JamesR: Request to reverse infraction

I received an infraction from JamesR:

You are simply wrong here, JamesR.


Given that theists claim to know God,
given that theists claim to know the Absolute Truth,
and given that theists admit to be fallible people,
given that they admit that horrible things are done in the name of God,
the question I posted is perfectly in place.

If they were to get angry at questions like those, they would simply prove that they are not as advanced as they purport to be.

I expect that theists (given their extraordinary qualifications and advancement) will be able to provide reasonable answers to such questions.
They owe it to people.



I request that my infraction be reversed.
Thank you.



To be clear: I consider myself neither a theist nor an atheist; I do, however, strongly argue against simplistic theism as well as against simplistic atheism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you started essentially the same thread the same day you come back from your ban?

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113923

Yikes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why should the discussion of theism be tabooed?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It isn't but you gotta admit that you did go overboard...

 

Obviously it isn't. We discuss it all the time. What you're doing is something entirely different, though. You avoid discussion. You're just looking for reactions. Thus, the charge of trolling.

 

I am not as limited in my efforts to understand theism as some other people are.


Given that theists claim to know God,
given that theists claim to know the Absolute Truth,
and given that theists admit to be fallible people,
given that they admit that horrible things are done in the name of God,
the question I posted is perfectly in place.

If they were to get angry at questions like those, they would simply prove that they are not as advanced as they purport to be.

I expect that theists (given their extraordinary qualifications and advancement) will be able to provide reasonable answers to such questions.
They owe it to people.




Hic Rhodus, hic salta!

 

Of course you are. You've even decided that there is a correct theism (monotheism). This isn't some search for truth, Wynn. You've already made up your mind, and you're not fooling anyone. All you're doing is looking to incite a reaction, and administration is finally getting wise to it.

 

JamesR - including yourself and some others - are simply being humanist atheists and are letting theists get away with murder, while all along you make it impossible that some, perhaps controversial aspects of theism be addressed.

It is with the help of such atheists that people can claim to be theists and can do evil in the world and get away with it.

Don't put words into my mouth.

 

Now you're just full of it. If you think I'm that guy, you haven't been paying attention. This isn't about the suppression of free inquiry, it's about you being a forum troll, which what is what you've always been and what you've managed to fit three days' worth of into a mere few hours since your long-overdue ban expired. If you had any intellectual honesty, this wouldn't be a problem, but you don't and it is. They're on to you.

I didn't. You've said that a creator must be omnipotent, and by (your) definition, there can only be one omnipotent being, so there can only be one creator. In other words, monotheism.

 

A suggestion for all at sciforums.... if someone consistantly trolls. Shows that they change position from one post to the next, create threads for the sole purposed to tell a group they are wrong, especially when it is on a topic that is mostly subjective, then why do we feed them. From this moment on wynn is on my ignore list. If we systematically as an entire forum put people like this on ignore, then bans will not even be necessary and the moderators can spend their energy being a neutral 3rd party verifier of evidences presented. and since the troll evidence would be greatly ignored they can focus only on evidence that may actually hold some water. that's my 2 cents and it's all I'm going to say on it. goodbye wynn, I gave you a fair chance, You showed for a brief moment an ability to reason, then as quickly as it came it was gone. it would seem it was only a fluke. No more time will be wasted with you. Good luck finding whatever it is you claim to be searching for.

 

This is, in my opinion, the most important line in the post.
Any member on the board can troll from time to time. A fair chance is necessary.

Speaking for myself, it's not unusual to change my own position when presented with evidence that outweighs an earlier opinion. This is not necessarily a case of being wishy-washy. But of objectivity. I can think of many debates where I went in with a strong opinion that was beaten pretty badly by the evidence my opposition presented. Granted, presenting that evidence without emotion is preferable, we all will slip up time to time.

Just 2 cents of my own.

 

I've tried it, but she dominates threads with three, four, five comments in a row, and sucks everyone else in with her inanity. And when she's going strong, the religion subforum seems to grind to a halt, as if everyone's just waiting for her to post more nonsense. This is the typical effect of a troll. They derail threads and kill forums.

Administration should handle this permanently, just like they did with Reiku, who was basically the UFO subforum's Wynn, and what they did with Chipz before he was inexplicably allowed to return. They should tend to this forum, since they're its keepers.

 

I have participated on a more heavy handed forum.

I may complain, time to time, question Mod actions etc... I may get annoyed by what other members seem to get away with.
Yes, I might appreciate some actions by Moderators more- some maybe less...

But the leniency the Mods can show is sometimes refreshing. I've seen what happens when it is not that way.
That they do not stifle opinions they very strongly disagree with on many occasions can be admired as much as it can be complained about.

Example:
I've been tossing this one around in my head since it happened. I've been thinking... and thinking about asking about it- but at the same time, I didn't want to raise some hell. It's weighed on my mind. Bothered me. Oh well, I'll ask it anyway. In full public view:
In the Zimmerman thread, Bells issued me a warning over one comment I had made. Truth is, she could have taken heavier action. Could have suspended my posting for a time- Yet, I didn't even get a slap on the wrist. No infraction points? I mean, she seemed furious at the time and that was IT? A slap on the wrist would have been harsher.

Why was that? Why was the authoritative action so light handed? It seems to me that individual should have been motivated to deal a much heavier blow. And would have been justified to do so at that point for the comment I had made.

It can be annoying at times, fighting and dealing with harsh words. But it can be annoying too, to see members of the board swatted like flies, making you walk on eggshells to word a post.

We have the option, as people, to TRY to avoid bickering, ad hom attacks and feeding trolls. I'm grateful to have that option, even if I fail at it often.

 

wynn, I think it is a reasonable question. Simply put -- the answer is selective hearing. Today there are tribes in India who know nothing about a round earth and our 'modern' world. These people are ignorant and have no one to ask questions to. What Christian society never figured out -- people are punished severely -- punished people are kept away so they will not interfere with the righteous by providence. This is traditional monotheistic thought. When they chance upon one: they; mock, scorn, rob sincerity -- those who they speak to. It's by free willed kindness that good people reciprocate, and it's by miracle that the miserable non-theists can remember a thought communicated by a 'non-Genius'.

So the fact of it is simple. They choose to seek people in a sardonic fashion. Theist's benefit from their predispositions and shared immature outlook.

 

Sometimes people cannot see their own mistakes because they tend to believe that they think they are correct, many times they are, but fail to understand that sometimes they aren't correct and avoid trying to see that difference.

In some cases we tend to get wrapped up in our own line of reasoning with subjects and because we want so much to change others viewpoints that we can't be honest with ourselves about how we try to go about making others see it our way. That's when we sometimes avoid being insightful and start to change the way we approach the problem and alter the way we go about rational discussions.

I've wanted to change the way people thought about certain subjects and have given a twist to my approach just to try and let others see another way to look at what I'm saying, but it is still the same story no matter how I twist it around to convince others that I'm right when I'm not. :shrug:

 

M.O.T.S. from a usual source.

 

Wynn, I think I see what you are saying about theism. For me, somehow there was the fake-it-before-you-make-it notion that gave my practice of Christianity some impetus, and I had a belief or strong feeling that it was dishonest to treat something that I was unsure about as the truth.

There's fear involved in the scenario, and emotion tends to negate free will, so I'm not sure if classifying proselytizing as lying is right.

 

Very well put and I think there are few posters that can be said to not do this so much... I'm not one of the few...

 

You are simply downplaying the issue at hand.
You are not allowing for the possibility that the theists may actually be right.
Because if they are, then this has important consequences for all of us.

 

Theism in all it's iterations is wrong. There is no making any part of it right. They are so wrong that all religions make teaching (indoctrinating) from as early an age as possible a primary part of their teaching. If all kids were allowed to grow up outside of religion and then asked to make an informed choice, the atheist would out number the theist (IMO).