Should moderation be applied equally - even to theists?

Hmmm. I'm trying to figure who the parties involved here might be, guess I'll just have to speculate...

And to be honest, I've only used the "report" button all of four or five times. I shouldn't really expect a moderator to be on guard for such 24/7, reviewing every single post in every single thread. It's just that in this instance the moderator was an active participant in the discussion.

Yeah, I was a little vague there. Moreover, I was alluding to the broader context of moderator actions, moderator inactions, and moderator participation within a discussion, sans employment of "mod hat" status.

Maybe this will help some. The other instance I alluded to was from this thread: Does time exist?, specifically pages one and two and the back-and-forth between Fraggle, Doreen, and myself.

OK, more specifically: posts 16, 17, and 28 through 36 (on page 2).

Now that's just trolling and slinging ad homs, and rather uninformed and just plain incorrect to boot (and sure, I was being an ass too--but I didn't start it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And moreover, I was correct).

But more importantly, it's reflective of a bias that more often than not results in a person making some pretty dumbass, nonsensical remarks--not unlike phlog's remarks about what a theist is and is not capable of understanding. Of course, such is the nature of irrational biases.

I think quadraphonics post in that "Definitions (Not a Scictionary)" thread is kinda pertinent here (was it Ambrose Bierce or Mark Twain who remarked that quotes are good for people who don't feel like doing their own thinking?):

I feel like there's a sizable contingent of people here who honestly would not understand his analogy. How they could not understand it is entirely beyond me. But it seems that these people, whenever they are making an argument as an atheist, don some kinda crazy blinders which make them perceive anyone and everyone who challenges or counters them--on any particular whatsoever--as an insane, deluded, borderline retarded "theist" or "supernaturalist" or "religionist." And then they proceed to make some pretty damned insane and nonsensical claims themselves.

Seriously, I seldom describe myself as an atheist, but neither do I describe myself as a theist; in fact, I rarely even call myself specifically agnostic (with regards to matters of "religion"). But I'm pretty certain that the Catholic Church of the 14th century would describe me as an atheist, and I reckon that the Vatican of today would likely call me an atheist, or an agnostic. But somehow, here at sciforums, I've been "accused" of being a "theist" on many an occasion.

It was comic gold.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's because 99.9% of the people who'd go around making arguments "as an atheist" (especially, in the context of the typical "hey you fucking atheists, come and get it!" threads here) are not principled debaters, or hyper-rationalists who arrived at their convictions through some process of impressive reasoning and logic. Rather, they are adolescents seduced by the premise of arguing from the position of "champion of rationality" against "superstitious sheeple." That most aren't even smart or perceptive enough to maintain the edifice of that pretext shouldn't surprise.

See also: people who like to argue as theists, since it let's them set up a scenario where they're avatars of light and goodness fighting off the dread hordes of Satan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Unfortunately, I get the impression that a number of these people actually are not adolescents (by real age definitions).

Just out of curiosity, do you encounter many like this in "real life"? I'm sure that I've encountered a few, but over the course of a lifetime--and mostly throughout high school and my undergraduate years.

Yet this place seems to attract them like dung attracts those crazy looking, shiny, green flies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what he is not saying is that was only three years ago..

 

Yeah, I was speaking in terms of mental age. Sort of like how detractors will describe Chomsky's output as "undergraduate," despite him being a tenured professor.

Right, that's typical of "real life."

Consider the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, which observes that the combination of an audience and anonymity conspire to attract and empower the worst impulses of any given user, and the worst users of any given group. If you behaved that way in real life, you'd quickly find yourself without an audience (and maybe with a knuckle sandwich).

I'd have to say that this place doesn't do a very good job of recognizing and compensating for the various perverse incentives that it presents. Instead it seems to pursue regulations and approaches that would be suited to real-life interaction, and then blame the users for failing to live up to their expectations. At the end of the day, a strong, systemic response is required simply to counteract the GIFT - the issue with that apparently being some failure to recognize and punish fuckwaddery as such, with the pursuit of purely technical debate violations in its place. The result is an environment that is attractive primarily because of its utility as an outlet for GIFTers - one has to be rather forceful and proactive to keep a blog/forum above the threshold where it will primarily attract users with defensible motives and behavior.

 

chuckle..

phlo is an Antitheist, he hates everything theist. it matters not what the theist truly is.

wouldn't that qualify for Moderation?

 

Sure. But both of those states are equivalent in that they amount to an absence of belief - "disbelief." Neither implies any positive belief in any alternative proposition. So, they both fit nicely into the definition, and the reasoning I provided on that basis.

Given that a large percentage of threads in the religion subforum founder on exactly these shoals, I think this topic worth pinning down.

Please do not implicate me in your dickheaded bullying of phlogistician. If you have something to say to him, then say it to him. Frankly I'm a bit baffled that you'd even attempt that, given our history and the fact that I'm arguing on the same side as phlogistician in the present context.

Sure. No reason not to - it's a reasonable statement, coming from someone who is in a position to know, and without any visible reason to deceive.

Last I checked, "belief" was not the same thing as "ironclad surety." I can perfectly well believe something, while also retaining an appropriate level of skepticism or doubt that it may turn out to be wrong.

Anyway that's not a good analogy. The issue was disbelief in propositions that one considers ill-defined. If you told me that you had "electromagnetic hair," then, yes, I'd disbelieve that. This is necessarily so, because there's no way for me to positively endorse a proposition that I can't discern the meaning of. There is also no way for me to negatively endorse such a proposition - I couldn't say "I believe that you do not have electromagnetic hair," either. So I'm stuck with disbelief (of the reluctance flavor, if you wish, but disbelief nonetheless).

What I would not say is anything along the lines of "I neither believe nor disbelieve you, but instead persist in a state of lack of belief." That sentence is a hash.

Right - and that is, by definition, disbelief. It's exactly a straightforward expression of reluctance to believe.

The definition of "disbelief" is exactly "reluctance or refusal to believe." How is "a lack of belief" not squarely covered by that definition?

The false dichotomy lies in insisting that anyone who disbelieves, is exhibiting a positive belief in some contrary position. Accept the proper definition of disbelief - which covers both those who affirmatively believe something incompatible, and those who have no opinion - and that problem disappears. Disbelief is not anti-belief. It is a catch-all for the various ways that one can fail to believe in some proposition.

 

No I didn't, and the devil, as always, is in the detail. I asked gmilam 'have you ever met an honest theist'. That was an honest question. All the theists I've met have had huge philisophical gaps, hand wave over reasons and details, and can never answer my questions adequately. James is making out I made a blanket, sweeping statement in that thread, but I didn't.

Moving on, ... do I think theists are honest? Not really. I think they are at least, guilty of deluding themselves, or being too accepting of flawed ideas. I do however know James has been less than honest in his debate, using tired arguments abusing the word atheist.

No more provocative than the thread 'Are all atheists generally closed minded'. Please don't be caught in a double standard.

I haven't read the entire thread, but the actual post that got Artur the infraction was innocuous. If he had said something infraction worthy, the actual post should have received an infraction. The post he made, about deficit spending, was correct. Handing out infractions for people telling the truth seems to be an all time low.

 

Simple. It's been demonstrated as being the attitude of many theists right here on SF time and time again. If you are in any doubt about this, I suggest you go re-read some of the debates we've had over the matter. Certain theists have made their opinion quite clear.

In context, that thread was the same lame old argument that atheism is the belief that god does not exist, and more accurately, even Fraggle was saying that it meant the atheist had 'lost faith' and used an umbrella as an analogy, saying if people were without one, it's probably because they lost it. Well, I can honestly say I've never owned an umbrella either. Just like I never believed in god(s). Atheism is simply the lack of belief, it does not imply former ownership of any belief, nor imply any philosophical journey.

So, my first statement is merely a reflection of what theists have said right here on SF, and oh, the second is an attitude displayed right here on SF. If you haven't seen that, I think you should pay more attention.

 

Please desist being a guttersnipe and actually tells what you think it explains.

 

Cut out the ad-homs you two, or I might be tempted to press that report buttons.

 

Yeah, you are wrong.

 

But theism puts someone in the pro camp. Atheism is everybody else. You covered Venn Diagrams during your education, right? There is no midground with theism/atheism. You are either a bona fide believer, or outside that group.

I think you are guilty of stretching the term disbelief into being exclusively a positive rejection, when it also encompasses doubt, and uncertainty. I think you are guilty of accusing me of disbelief, when I simply do not believe. You aren't making a very honest argument.

 

And you are a liar, or troll.

I'm an atheist. If you had bothered to read and comprehend the posts I make on the subject, I consistently re-iterate the position that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s).

You saying I am an anti-theist is going to require some substantiation. If you can do this, I won't report you. Get to it.

 

I can accept this, but surely you can see that what you are saying below (from the thread to which I linked) is NOT the same as what you said here?

Notice how you don't say "some theists" or "certain theists here at sciforums"? And neither is that implicit from the context.

I've seen that certainly, here at sciforums and on rare occasion IRL--but you can't generalize about every theist, as you did in the thread. If you can't see that, I think you should pay more attention and also, perhaps, learn that one cannot generalize from anecdotal experiences.

 

So I missed out adding 'some'. It's demonstrated by a lot here however, and I think it was clear from the context I was discussing a particular point of view, rather than making a sweeping statement. I will endeavour to qualify such things in future.

 

um, in the past you have said some things to me that i considered mean and uncalled for, even for an atheist or atheistic argument. i felt as if you were definitely anti-me, and only because i was a theist. do you think that's a fair assessment?

 

It could be a fair assessment or it could be that outfit you are wearing in your avatar photo. It certainly ups the anti.

On the other hand someone who is having a 'bad hair day' could be taking it out on others. Heck, it can be quite a complex situation when people do mean and uncalled for things. Or it can be very simple.

 

No.

You have had a period of mental instability. It's manifested itself as a belief in God, but I've been equally scathing here and elsewhere to alleged alien abductees, or folks that say they have seen ghosts, etc.

It's not the specifics of the extraordinary claim, just that the claim is extraordinary.