Should moderation be applied equally - even to theists?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by phlogistician, May 18, 2011.

  1. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    i still maintain you are Anti-Theist, you have yet to show me any different.

    why does it matter so much to you ?
    your the one making it a problem..

    i have a problem with you asking loaded questions,you don't ask to know or learn, you ask to 'attack', thats worse than the ones who ask to 'convert' the believer..

    thats not my point is in the communication of such..
    why is it so important to you that you are 'right' and the other person is 'wrong'.
    isn't it well enough that you know?
    why do you have to convince others you are 'right' ?

    you keep assuming i believe the same ways..i just don't make it a major crisis if they don't believe how i believe..yes i have seen some wacky but pry not how you see wacky..

    you just did.
    can i report him for the threat?

    i blame the DBS..

    good thing you said christian religion and not christian bible, i would have called you on that..(not saying there is none in the bible,but testing what you think are contradictions)
    but i am aware of alot of contradictions,which is why i do not believe in religion, religion try's to define God, thereby limiting him, this is wrong.
    religion try's to force God down your throat, this also is wrong,it doesn't matter if a thing is true or not, if someone is trying to force it on you...


    i think it is a very honest statement about how/what i think/feel you are doing..

    i usually not my fault you do not understand, it is not my responsibility to make you understand (doesn't mean i won't try), its only my responsibility to share what i think/feel/know/believe, you are responsible for your own beliefs.

    why does it bug you?

    1, that assumes i believe christians are perfect.
    2, that also assumes all theist think alike.
    3, it also assumes i care what they think. (with respect to 'do as your told' vs 'think for yourself')
    4, it assumes they don't already dissociate from me..
    5, so you think christians are supposed to be perfect?

    christians are just as screwed up as the rest of us..
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    But you want to distinguish between disbelieving in gods and lacking belief in gods, don't you? It seems to be a point you're eager to make. Presumably, both kinds of people are atheists, but you think you're of the second kind and not the first. Is that correct?

    My question remains: how do you know you lack a belief in gods, when you say you don't know what gods are?

    My point, which I have made many times, is that you aren't in a position to state belief or disbelief in something you have no conception of. Do you believe in wigglewogglewoogles? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. There's no way to know until I define "wigglewogglewoogle" for you, is there?

    You missed the point. You can't put yourself in one camp or the other without defining what those camps are. If you'd like to define "atheism" instead of "theism", that's fine. Give me your definition of "atheism".

    But don't you dare define atheism as "a lack of belief in gods" without also defining what "gods" are. If you try to do that, you're not defining atheism at all because half your definition is missing.

    Sure. You know about Venn diagrams, don't you? You brought them up.

    Which dictionary? Do you want a game of duelling dictionaries now, where you pick one dictionary definition and I give you a different one? Why don't you address the point I made, rather than making an appeal to authority?
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. phlogistician Banned Banned

    I don't 'think' I'm the second kind, I know it.

    How many times James? Myself and quadrophonics have made this point clear.

    And I am not stating disbelief according to your blinkered, narrow perception of it. I am stating however a lack of belief. Keep up, re-iterating this stuff while you stuff your straw man is starting to get tiresome.

    I have a lack of belief in it, just the same as I do in an infinite number of other undefined things. I'm sure I've said that before. More straw, James?

    My definition of 'atheism'? Someone not in the set of people who profess a positive belief in god(s).

    Not true. You don't believe in Quetzalcoatl, but I bet you cannot tell me all about said deity without looking them up. So you lack belief without definition, and this diversion of yours is making you look like a mug mate.

    Sure I do, and your assertion makes no sense wrt Venn diagrams.

    Priceless! You used the 'appeal to authority' tactic when you said:


    I let it go at the time. Now I'm hanging you with it.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. phlogistician Banned Banned

    To be honest, I'm not that bothered about proving anything to you.

    So you are kinda telling me here that everything people say, no matter how outlandish, is to be taken seriously? Or just when it fits in with your dogma?

    Quote me.

    It isn't. That's just your ego talking.

    Report me for saying I'm going to report you if you don't cut out the ad-homs and baseless assertions? Debate fairly, and backup your claims quoting me where I have said such things you claim, and provide references and links to the thread. Or stop telling lies.

    How did Judas die? There are lots of contradictions and plain old lies in the Old and New Testaments. But these have been done to death already.

    Oh, so you are an apologist! An apologist who has lost sight of his own dogma's origins. How quaint.
  8. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member


    what you said above..

    me and my ego don't always talk..
    and beside the point..why would you want my attention on anything other than the conversation? (your attempt at insult) trying to distract?

    if its baseless, why are you in such a froth about it?
    if its not true, then it shouldn't be an issue..

    i don't have to prove to you, who you are.
    how old are you?

    this is you making it a problem..
    you have said more about what i said than i have..if you had not of made a big deal about it, every one would have just discounted it as my opinion if it wasn't true.(as if they really care..)
    this is just you trying to be petty..

    so now since you have categorized me, you think i believe everything that category believes?? and you try to turn it into a lame insult?

  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Dear oh dear.

    For somebody who gives the impression that he prides himself on being logical and reasoned, that last post of yours was truly woeful.

    Now I tell you that a "wigglewogglewoogle" is actually a word that means "apple". So you've just told me that you lack a belief in apples.

    Nothing more needs to be said, does it?

    You went ahead and did exactly what I warned you against doing. You talked about "god(s)" without defining what you meant.

    The fact is: you can't define atheism without some definition of "god(s)", can you?

    You keep making my point for me. But I have to comment: what a poor argument, phlogistician! I mean, to do exactly what I warned you against doing, and to do so directly after you've quoted the warning I gave you! It beggars belief.

    As I understand it, Quetzalcoatl is a god. You even say so with the words "said deity". Now, it may be that you can't define "god", but that doesn't mean that I can't.

    Unlike you, I don't express disbelief in things that I have no concept of.

    Please don't think that I in any way share your position. I would have thought it quite obvious by now that I do not. So don't try to drag me into your mess.

    That's not an appeal to authority, you duffer!

    I'm not asking you to accept anything I say on the basis that I'm better read that you are. On the contrary, I heartily wish that you'd go off and educate yourself so we can have a decent discussion on the same level, rather than me having to educate you as we go along.

    While you're at it, please find out what an "appeal to authority" is. Look, I'll tell you, but you ought to go off and confirm this for yourself. An appeal to authority is where you rely on the expertise or position or authority or status of another person or thing to establish some point you're making. that is, instead of providing evidence or argument, you say something like "Professor X agrees with me, so I must be correct."

    In the particular case above, you relied on a dictionary as authority for your position: "Look! I found a dictionary that seems to say what I said. So I must be right!" That is an appeal to authority. You want me to accept that you are right based on the presumed authority of some dictionary you dug up. On the other hand, I gave you an argument as to why the two concepts that your dictionary apparently conflates are in fact distinct. And I challenged you to deal with that argument rather than relying solely on the dictionary's supposed authority.
  10. phlogistician Banned Banned

    James, the 'substitution' debate technique is well known as being fallacious. Children use it, I expect better. Like i said, I do have not have belief in an infinite number of UNDEFINED items. Your little analogy rather breaks once we discover you've been playing silly games and are referencing a tangible object. Try harder. Well, try.

    I am under no obligation to define it.

    Yes, because people to whom the concept of god has never arisen, are atheists. The definition of God is only relevant to the people encircled in that Venn diagram,... cross the boundary, and it loses importance.

    There you go being dishonest and relying on that narrow, blinkered definition of 'disbelief',.. not that I've actually said I 'disbelieve' anyway! Come on, make your points honestly. I lack faith, end of. Quit stuffing straw men.

    Oh yes it was.
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Hmm... so somehow, for some reason you fail to explain, something called " substitution technique" is supposedly fallacious in a way you also don't explain. How informative.

    Also, I understand that you do not like children, apparently. Probably you don't interact with children very much.

    Finally, nobody said you had to believe anything. But to disbelieve something, you have to know what it is.

    Are you trying to distinguish between intangible and tangible concepts now? Do you need another example using an intangible?

    You can't disbelieve in something you haven't defined. If you try to do that you don't know what you're disbelieving. It makes no sense.

    No they aren't. If they've never heard of god, they have no basis on which to form a judgment about atheism vs. theism. Atheism is a position on the existence of gods. Without the concept of gods, atheism is an empty, meaningless thing.

    Hang on. Let's look at your definition of disbelief:

    "Disbelief is anything you don't have a positive belief in."

    And mine:

    "Disbelief is a position taken towards a defined concept. Belief is an alternative position. In the case of an undefined concept, it is not reasonable to express either belief or disbelief."

    Which definition is narrower? Err... yours!
    Which definition is blinkered? err... yours!

    As for not having said you disbelieve, what are you talking about? You disbelieve in gods, don't you? Do we have to go through this again?

    As is your pattern, you ignored the whole of my helpful explanation, only to resort once again to stubborn, reasonless contradiction.

    You're really not doing well here.
  12. phlogistician Banned Banned

    You never came across anyone trying to get away with that at your debating society? Someone always does, and gets shot down.

    Wow, two claims, both wrong, Well done.

    More straw?

    James, you are playing a silly game. I could ask if you like eating 'Fghjmyunbbunbniunbnuibnbnmk', and then substituted some quip depending on your response. How very clever I would have been,....! NOT!

    Not broken that old drum yet eh? Since when did I claim disbelief? Stop with this, really, it's quite boring when you keep re-iterating falsehoods.

    Who says they put themselves inside the set? Nobody. They do not decide which portion of the Venn diagram they occupy!

    You think that your 31 words describe a wider scope than 'anything'?

    And I don't 'disbelieve' according to your blinkered definition. Seems you are trying to make belief the converse of your definition of disbelief. You really are twisting.

    James, you set yourself up as the authority you appealed to. It didn't wash. You got busted.

    All you have are semantic nit picks. If you had anything of substance, you'd make those arguments. But you cannot.
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Setting the Record Straight

    I would only ask that you actually attend the discussion you choose to take part in:

    #3—Original Complaint: Notes James' action re: #2685157/214, the post to which you are referring. Also mentions another occasion: "But then another time I was suspended for a day just because a moderator disagreed with my political leanings."

    #21—Inquiry: Tiassa inquires about this other occasion: "Can you point me to the example? I'm looking at your infraction record, and also our suspension logs in the back room, and not seeing it."

    #34—Response to Inquiry: Link to #2642109/22, a Mod Note from String.

    —Mod Note corresponds to #2642059/15:​

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Note the red flag on the post.

    #38—Claim Assessment: Considers the possibility that the above suspension was issued simply because Superstring01 disagreed with Adoucette's political leanings. The claim cannot be substantiated. Asks for further detail: "Really, man, what am I missing?"

    #40—Response: Phlogistician asserts ... well, something. It seems something of a contextual leap.

    #44—Response: Tiassa advises on multiple issues, including attempted reorientation to Adoucette's claim.

    #49—Response: Adoucette responds by essentially reiterating his claim.

    #69—Response: Phlogistician advises that he has not read the entire thread, but insists that "the actual post that got Artur the infraction was innocuous", and "The post he made, about deficit spending, was correct. Handing out infractions for people telling the truth seems to be an all time low."

    —Phlogistician appears to be referring to the wrong post.​

    #87—Inquiry: Tiassa asks for clarification, notes that he doesn't see the economic question in the post that is under consideration.

    #93—Response: Phlogistician confirms that he is talking about a different post.

    —Thus, for the record:

    Phlogistician asserts #2685157/214 ("Rand Paul Proposes ....")

    Tiassa is assessing, in response to Adoucette's claim, #2642059/15 ("I Voted Democrat")

    That is, certainly, I can see how "Handing out infractions for people telling the truth seems to be an all time low", but that's not the issue at hand. If you follow the discussion about Arthur's infraction that you have chosen to comment on, then perhaps you might at least know what post is being discussed.

    Beyond that, I'm not sure what to tell you at this time.
  14. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    why is it wrong?
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Whatever your original point was in this thread, it appears to be long gone. So, unless you have anything new, I'm pulling out at this point.
  16. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Your prerogative. However:

    I'll thank you for keeping your condescending characterizations to yourself, if you aren't even going to couch them in a substantial response.

    I thought you were going to avoid naked repetition here.

    Instead, I think I will - again - tell you to fuck off with your attempts to implicate me in bullying of phlogistician (or anyone else). Now, how about you tell phlogistician that you're sorry for being such a jerk to him?

    So, what?

    There have been no "formal arguments" made by anyone, anywhere in this thread.

    The next time you don't have anything to add, how about you just not post at all? If you're really so insecure that you just have to beat your chest at anyone who disagrees with you, at least try working that into a substantive response. This garbage is just pathetic.
  17. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    It probably bears saying that your analogy there was poor to the point of irrelevancy.

    Only thing that beggars belief here is your sheer, uncritical arrogance and astounding lack of basic respect for others.

    Do you get punched in the face frequently in real life? Or do you refrain from acting like a total fuckwad in contexts where your bastardry carries real consequences? I'd guess the latter - and so you seem to require this place as an outlet for your insecurities.

    Do you imagine that your behavior portrays you as anything more than an insufferably egotistical bully? Do you think that you're coming off as erudite or principled here? All I'm seeing is gleeful nastiness.
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    It seems to me that you're only jumping into this discussion and siding with phlogistician because you want to have another crack at me on a personal level. To quote you:

    Practice what you preach, quadraphonics! Otherwise, you start to look like a hypocrite.

    Yes. But it was polite to give a short response, don't you think? Manners seems to be something you struggle with. Phlogistician, too, for that matter.

    How about you take your blinkers off and start looking at what an idiot phlogistician has been making of himself since the start of this discussion? Like you, he has been condescending and rude and high-and-mighty and arrogant from his first post. You'll have to forgive me, but I can't resist the temptation to respond in kind to such things. It's a personal failing I have.

    You're right about that. This thread could have been moderately interesting, but phlogistician decided to bog it down in definitions and repetition. I don't think he's interested in a real discussion, do you? He's more interested in haveing control and making himself look the big man. Like you are.

    I'm guessing phlogistician is a young man who hasn't realised he doesn't know everything yet. You are less likely to have that excuse. Mainly, you're just ill-mannered.

    Practice what you preach!

    Practice what your preach!

    Oh look! You almost made a substantive point there for a moment. Better be careful! You'll ruin your reputation.

    Want to finish the job now that you've made a start? What, exactly, is "poor" about my example? I'm not very interested in your unsupported opinions.

    Why one standard for me and another for yourself and phlogistician?

    Practice what you preach!

    No. I don't mix with your type in real life.

    Always glad to get a character analysis from somebody as qualified and knowledgable as you so obviously are, quadraphonics. You really ought to learn some basic manners. It must impede your "real life".

    Your whole post strikes me as very reflexive. Turn that mirror on yourself for a moment. Please.
  19. phlogistician Banned Banned

    You mean you can't infer why it's wrong? James makes a claim involving negatives. I say he's wrong. What does that imply?
  20. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Oh, hold on!

    YOU split this off. YOU then decided to start misusing the word 'atheist'. YOU then started off on nit picks and fallacies.

    MY point? Debunking your BS. But I guess I've achieved that, and you are resigning because you have no come back.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I have never misused the word "atheist".

    I think you'll find that was you.

    What's to come back to? Your posts are virtually contentless.
  22. phlogistician Banned Banned

    On some post or other you accused me of school yard tactics, then you post the above.

    You know what you're guilty of, these silly games you've been playing, accusing atheists of your narrow definition of disbelief, and stuffing that straw man of undefined entities vs that narrow definition.

    Your _entire_ premise was a house built on straw, which you then stuffed into your argument.

    You have nothing but accusations, of which I am living proof you are wrong.
  23. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    i can infer all day long,but to know is to ask.

    what is your experience with children?


    actually, i know now not to take you seriously,you avoid talking about the actual substance of the discussion and think your smart cause you know how to dance around any point to be made, JamesR has been more than patient with you, i would have found a reason to ban you by now, (if i were him, If i was me, his inbox would be flooded with 'can i ban him?')..
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2011

Share This Page