/lit/ here, we've definitely had a thing with religion and philosophy taking up too much space on the board. In the sticky it says "If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/", but in practice people only want to use /his/ for history, and a lot of people don't want to use /his/ for history so they post history books on /lit/.

It puts us in this weird middle ground where almost no one uses /his/ for religion/philosophy, so everyone continues using /lit/ for it and if you moved the threads to /his/ they would probably just die. So we can either force them onto /his/ by actively deleting all their threads not about a specific book (which is okay by the rules), or we make a new board and let them go there. I'm for the 2nd option just because /his/ is crowded as it is, and religion/philosophy does have enough interest for an entire board at this point.

>>8134
I agree, religion and philosophy is something that needs its own board.

/rp/ is a board that needs to be created. I think it would free a lot of threat real estate on /pol/, /his/, and /lit/ for topics that are more in line with the purpose of those boards.

>>8138
only people against the idea seem to not janny any of those affected boards...really makes you think...

Fellow /pol/ Janny here. I fully agree that /religion and philosophy/ needs to happen, but I say that with one large condition:

It absolutely needs to have a strong "no flame war" rule that is strictly enforced. The board should be capable of theology threads without atheists coming in and disrupting things. Not because atheism shouldn't be talked about, but because that position in certain threads is effectively against further discussion. For comparison, it'd be as if /v/ was constantly bombarded with replies saying "video games are for children, stop playing them". Not something one should welcome. And the same should be true of atheism threads. Obviously "you should convert to X, or go to Hell" is not welcome in the same way.

However, for this reason, the board may ultimately be a bridge too far. Perhaps it is simply not possible to have good religion discussion. However, there is enough demand on /pol/ alone (with numerous "let's pray together" threads and various attempts at generals, which currently have to be moved to /bant/) that an attempt should at least be made. I really hope moderators do not ignore this or dismiss it as "low priority". It's going to have some serious problems early on, but this is a challenge to overcome not shrink from.

>>8134
Yet another /pol/ janny here, and a person who frequently browses /pol/, /lit/ and /his/.

I've noticed that at least 30% if not up to 50% of /lit/'s catalog is taken by philosophical and religious threads, /pol/ also gets its constant share of similar posts. I would estimate 15% that is pretty stable and constant. And there is /his/ which also seems to be home of that kind of discussions.
So I would say that there is definitely a need for that kind of board.

Now comes the question of creating a board dedicated to both religion and philosophy. To be clear from the start I don't think that those terms should ever be used interchangeably, even though they do have some common ground. For centuries theologians have used philosophy to defend their faith and explain complex theological teachings. On the other hand, questions of God's existence and nature, theodicy, His implications on ethics and society, have been part of philosophical debates practically since the begging of recorded philosophy in ancient Greece.

So for the sake of their similar method and shared subjects, I would still advocate for creation of their common board, but without any further implications of their interchangeability.

>For the most divine science is also most honourable; and this science alone must be, in two ways, most divine. For the science which it would be most meet for God to have is a divine science, and so is any science that deals with divine objects; and this science alone has both these qualities; for (1) God is thought to be among the causes of all things and to be a first principle, and (2) such a science either God alone can have, or God above all others. All the sciences, indeed, are more necessary than this, but none is better.
>Aristotle - Metaphysics

>Philosophia est ancilla theologiae (Philosophy is a servant of theology).
-Thomas Aquinas

bro we can request boards wtf where's my /futa/ board and you better not say /aco/

>>8138
#1 hazard with this problem is ERPers thinking it's for them, so if this happened, you'd probably want to throw up an ERP sub-board somewhere.

>>8142
/d/

>>8144
I can't /d/eport western art, try again

>>8142
>>8144
>>8148
I wish you guys would be /d/ported from this thread

File: 1606757336626.jpg (1.27 MB, 3000x3000)

1.27 MB JPG

I'd just like to point out that creating new boards to move off-topic shit to is not a cure all solution. Just remove the off-topic shit, that's the janitor's destiny. People will not magically move over just because there's a board where it's topical; and mind you, there already is one and it's /his/. A better solution to this problem ought to be relentless mass deportation to /his/ whenever it's topical; not that it'll do much for /pol/ just like /bant/ hasn't stopped any off-topic threads from being made on /pol/.

However, philosophy is big enough of a topic that it sufficiently warrants its own board, religion on the other hand? Unless you're talking about prayer group/blog/larp /pol/ threads (which belong on random boards or begrudgingly, /soc/) I personally don't think there should be any consideration for it given that /his/ has more religion threads than philosophy threads anyway; not to mention that the combination of a board exclusively for philosophy and religion sounds shoehorned. While there is overlap between some philosophy and religion there ought to be a line drawn between theology and worship (mind you, that theology itself has little to do with philosophy which is yet another nail in the coffin). Ultimately /his/ being a humanities board already sufficiently satisfies the theological aspect of religion and therefor makes such a creatura de las janimericas redundant.

If anything, /his/ should be rebranded to /hum/ - Humanities to better reflect the board's topics without giving special treatment to one given topic; which as a matter of fact better reflects the liberal tradition on which such studies are founded upon.

>Gott ist tot.
― Hegel

>Come chocolates, pequena;
>Come chocolates!
>Olha que não há mais metafísica no mundo senão chocolates.
>Olha que as religiões todas não ensinam mais que a confeitaria.
― Alvaro de Campos (Fernando Pessoa)

>>8155
/his/ has developed a strong culture around discussing historical events and topics. Trying to force the "humanities" aspect when nobody on the board wants it is counterproductive.

>>8155
>I'd just like to point out that creating new boards to move off-topic shit to is not a cure all solution.
I agree that treating boards as "containment zones" is not a great way to approach it. The sentiment behind this is giving a place for people to post about this stuff. I feel like we need to address the idea of theory vs. practice:
* are theological posts allowed?
* are prayer threads allowed?
I see both of these kinds of posts made in /pol/ with good intent. /bant/ may be the appropriate place to move them to, but these posts really need a place to live to foster the discussion that (I personally believe) they deserve. I don't feel like posters looking for a religious discussion are visiting /bant/ very often, is all I'm trying to get at. It's the wrong audience.

>>8155
I concur with this faggot

>>8159
History IS Humanities too and as I see it, everyone assumes that /his/ is only for History and not History and Humanities since the mainpage is not used very often and most boards' topic can be extrapolated out of the website subdomain they're in.
Even if we were to say "Yah sure we should have a Philosophy board" it would still make no sense for there to be /ergo/ - Philosophy and /his/ - History and Humanities when both Philosophy and History are Humanities. Such a change would likely entail that /his/ would become its own board while /hum/ could be a slower more generalized board for other topics within Humanities while still accepting History and Philosophy threads; or so I would like to say but things like board restructurings are exceedingly rare even if we have had a lot of new boards lately, the sheer volume of rules, templates, FAQ text and other sections of the site that are defunct or in need of change could warrant a thread of their own.

>>8160
>are theological posts allowed?
>are prayer threads allowed?
The thing is that Humanities is a scholarly secular bundle of disciplines, including prayer threads would be a bastardization of the topic itself, not to mention that such threads would just be blogposting about what you prayed about or why God is great (even /v/ has rules against Fanboyism, for a reason, I imagine). Practicing a religion has very little with actually studying Religion from a secular scholarly standpoint.
>I don't feel like posters looking for a religious discussion are visiting /bant/ very often, is all I'm trying to get at. It's the wrong audience.
/bant/ has no topic and people are not interested in posting in boards other than the ones they want to use. /pol/ making religion threads is just a reflection of the "politics" people there espouse. However I'll disagree in having to give it a place since it's not like everything needs a board, especially when the board wouldn't be so much about discussion as much as blogposting and supportposting; I don't imagine such a board would be all that interesting if it could all be condensed into a general on some random board. In fact, this whole there not being a religion board is mainly the user's problem since they're not using random boards to make such a general even if there's apparent demand for it; we're not responsible for creating or fostering such a place just like we're no more responsible for enforcing general template autism and the like.
I also often see religious posts in threads within other boards and people literally only do them because they already post on that board, it's the same thing as people posting lewd anime girls/women for no particular reason other than the fact that they like anime/women. At the end of the day even if such a board existed it would probably not address /pol/'s problem with religion.

/x/ ends up hosting a lot of religion and philosophy threads. If conspiracies were banned from /x/, it would become a much larger portion of the board than it already is. Part of why is that once you start talking about religion, philosophy, and spirituality in a practicing sense, and not just as a humanities topic, paranormal and metaphysical elements will always bleed in.

A huge issue we have on the board right now is that a lot of the christianity and paganism threads are /pol/ flavored, and when discussion of religious critique comes up 80% of the time it devolves into how satanic jews are eating babies.

Other than that, religious threads have existed on /x/ for years.

>>8143
I imagine the exact name that is decided may vary. I heard /phil/ being thrown around. I just like /rp/ because it has funny implications.

>>8164
>this whole there not being a religion board is mainly the user's problem since they're not using random boards to make such a general
Except users of /lit/, /pol/ and /his/ are doing this.

Also, I'm not sure why are you repeatedly trying to portray this as an off-topic and rule implementation issue, when there is a strong argument and a testimony from the jannies that there is a genuine will among the userbase for that kind of discussion.

>>8134
there is one already, it's called /b/

>>8172
You can make this argument about any board. Let's force vtuberfags to post on /b/. Great idea, right?

File: file.png (377 KB, 720x540)

377 KB PNG

>>8171
>I'm not sure why are you
Pic related.

In this case, I don't at all buy into the argument that people wanting something should have it given to them for no reason, particularly because I'm not in charge of board creation and I don't get to say that everyone gets a board. A good example of this is how 4 video game boards were made seemingly out of nowhere, albeit with good intentions, despite there arguably being more popular topics that could be addressed with a new board. Another would be the Alternative Sports split, that albeit made with good intentions, left everyone else not affected by it wanting to be a fly on the wall at the modchat so they can more accurately call mean names to Mods who didn't give them board X on IRC and (Rest in Piss) /qa/. From my understanding we're not even enduring any sort of financial strife or hardware limitations, so we could give boards out like candy. But the most shrewd of policy makers would remark that doing so will only fan the flames for uncomfortable topics the moderation team wouldn't want to be discussed on the website: namely e-celebs and, may Allah forgive me for uttering this word multiple times, Inshallah, k*rean culture, k*rean manga, k*rean webtoons and the worst of them all; k*rean soap operas (that's right, the Mods actively prevent >(YOU), the people, from getting a K*reaboo gf.)

I'm merely adding to the thread by giving my thoughts on the issue.
So should there be a religious board? Given the content that's been proposed I don't think so, BAWW/blogposting is universally condemned on 4chan, not even /adv/ allows it, it's not constructive, and I find sadistic pleasure in BRing blogposters. 'Ate blogposters (not racist just don't like 'em.)
So if not BAWW then what's left as content? Feel free to add to that but I don't believe it'll solve the off-topic post problem nor provide a space for [thing?] that can't be discussed that's worth discussing and couldn't have a general on /bant/ (it can).

>>8176
While no one wants to post on /b/ you're trying to compare one of the fastest boards on the website to prayer threads and topics already covered by /his/ or /lit/ or /pol/. Vtubers are posted on /bant/, why can't people make prayer threads there? I'll straight up say that western bias will pretty much make it so that only western religions would be discussed anyway (just look at /his/), you can make 3 threads for orthocucks, prostcucks and cathchads or 1 big uneasy alliance against the Islam general (ironic and a falseflag made by the Judaism general, or so the Christianity General would want you to believe, as they'll ostensibly post about it forever more in barely coherent rants which are most definitely anti-semitic [since they're /pol/acks] and would make Patrick Bateman cry.)

>religion board would be nothing but blogposting and prayer requests

>religious ethics
>theology
>dynamics between religion and society
>everyday living
>miracles
>debates between different religions and denominations
>current news, challenges and happenings in religious world
>history of religion
>prominent religious figures
...

>>8182
>>>religion board would be nothing but blogposting and prayer requests
I'm talking about things that can't already be posted on /his/ or /pol/ or /lit/, the OP was made with those posts in mind and it's heavily implied that since those can already be posted on those boards they're beyond the need to be discussed. What I did originally post about was the breakdown of religion as /his/ was for humanities, a scholarly field, but this isn't exactly the case upon rereading the sticky since it doesn't demand scholarly discussion, only that people aren't retards, despite taking the namesake of humanities for lack of a better descriptor of the topic (which is truthfully more in line with 4chan as a whole).
So yes, a whole lot of what you just posted can go on /his/ and I believe the board itself has a lot of leeway with topics outside of history so a new board is redundant for either topic.

>>8183
You keep saying it can go on /pol/, but it explicitly cannot. All religious threads are either being deleted or moved to /bant/.

>>8188
You're saying that I keep saying that it can go on /pol/, but I explicitly did not. I said it can go on /his/, what can go on /pol/ is what can go on /pol/, which isn't what can go on /his/. I don't doubt that all off-topic religious threads are being deleted or moved on /pol/, you're just not making a distinction between what is topically allowed on /pol/ (current events, societal discussion) and what isn't (literally everything else that's religious). That it's religious or not is frankly irrelevant, current events are allowed to be discussed regardless if it's religious; religion itself can't and for the most part can be posted on /his/; the part that can't be posted anywhere, the blogposting, does not warrant a board. That's what I've been saying, not that all religious discussion can go on /pol/.

I might as well add that even if there was a religion board you wouldn't even be able to discuss societal problems or current events because literally every other board on the website differs those topics to /pol/. Similarly, everything else that's religious can just be posted on /his/, which is the actual religion board. The blogposting is not allowed anywhere, so it would neither be allowed on an hypothetical religious board just like it isn't allowed on /his/. It can and should however be posted on random boards, and should be posted on random boards.

You are not replaying to one person. Few of us are trying to make an argument that philosophical & religious discussion on mentioned boards has outgrown its current 4chan frameworks, and that those topics deserve (require even) its own board considering its volume and magnitude.

>Lets just make /pol/ a containment zone for discussing new games and movies. Those are current events after all.
>Lets just post anime wallpapers on /a/
>Lets just post /s/ on /hc/
Incredibly stupid argument, contrary to any previous 4chan policy and direction.

>>8191
>Incredibly stupid argument
Most strawmans usually are.

The volume and magnitude of philosophy posts on /lit/ is almost non-existent, it's a slow board so this isn't a good argument for why a philosophy board should be made especially when there's shit like the /lit/ sticky explicitly allowing philosophy discussion if it has a book. One can reason that there's a myriad of better alternatives to just making a new board, from deporting all the off-topic threads to /his/ to repealing the ruling that no threads about books can be made on /his/ as it's probably just detrimental to discussion as a whole and is also part of why things are the way they are.
The volume and magnitude of religious posts on /pol/ is a flimsy argument at best simply because /pol/ posters will not move to /his/ or a new board to discuss religion; hence it's irrelevant. Most of these posters just like posting on /pol/. Even if some would move, most wouldn't as discussing a flavor of the day off-topic post is far more interesting than actually going to the board where that discussion is allowed. If you looked at /his/'s catalog you would realize that there's nothing wrong with /his/ being the religion board, discussions are just slower because it doesn't have as many posters (on the other hand discussions on /pol/ being faster is not an accurate indicator of demand for the topic as much as the reality that there's several times more posters there); /his/ is not overflowing with religion either so it's literally fine for it to be there. /pol/ overflowing with religion is an overstatement, if anything it's overflowing with new off-topic threads, but the creation of yet another random board won't solve that just like red text announcing the creation of a new board for religion besides /his/ won't achieve the goal of significantly lessening off-topic religious discussion on /pol/ or elsewhere in the site.

>>8191
I also don't care if it was one or more people, some are replying to me without any care to engage with what I actually said or have been saying.
None of which have argued for why there should be a religion and philosophy board or why they both should get a board from the perspective that you're not throwing stuff at a wall with no consequences on the website.
Whether its rules, content or the existing boards none of you cared to read discussion on it and therefore engage it.
So what's the point of iterating that people want a board or that jannies think there should be a board (implying that somehow gives you peerless insight into something)? It's okay to want something but don't act like it's the be all end all much less when you're replying to someone else without reading what they typed.
If you barged into a conversation because you heard one sentence and then proceed to argue from a completely blank slate by completely ignoring what was previously said and having me repeat myself or clarify things that didn't really need to be clarified given the context which they were posted, is just rude.
Even ignoring everything that I said, OP is very clearly concerned with this topic beyond just "wanting it" and is concerned about the implications it could have on 4chan as well; all of you missed that so it's almost like you didn't even read the OP of the thread you posted in.

>>8191
>>>Lets just make /pol/ a containment zone for discussing new games and movies. Those are current events after all.
/pol/:
>This board is for the discussion of news, world events, political issues, and other related topics.
/news/:
>Please note that (...) current events can also be discussed on /pol/
/k/:
>Discussions about (...) current events belong on /pol/.
Clearly none of these stickies are advocating for vidia-movie stuff on /pol/ (and neither was anyone) but they clearly establish the concept of "current events" and how they belong on /pol/ (when obviously topical). Not even sure why you'd bring it up like that unless you didn't know that but now you do.

>>8192
>The volume and magnitude of philosophy posts on /lit/ is almost non-existent
Wrong
>it's a slow board
It's one of the faster boards on the site, wrong again.
>The volume and magnitude of religious posts on /pol/ is a flimsy argument at best simply because /pol/ posters will not move to /his/ or a new board to discuss religion; hence it's irrelevant
I'm sure that, as you said, some will.
>/pol/ overflowing with religion is an overstatement
Claiming that 10-15% of posts are related to religion is overflowing, ok.
I'm just claiming that there is an interest.
>but the creation of yet another random board won't solve ... the goal of significantly lessening off-topic religious discussion on /pol/ or elsewhere in the site.
That's not an argument I'm trying to make, from the start. I'm NOT trying to advocate reduction of off-topic posts. I'm trying to provide a dedicated place for people who want to discuss religion and philosophy.
>>8193
Sorry, I fail to see why are you throwing this series of accusations. If you can in the future posts, please express yourself more clearly (modus ponens preferably). All I'm hearing now are weak arguments wrapped in whining.
>>8194
Clearly they can be if you "bend" those stickies and terms like news and world events hard enough. But that's beside the point, I'm trying to point out that boards are created out of need for more specialized and dedicated discussion.

Apologies to everyone who is tired of this debate.
I feel like I've said, what I needed to say. I'm happy to read different statements that are similar or completely different than mine.

>>8198
1 minute on 4stats.io suffices to see that /lit/ doesn't even break 2 digits in regards to posts per minute.
That there is an interest on /pol/ for religion isn't surprising given that the board is predominantly populated by white males 20-30 yadda yadda that are religious. People make tons of off-topic threads on /pol/ and avidly discuss them regardless of there being a board for that topic, not-politics is expected from /pol/.
So why exactly can't /his/ be used to discuss religion even though there's religious threads there? Or philosophy? Or rather, why are there philosophy threads on /lit/?
/lit/ explicitly goes out of its way in the sticky to say that philosophy discussion is allowed there (as long as there is a book) over any other topic. In fact, it even disavows the topicality of other subjects in the humanities field before elevating philosophy above them. The present situation being perpetuated for years isn't an argument for why there should be a philosophy board but rather for why people don't post philosophy on /his/; why THAT should be fixed.
Actually addressing /his/ for once, religious discussion is the second most discussed topic on the board, you have high quality threads there and there's plenty of room to post. /his/ is as fast as /lit/, "one of the faster boards on the site", so it should give you plenty of dopamine hits. The only person that actually argued for why /his/ isn't good for religion was a /lit/ janny, which I disagree with because /his/ has slower thread creation than /lit/ so threads last longer, it can accommodate more discussion as is even if at some point it might warrant making new boards.

I don't see why if people wanted to discuss these topics they couldn't go to /his/, why we can't get them to go there (besides new board) or why discussion wouldn't thrive.

>>8134
/his/, /lit/ and /x/ cover pretty much everything you could discuss about theosophy and theology. threads about active religious practice can go to /bant/ or be discussed inside of on-topic threads on the other three boards. a dedicated board would be redundant and superfluous because religious discussion is already on-topic on several boards. additionally, the argument that it's clogging the catalog is just quality-policing so long as the threads are consistent with the board topic (eg, religious texts on /lit/, metaphysics/spirituality on /x/, theosophy on /his/). whether anons know they can use those boards for that purpose is another debate and part of the solution could be educating them/reinforcing that understanding.
>>8191
>there are tons of threads about penis size on /pol/ and everyone making them thinks /b/ and /soc/ are icky, we should make a board for that!
see how worthless strawman args are?

File: 1445719223696.jpg (16 KB, 447x444)

16 KB JPG

>>8210
>>there are tons of threads about penis size on /pol/ and everyone making them thinks /b/ and /soc/ are icky, we should make a board for that!
Is that kind of "reductio ad absurdum" really necessary to shut down the side that is trying to make a claim for creation of "religion & philosophy" board?
I see where are you going, but that comparison is too harsh.

In the past, there have been boards that were on "trial status", meaning they could go away at any time. What if /rp/ or /rel/ or whatever you want to call it was a trial board, and we see how it goes? How does the community typically react when their board goes away? (I guess we're seeing that with /qa/, but the question still stands.)

I'd err on the side of experimentation. If we think the board is low quality (like /qa/), or if it feels like not the right fit, or any other litany of reasons - out it goes. The worst side effect that comes to mind is that the religion spam gets worse as a side effect of the new posters it attracted going out to other boards to post off-topic.

Thoughts?

>>8223
really I just think that moving all conspiracy discussion from /x/ to /pol/ would turn it into a much more usable religion and philosophy board

>>8237
/x/ is vaguely suited for religion and completely not suited for philosophy.

VOX POPULI
>>>/his/16080942

>>9727
@mod not my board but meta thread on /his/ CLEAN IT UP JANJAN

/his/ is the board for humanities including religion and theology.

>>9729
/her/ when?