A generic insult. Uncalled-for, empty and unhelpful.Remember, Jan what is actually true does not necessarily matter to someone like Billvon or James R.
I can only speak for myself on this, not for anybody else who might fall into your generic "some folks" group.You're here so that people can have someone to feel better than, and superior to. You're the person some folks think think they should get to abuse in order to make themselves feel better. Like you, I'm sure on some level they're good people, but the characters you and they prefer to play here don't always go that way.
Think of it this way, Jan: As long as some people have someone like you to complain about, they think they never actually have to get a clue or put any real effort into their hatred. You're an atheist's excuse, Jan; it's all you've ever been, around here. You're the idol unto which some folks around here will abase themselves in order to pretend they're fighting some good fight against evil.
I am proud that I have acted with more integrity and honesty in my dealings with Jan Ardena than he has with me. If that makes me morally superior to him, so be it; readers can form their own judgments.
The "abuse" of Jan that you allege comes, as usual, with no actual examples. It is also a nasty assumption on your part that I, or other "folks" you might be referring to, would enjoy abusing Jan, or anybody else. The fact of the matter here is that Jan has chosen to present himself as a provocateur. His behaviour has been troll-like and dishonest at various times. He has been consistently evasive in most of his time here, not to mention dogmatic, pedantic and annoyingly and needlessly repetitive. I and some other members have engaged with Jan robustly. Speaking personally, I have tried to expose Jan's tactics, along with the flaws in the few arguments he has put in support of his personal brand of theism.
I should point out that, by and large, it doesn't matter that my discussions with Jan have been about religion. For him, the question of theism vs atheism is like a personal crusade. Just look at the way he constantly stereotypes and misrepresents atheists, as if atheism itself is a monolith. For me, the game has always been about trying to break Jan out of his complacency, to get him to think critically about his own belief system. The thing is, I'm no longer convinced that Jan's heart is in it - if it ever was. These days, what passes for discussion from Jan seems to be mostly about reciting repetitive mantras to comfort himself. That's when he isn't simply acting like a troll.
I have often said that I do not necessarily expect to "convert" any opponent I have in a debate here to my side of the fence. My posts are not there just for their consumption. People on this forum who are wrong more often double down on the wrong, rather than ever admitting they are wrong. The chances of anybody publically changing their position here probably decreases the longer a particular debate goes on. With that in mind, it would be pointless to go into any debate with the hope of converting one's opponent. The point of engaging in those debates - apart from the fun of it (because, ultimately, none of us would be here if we didn't enjoy something about the forum) - is to put one's own perspectives out there, in the hope that one might persuade some other people to think differently.
That's always been your position. It is not one that is universally shared.Seriously, that "intelligent community" thing was called off years ago. The bit about respect for the scientific method being the defining aspect of this community was acknowledged an empty slogan of its moment a long time ago.
It is that, but it's not exclusively that. It never has been.This isn't a "science forum".
It's kind of ironic you mention this, given that "fact checking" is just the sort of thing that one might expect would happen on a "science forum".What happened is simply that fact-checking would have an appearance of taking it out on certain quarters in popular discourse, and the trend is known; political and political-philosophical discourse supporting traditionalist and rightist beliefs crumble under the burden of even modest scrutiny—"fact-checking" can start to look like communities taking it out on conservatives. The underlying relativism is much akin to what proverbial grumpy old men of my youth warned of liberalism and humanism.
It's an easy sympathy, and the thing is your witness has always been very relatvist; like I said two and a half years ago, your evangelism seems to be more about the feeling of being some kind of evangelist.
It seems to me - and I think we're in agreement on this - that some people don't like having their "facts" checked too assiduously. They get all upset and uptight when people start requesting facts to go along with opinions and beliefs.
It sounds like you have another vague accusation being the curtains, waiting to jump out.It's one thing to talk about evidence and rational argument, scolding and scoffing at some obvious examples along the way; it is quite another to actually bring that sort of produce for one's own part.
That's another entertaining story, albeit another one that is bereft of any handles we can grab on to.I had a discussion about this, once, with an atheist I know. I suggested an apparent envy of satisfaction drove certain errors; he virtually conceded the point, deferring to the nature of revolutions. Nonetheless, I still think usurping the throne of prevailing fallacy, to become the new boss that is just as dull and brutish as the old boss, is no proper solution. And if he didn't have much to say about that, no, you wouldn't be surprised, Jan, but understand, please, that entertaining people like you around here is part of some people's excuse for behaving poorly.
Got any specific examples for this one?At Sciforums, I've encountered a couple of versions of atheists protesting the idea of actually—how do I put it?—actually relying on what they know.
Strange that you're addressing this to Jan, who has a long history of attempting to redefine words to suit himself. What makes you think he'll have the foggiest idea of what your complaint is about?So it's like an atheist who needs us to redefine the actual word religion, to dumb it down, that we might make it easier to validate his critique.
There's a can of worms. We could discuss it in a different thread, if you like.And, sure, okay, but wasn't part of the problem that this whole "God" thing is irrational?
Got any examples of that, by chance?Which is why it's weird to watch people who ostensibly know so much literally make up fake religions and religious people to complain about instead of dealing with reality.
It seems to me that if the theist wants to make the positive claim that his particular version of God exists, it is up to him to define and establish what he is claiming. There's little point in an atheist putting up a straw man. Knocking that down won't do anything to shake the theist's belief in his different version of God.And it's a very interesting notion that some of these atheists might insist on a much narrower definition of God than even you would abide.
But you're talking to Jan here - the man who epitomises the small target and the shifting definitions. Jan's afraid to commit to anything that would peg his God down to specifics that might be testable.
Tell us what atheists ought to be obliged to know about religion, Tiassa. Is this something you know? Are you willing to share?An atheist I know once wondered what someone ought to be obliged to know about religion, and left just at that, the answer is precisely nothing. However, if one intends to criticize, perhaps they ought to know something about the object of their criticism.
Obviously, Tiassa, you're operating with a clue about the discussions I've had with Jan. Perhaps you should try reading one or two of them through.It's why you never really needed to get a comprehensible point; you're canon fodder for anti-religious sentiment that, most days, cannot muster an argument beyond the point of God not existing. Beyond that, it's apparently unfair to expect them to be rational.
Oh, but maybe you're not thinking of me, but some other atheist? If so, my mistake.