirituality section and discuss it scientifically. And for one sole reason - it'd be offtopic. That's it. Nothing else.

In response to both you and HNM - I think you are making a far greater deal out of it than it is. People want a subforum for discussing things non-scientifically. People get such a subforum. Ones who are not interested doesn't have to enter, just like with any other subforum.

That's it. There is no "elitism", there is no "banning people who doesn't agree" - there's simply one new subforum for discussing a certain interest (non-scientific conversations).

'Debate' is not restricting only people of a single opinion to be allowed to post there.

You're begging the question.

Nobody here has commented on any view being more or less valid. All I have said is that there is not a need for a dedicated subforum for organisational purposes - indeed, from the viewpoint of organisation, it would make FAR more sense to have a single one for all views, called 'Philosophy' or something.

Then do not foster that division, do not make it grow.

http://www.tree-of-souls.com/general...urn_roots.html
The answer is to regain what has been forgotten on ToS, when it didn't matter who someone is.

Do you even know what a humanist is?

Once again, I do not seek for any such topic to be banned. I can see that people may not want to make a thread in General Discussion, but, honestly, if that's out of fear, rather than out of wishing for a simple organisational one, there are bigger issues here, which a 'safe' subforum will not resolve. That is why if there is one, it should be one for ALL points of view, closely moderated.

Nobody would only add a 'metal' subforum if there was no music subforum - people who liked others would complain.

Yes, not that you'd tell, because the expectation of a 'debate' (AKA argument) has spilled over everywhere. ToS is not a 'debate' forum.
A 'philosophy' subforum would solve any perceived organisational issues, but, what is MORE important here, is to remind everyone of ToS, of the earlier days, when it did not matter who someone was. I made a thread, but it seems to be being ignored.

It's existence would imply that the admins consider non-scientism (bear with me) to be important enough for its own protected space. Can't you see why HNM objects to this idea?

I disagree. The reason people here wanted one was because we cannot physically discuss our spirituality in good faith (excuse the expression) without being torn down in a few posts by people telling us we're all liars.

THAT is the thing wrong here. Maybe as spirituaists, we can be hard-headed too but it's difficult (read; nigh-on impossible) to properly convey spiritualism without having felt it at some point and having the ability to empathise.

And you don't think that opression of views and not allowing people their voice without stamping all over their views won't do the same eventually?

Furthermore, let me remind you why AF 'collapsed'. People believed that the 'management' were beginning to become separated from the communtiy, that they stopped listening and began doing only what they wanted, on their terms and morals, despite the calls of many members there who disagreed with a large change. Granted, this is a little different. Over there, Lon was the only real Admin who 'did everything', here we have a few more Mods, but the concept is still the same. It's about losing distance, and becoming a forum based on the admin's ideals of what 'their forum' should be.

All i'm saying is that a large part of your community seem to be crying out, but you don't seem to want to hear it.

Edit: Sorry, and correct me if i'm wrong, but are you saying here that lack of division, acceptance and unity will destroy ToS? BEcause reading it back again... That's what it appears you said.

Alright then, if environmentalism is still a view, and an endorsement, then why are you not opposed to that, too? Because you personally agree with environmentalism, but not spirituality?

Victimisation is really not a good road to go down on this matter. Compared to science-based views, there has been FAR more bashing of spirituality as there has been. The scientists have had pretty much the run of the whole place these past few months, forcing the other side of it into a corner. In some places - off the entire forum.

Just look at all the 'f*ck christianity' posts in the thread of hilarious pics recently... Can you imagine how that would make a christian person feel? Really, it is no different than blaming all the world's ills on the Jews, yet when you say that, you're branded a Nazi or Anti-semite and suddenly, that isn't alright.

Come on HNM, now you're the one being naieve.

How long do you seriously think a spirtual discussion will be reasonably accepted and upheld in a 'philosophy' forum? You say you dislike the 'Debate' forum, and this really will be no different.

If we're going to g down that route, then there needs to be a lot more acceptance of face-value matters on this forum, as that is really what spirituality functions on. About trust that what you feel is real, and allowing that to guide you. If you automatically believe that the human brain is always wrong and that there is no such thing as a 'heart'or 'soul', then this is already destined to fail before it even begun.

Yes, but, since there is no equivalent opposite to the environment one, it is officially establishing a view.
I could not in good conscience admin a forum that does that in this case.

In that case, I don't see why there can't be a single one, where the type is determined by thread, and closely moderated.

Again, what needs to change is the expectation of arguments that has built up. I made a thread on that very subject, but it's been mostly ignored.

In that case, then not only does it need a far better name, but people need to give consideration to the fact that by having one or by having two, it divides the people of the forum. It creates a 'them and us' between people who think differently. That will just lead to further arguments unless every single subforum is segregated between the two.

First off, consider Fkeu's opinions my own - I second everything he said.

No, it would imply that the users find this topic interesting enough to have its own subforum. And even if it did imply that the admins consider this to need a "protected space", no, I do not see why one would object that. How is it a bad thing? Please, enlighten me. ;)

Would you prefer him to be consistent in the other direction? :P

A 'safe' subforum does not change that. what needs to change is the expectation of arguments, and that needs people to acknowledge when they have been causing a problem.

Do you know how elitist that sounds? It's all 'we this', not to mention the fact that 'you haven't felt something therefore you are unable to understand' - a special subforum for the one view will exacerbate that.
It's also insulting, saying that I am unable to empathise, when nothing could be further from the truth.
You cry 'persecution' when nobody ever banned anything, and then come out with something like that.

I don't know how many times you'll need me to say this, so I'll make it very clear here.
Nobody has banned anything. Nobody will. We are trying to keep a semblance of neutrality, and not promote one view.

It's because the original admin sold the forum, and, because many people felt that the atmosphere there had changed as the forum grew.

I've given this far more thought than it's deserved. I've lost nights of sleep in a row, it's endangered friendships, it's brought me right to the edge of ending it all.
Why?
Because I want to find a compromise that doesn't teat ToS apart as a result.

Because it is an undeniable part of Avatar's message. The issue with 'spirituality' is that not only does it depend on everyone's definitions, but there is also rationalism in the film - everything is explained. Everything is possible. For that reason, there, people can take either from it.

Then take that up with the people who do so. Asking for a 'safe' subforum will not do anything except cause perceptions from BOTH groups that there is a big difference between people, and that WILL be reflected in posts outside.

Yet again: Then report them. Take it up with the person who posted them.
staff are not infallible.

I don't see how that's naive. It's something very close to what you want, without dividing the userbase into arbitrary groups and without being seen as endorsing anything.

Once again, that is why BOTH need to be FAR more closely moderated. 'Debate' is the cause of many arguments outside it, which is why everyone needs to take a stronger stance against flamebaiting. Don't reply, don't let it sit there. Report it, and if you think a post of your own may be perceived as such, rethink it before posting.

Once again, it's an endorsement.

It's creating an elite subgroup, of people who think they are 'good enough' to be there - fkeu'itan's previous post even said "you've never experienced something therefore you will never understand", which is elitism to me.

It will create a mentality of 'them and us' from BOTH sides, and that will be reflected in the rest of the forum.

I've been trying to address the reason that people don't feel like they can post. I made a thread, where I apologised for my part. I tried to remind people what ToS was for, why we are here? and what happened? it got filled with spam, and only three sincere posts, one of which even insulted another member in doing so!