Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't believe in near death experience because the bible doesn't support it. I believe in an afterlife because the bible says, there is one.
This is exactly why it would be nice to have an afterlife sub-forum where religious beliefs did not have to intrude on the conversation. Is there any interest in starting a sub-forum that deals specifically with proof of the afterlife as we currently possess it?
I have been doing massive studies of the afterlife these past months and have accumulated quite a few YouTube videos and Internet websites that provide a pretty compelling case for proof of NDE's and the afterlife but I cannot present it when religious bigots will be constantly making attempts to derail the conversation with such bigoted statements like the above. I'd like to see it as a place much like the atheist forum where religion is not allowed to come in and proselytize--where the conversations be kept purely objective so that religious zealots cannot deliberately divert attention away from the topic and into a realm of messiness and confusion like what is found in the Christianity/Religion forum.
Anyone besides myself interested in broaching such a forum to the head mods?
Actually, I think having an afterlife forum may be defining things a bit narrowly.
I would suggest instead that this forum be left as is (but renamed) for those who want to share experiences without criticism and provide metaphysical or spiritual explanations for unexplained/paranormal phenomena, and another new forum be started for people who are more interested in the objective investigation, debunking, and possible physical explanations surrounding unexplained/paranormal phenomena. Sort of a "sharing" vs "analysis" split.
Most of the disagreements around here seem to be rooted in this split between those who just want to share without criticism, and those who want to debunk them or take a more objective/scientific approach to them. The rules of the road of both forums would need to be adjusted accordingly.
I would suggest that if the "bible-based" folks want a forum to discuss and critique paranormal experiences and beliefs, they approach the mods of the Religion and Spirituality forum to have one added there.
If you post in Food and Drink or Health and Wellness about something
innocuous...you will STILL have mean or hostile
or negative posters say 'something'.
It is truly amazing...people will see NDE and come there intentionally to poo-poo
all of us.
So...there you have it...a fact of City-Data.
Actually, I think having an afterlife forum may be defining things a bit narrowly.
I would suggest instead that this forum be left as is (but renamed) for those who want to share experiences without criticism and provide metaphysical or spiritual explanations for unexplained/paranormal phenomena, and another new forum be started for people who are more interested in the objective investigation, debunking, and possible physical explanations surrounding unexplained/paranormal phenomena. Sort of a "sharing" vs "analysis" split.
Most of the disagreements around here seem to be rooted in this split between those who just want to share without criticism, and those who want to debunk them or take a more objective/scientific approach to them. The rules of the road of both forums would need to be adjusted accordingly.
I would suggest that if the "bible-based" folks want a forum to discuss and critique paranormal experiences and beliefs, they approach the mods of the Religion and Spirituality forum to have one added there.
That's great. I'm all for a debate between believers and skeptics just as long as the debate is confined to secular arguments and the Bible is left out of it. Once you start saying, "Well the Bible doesn't preach it so it's of the devil" you're immediately off the topic and into religion and that's exactly what I wouldn't want to see happen.
I love skeptics as along as they confine their arguments outside religion and concentrate on the secular paranormal and the scientific evidence for why they doubt. I've learned quite a bit from the skeptics and they have brought to my attention stuff I wasn't aware of. I went out and did my research on what they said and made an informed rational decision about whether I was willing to accept what they had to say. If I had to truthfully admit I believed they were right I voiced it; same with if I disagreed, I said why I disagreed and tried to produce veridical evidence to counter. That's the way a forum like the one I propose should be conducted.
Is there any input from the mod here about whether a sub-form under "Unexplained Mysteries" is doable?
I got on the internet for the first time in the early 80s in grad school via USENET, and a few years later, joined CompuServe. The terms spammer, troll, and flame wars all date back to that era -- so do emoticons, which were intended to remove some of the ambiguity from written communications.
To deal effectively with spammers, trolls, other sociopaths and flame wars you need clear, strong rules for a forum, and moderators who don't put up with any violations of the rule and ban people for refusing to abide by them. However, someone dedicated enough will come back over and over under different usernames, and even if IP address banning is used, there are ways of spoofing that (I've seen it happen in another forum here on City Data). And being a moderator can be a thankless job, typically done by someone in their spare time. So these things aren't just a fact of City Data, they've been a part of the internet since the early days.
What splitting this forum as we're discussing and coming up with rules for the one or two child forums might do is provide clearer guidelines for moderators to come down on behavior defined as unacceptable in each forum's charter. It would reduce the conflicts between "sharers" and "analyzers"; however, it also reduces the chance for interchange between them. But my sense is a number of people here don't want interchange, they want the forum to be the forum they want it to be (rather than taking it as it is). And I also think a lot of people are uncomfortable with debate and defending their beliefs in a public forum. Splitting might make them more comfortable sharing without having to listen to people like me saying "what about this as an alternate explanation?"
I got on the internet for the first time in the early 80s in grad school via USENET, and a few years later, joined CompuServe. The terms spammer, troll, and flame wars all date back to that era -- so do emoticons, which were intended to remove some of the ambiguity from written communications.
To deal effectively with spammers, trolls, other sociopaths and flame wars you need clear, strong rules for a forum, and moderators who don't put up with any violations of the rule and ban people for refusing to abide by them. However, someone dedicated enough will come back over and over under different usernames, and even if IP address banning is used, there are ways of spoofing that (I've seen it happen in another forum here on City Data). And being a moderator can be a thankless job, typically done by someone in their spare time. So these things aren't just a fact of City Data, they've been a part of the internet since the early days.
What splitting this forum as we're discussing and coming up with rules for the one or two child forums might do is provide clearer guidelines for moderators to come down on behavior defined as unacceptable in each forum's charter. It would reduce the conflicts between "sharers" and "analyzers"; however, it also reduces the chance for interchange between them. But my sense is a number of people here don't want interchange, they want the forum to be the forum they want it to be (rather than taking it as it is). And I also think a lot of people are uncomfortable with debate and defending their beliefs in a public forum. Splitting might make them more comfortable sharing without having to listen to people like me saying "what about this as an alternate explanation?"
Well, I'm thinking you're right, Vasily. It WOULD be a huge task to set up a forum like this and I'm also thinking the mods/owner probably just don't need the headaches--hard enough running what they've got. So I'm going to consider the idea dead in the water from this point on. Best not to get one's hopes up too high from the get-go, that's what I've learned---from the Christian forum anyways.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 03-29-2015 at 04:31 PM..
This is exactly why it would be nice to have an afterlife sub-forum where religious beliefs did not have to intrude on the conversation. Is there any interest in starting a sub-forum that deals specifically with proof of the afterlife as we currently possess it?
I have been doing massive studies of the afterlife these past months and have accumulated quite a few YouTube videos and Internet websites that provide a pretty compelling case for proof of NDE's and the afterlife but I cannot present it when religious bigots will be constantly making attempts to derail the conversation with such bigoted statements like the above. I'd like to see it as a place much like the atheist forum where religion is not allowed to come in and proselytize--where the conversations be kept purely objective so that religious zealots cannot deliberately divert attention away from the topic and into a realm of messiness and confusion like what is found in the Christianity/Religion forum.
Anyone besides myself interested in broaching such a forum to the head mods?
I'm interested in them as well. Would love to discuss the subject without the religious zealots reciting the same verse over and over (It is appointed for man to die once and after this the judgement (sigh))
I'd be interested in your you tube videos as well, got a link(s)?
That's great. I'm all for a debate between believers and skeptics just as long as the debate is confined to secular arguments and the Bible is left out of it. Once you start saying, "Well the Bible doesn't preach it so it's of the devil" you're immediately off the topic and into religion and that's exactly what I wouldn't want to see happen.
I love skeptics as along as they confine their arguments outside religion and concentrate on the secular paranormal and the scientific evidence for why they doubt. I've learned quite a bit from the skeptics and they have brought to my attention stuff I wasn't aware of. I went out and did my research on what they said and made an informed rational decision about whether I was willing to accept what they had to say. If I had to truthfully admit I believed they were right I voiced it; same with if I disagreed, I said why I disagreed and tried to produce veridical evidence to counter. That's the way a forum like the one I propose should be conducted.
Is there any input from the mod here about whether a sub-form under "Unexplained Mysteries" is doable?
By the way, thank you Miss Hepburn.
Yes. Tallysmom put the warning at the top of the page.
Last year, when my nephew was visiting, while I napped he decided to post under my name. Unfortunately, he chose this forum. One of the moderators contacted me.
My son hijacks my account once in a while, too. I'm not sure why young guys find this funny, but they do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
