Hypocrisy/Contradictions on this forum.

Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Hypocrisy/Contradictions on this forum.

First off, allow myself to introduce.. myself. 

 

My name is David, and I am new to these forums. Through a chain events, I was eventually linked to a video of the RRS vs Kirk Cameron debate on YouTube. This lead me in turn to come check out the RRS website.

I am a Atheistic Buddhist. I believe in the principals of Buddhism, but for philosophical reasons, not spiritual ones. I am an Ordained Minister, but I am ordained by a multi-denomination church, so I am not a theist, and am not affiliated with any denominations of Christianity or any other Abrahamic religions.

I agree with mostly everything on this website. I was especially intrigued by the Christ-myth forum. It was very insightful, informative, and enlightening. The members here, mainly the atheists, all seem to be intelligent, thoughtful, and well informed.

My concern/problem is the amount of bias, dickery, and hypocrisy shown toward theists that I have seen in some threads.

Maybe policies changed over time or something, so correct me if that is the case.

The problem that I noticed is that in some threads, theists are chastised for pasting links and are told to copy and paste the materials on this website. One post in particular was edited by a mod and said something to the effect of [Please do not link to websites outside of RRS. Please post the content here. This is your first warning.]

In another thread, a theist poster copy and pasted a lengthy argument supporting the existence of Jesus Christ, and several users chastised him for posting the materials instead of linking to the source.

This is contradictory and hypocritical. All of the atheists here, in almost every post, both copy and paste texts, and posts links to websites outside of RRS, but chastise theists users for doing one instead of the other. This essentially limits the theists users ability to argue beliefs and support their positions. You're essentially silencing them.

Like I said before, if this is because of a change in policies that took place at some point (I don't always think to check the dates on the threads/posts), then please let me know.

Otherwise, I am assuming that despite your well thought and informative posts regarding atheism, that the majority of you are actually biased, hypocritical bullies and that kind of defeats the purpose of this website which is supposed to support polite, civil and FAIR discussions between theists and atheists.

Please explain yourselves.

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10365
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Most of the problems with

Most of the problems with theists posting materials are plagiarism related. They copy/paste a text without a source. That can have legal ramifications.

Most of the rest of your comment is, I think, dealing with much older posts, often moderated by folks who don't frequent the site anymore. Maybe they pushed harder than they should have, I don't know. I wasn't a mod until this year and am not privvy to the minute details of past year's moderation teams and the topics edited and the reasons for it.

I can say that I have seen two users get censored in the past two years. One user got censored for harassment and trolling. The other for posting flames and inflammatory content in the "kill 'em with kindness" forum, where such content isn't tolerated.

All that said, a significant reason for denying those posts by theists is that many will simply see the site and drop a verse from their holy book before moving on, as if none of us read it before, and it were evidence of any kind.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10365
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
As to dickery, I'm

As to dickery, I'm extremely confident that not only do we tear each other apart as often as we do theists, but that if you ran a full inventory of the entire site, you'd find the end tally has the theists at the top of the dickery statistics.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is onlineOnline
Slightly disingenuous

 Slightly disingenuous  ..

Quote:
..majority of you are actually biased, hypocritical bullies and that kind of defeats the purpose of this website which is supposed to support polite, civil and FAIR discussions between theists and atheists.

Please explain yourselves.

 Isnt this really what you are asking ?

 

  If you are new, like most, there are dozens of threads you have missed. As a result you are coming from a skewed point of view. If this is not meant as a general chastisement. And You are asking a question. In as few words as possible, the board is faced with narcissistic, egotistical, disrespectful behaviour ; and last but not least martyrdom. There are not many who do not sadly fit into this category. Discussions breakdown.. could any of this have to do with who is coming to the board? Better question in my view. Thanx

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13410
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
What "dickery"? Is it better

What "dickery"?

Is it better for humans in general to walk on eggshells, or is it better that we communicate openly without fear?

You have made sweeping generalizations about the entirety of this board's membership. Instead of doing that you should treat individuals as such, because that is what we are, individuals.

And what makes you think we only attack religious claims? If you spent any time reading here you'd know that we even go after each other on politics and science.

This is probably the most liberal board you will ever visit which very rarely boots anyone. It's owner and the mods have a hands off approach and as long as you are not making physical threats or soc puppets or spamming, your posts are left for the reader to decide.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Quote:..majority of

 

Quote:
Quote:

..majority of you are actually biased, hypocritical bullies and that kind of defeats the purpose of this website which is supposed to support polite, civil and FAIR discussions between theists and atheists.

 

Please explain yourselves.

 

 Isnt this really what you are asking ?

 

  If you are new, like most, there are dozens of threads you have missed. As a result you are coming from a skewed point of view. If this is not meant as a general chastisement. And You are asking a question. In as few words as possible, the board is faced with narcissistic, egotistical, disrespectful behaviour ; and last but not least martyrdom. There are not many who do not sadly fit into this category. Discussions breakdown.. could any of this have to do with who is coming to the board? Better question in my view. Thanx

I don't quite understand the question/statement. You are both correct that I have not read the entirety of the forums. I have read through several threads from beginning to end, but mainly the stickied ones. I am currently working my way through the "for araujo" thread, which is very, very interesting. It's like a great novel that I can't stop reading.

What I don't understand though is this part - "And you are asking a question...Better question in my view" Could you elaborate? I was asking a question, I don't get why you stated that I am when it is obvious that I was.

In reference to both yours and Vastet's posts, yes you often do tear each other apart, along with tearing into the theists as well.

Quote:
the board is faced with narcissistic, egotistical, disrespectful behaviour

I've seen plenty of this in some of the threads I've read so far. It happens. I understand. I used to be a very active member of the IMDb boards, what you guys do here isn't half as bad as the bullshit over there lol. I have no problem with that kind of "dickery", even though sometimes it is aggravating and detracts from the debate when some random asshole (either theist or atheist) keeps ignoring valid points and information and keeps trolling, but alas, what can you do? That is not what I was referring to when I meant "dickery"

My specific question/complaint was that certain members (can't recall exactly who, I would have to re-read several threads) would chastise theist members, specifically, for essentially posting links instead of copy/pasting, or vice versa, whilst doing both themselves.

Some of the threads were older, starting in 2006/2007, but some of the replies were dated as recently 2011/2012. That why I was inquiring if there was a policy change or something, or were certain people here just being hypocritical?

Quote:
Most of the rest of your comment is, I think, dealing with much older posts, often moderated by folks who don't frequent the site anymore. Maybe they pushed harder than they should have, I don't know.

I think that you partially answered my question. I didn't know if mods here have been so all along, of if the positions changed hands, etc. Maybe certain mods/admins in the older threads were just dicks. Who knows?

Anyway, thanks for the responses. I'll keep checking back in. I'm set to receive email notifications, but haven't gotten any, so I'm having to manually check the thread for replies.

One question - how do you quote somebody so their name appears with the quote, like "Vastet said"? I'm used to using the BBCode like they use over on IMDb, which is what I've been doing here, but it doesn't show whom I'm quoting.

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
  Quote:What "dickery"?As

  

Quote:
What "dickery"?

As I state in my other posts, I am specifically referring to posters that chastise other users, usually theists, for doing something that they themselves have done in the very same thread. I apologize, perhaps I shouldn't have used that word and just stuck with "hypocrisy", but I chose that word because in a few instances, the users doing the chastising did it in a manner that came across as very "dickish" instead of being polite about it.

Quote:
Is it better for humans in general to walk on eggshells, or is it better that we communicate openly without fear?

I'm very liberal, so I don't mind the coarse language and open discussion at all. I do find it to be a bit immature, however, when a poster resorts to name-calling, strawman attacks, etc., but that is to be expected on any forum. I tend to ignore those aspects. Like I said before, whaddaya gonna do? 'm not referring to those instances.

Quote:
And what makes you think we only attack religious claims? If you spent any time reading here you'd know that we even go after each other on politics and science.

I didn't mean only on religious claims. I was referring to users who have "theist" or some derivative in on their mini-profile on the side. They're usually (that I've seen so far) the ones singled out for "breaking rules" like linking and copy/pasting. Perhaps the "atheists" have been treated the same way before,  just haven't seen it yet.

I've been to the politics board. All hell breaks loose over there lol. I didn't notice much in the way of theist discrimination over there. I guess political position trumps religious view over there. 

I haven't been to the science board yet. I'll make it my next stop. Science is one of my favorite subjects, especially astronomy.

Quote:
You have made sweeping generalizations about the entirety of this board's membership.

I didn't mean to generalize. As I said before, I noticed certain members committing said "dickery", but none of the other members seemed to disagree with the chastisements, so I assumed they agreed. That's why I asked if there was some sort of policy change, or was I left to assume that everybody here was really a biased bully? I know that was a generalization, but I guess in this case I was letting majority rule.

Sorry for that. I didn't mean to offend anybody here. Like I said, mostly everybody here seems pretty cool. It was just that one specific thing that was irking me, and after seeing it in like three different threads, I finally felt obligated to make a post about it. I guess I was venting.

 

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10365
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You can quote someone by

You can quote someone by clicking the quote button at the bottom of a post, or by typing "quote=username" within [ ] brackets before the quoted text, and typing "/quote", also within [ ] brackets, at the end of the quoted text. Remove the quotation marks.
For the full FAQ on how to use posting features, go here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/filter/tips

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
I feel like a dumbass now.

 I never even noticed the "quote" button  next to the "reply" button. 

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10365
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I think that you

Quote:
I think that you partially answered my question. I didn't know if mods here have been so all along, of if the positions changed hands, etc. Maybe certain mods/admins in the older threads were just dicks. Who knows?

I think the only mods/admins who are still active from the time I joined or earlier are Brian Sapient and BobSpence. There aren't very many people here who were posting back in '06 and '07. Lots have left, and lots more have joined. When I first came I don't think the debate you saw had even happened yet.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Quote:I think

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
I think that you partially answered my question. I didn't know if mods here have been so all along, of if the positions changed hands, etc. Maybe certain mods/admins in the older threads were just dicks. Who knows?
I think the only mods/admins who are still active from the time I joined or earlier are Brian Sapient and BobSpence. There aren't very many people here who were posting back in '06 and '07. Lots have left, and lots more have joined. When I first came I don't think the debate you saw had even happened yet.

I think all of the threads I was referring to, IIRC, were on the Jesus Mythicists Campaign forum. One in particular was the first one that was started by Rook_Hawkins. It started in 2006. I noticed that Rook seemingly disappeared, even though he's a co-founder. Somebody linked to his Facebook in one of the threads, but he doesn't seem to have any activity there either. Did he just go off the map, never to return? He was pretty brilliant in his debates with Kirk Cameron. I looked forward to seeing more from him on these forums.

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13410
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Reverend Wells wrote:Vastet

Reverend Wells wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
I think that you partially answered my question. I didn't know if mods here have been so all along, of if the positions changed hands, etc. Maybe certain mods/admins in the older threads were just dicks. Who knows?
I think the only mods/admins who are still active from the time I joined or earlier are Brian Sapient and BobSpence. There aren't very many people here who were posting back in '06 and '07. Lots have left, and lots more have joined. When I first came I don't think the debate you saw had even happened yet.

I think all of the threads I was referring to, IIRC, were on the Jesus Mythicists Campaign forum. One in particular was the first one that was started by Rook_Hawkins. It started in 2006. I noticed that Rook seemingly disappeared, even though he's a co-founder. Somebody linked to his Facebook in one of the threads, but he doesn't seem to have any activity there either. Did he just go off the map, never to return? He was pretty brilliant in his debates with Kirk Cameron. I looked forward to seeing more from him on these forums.

The original founders have parted company, not out of any disputes or anything, just life in general sending each in different directions. Plus it was about the time when the economy tanked, so lots of it simply was the economy forcing them to focus on outside jobs for self support.

But to Brian's credit, he has kept this site up throughout all that, he has been an oasis for us and I do not know what I would do without this website. Stick around.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
 I did some research, and I

 I did some research, and I am a little confused about the Rook Hawkins/Thomas Verenna thing.

His last posts are all in September of 2008, which lines up with the huge economic crash as you say, but there are some things that puzzle me. Some blanks I can't quite fill in.

Seemingly, Rook left RRS with little or no explanation. He may have needed to focus more on a career or school, but not having time for RRS doesn't really jive since he has his own website that he operates now, and has pretty much since he left this site - http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/

I would think, if he left on good terms, that he would have at least said goodbye to everybody in some formal way, but from what I can tell, his postings here just stop rather abruptly. It's like the facebook of somebody that died. It just stops. No blog saying this will be my last blog on this site, no post saying "Hey guys, nice knowing yall but I'm leaving for bigger and better things." It just ends suddenly with no explanation.

 

Then we have this -  http://politicaljesus.com/2012/04/21/the-encyclopedia-black-rises-is-it-tom-verrena-or-rook-hawkins/ 

If you read the comments section, Thomas basically denounces his life Rook Hawkins and attempts to apologize for it. He seems thoroughly ashamed to even have been associated with this site, but never seems to explain why.

Then, we have this website berating Rook/Thomas both presently and as a former member of the RRS.

http://thomasverenna.blogspot.com/

Also, toward the end of the Jesus Myth thread, we have this post by a mod:

Quote:
RookHawkins wrote:

 

I regret having that material still available online in certain places. I've grown as a person over the past several years and a lot of my perspectives have changed as I grew more educated on certain subjects. This is why I feel I have some authority to speak on this; I was once harangued into believing that content on the internet was generally accurate even though I had no gauge as to what constituted a viable source and what constituted something dated. Now that I have a strong understanding of both, I feel it is my duty as someone entering the field to educate others on the difference between shoddy work on correlations and critical academic investigations into similar social trends. There is a huge difference and that is what I was pressing the most in my dialogue with XXXX. I certainly don't expect people to trust my old research anymore; I never link to it for precisely that reason.

Its as if sometime around the end of 2008, Rook mysteriously had a change of heart about his beliefs and such on the subject of the historicity of Jesus and his membership with the RRS, and just vanished, cutting all ties with RRS in the process, and completely dropping the alias Rook Hawkins and even going so far as to ignore and deny it for a length of time until he was called out on it.

What baffles me about the entire affair is that he gave lectures and seemed to wear his RRS badge proudly up until his last moments here, then suddenly he just vanished. No explanation, and nothing but apologies for ever having been associated with RRS years after the fact.

I'm just wondering if anybody here has any more information as to what happened. Why did he just up and vanish like a fart in the wind. Why does he suddenly want to pretend he was never a member here, and none of the writings and lectures he gave ever happened? Why does he denounce Rook Hawkins, and his doubts of the historicity of Jesus Christ? He still associates himself with the same authors that he cited throughout his essays about it. He still operates an atheist blog. He is still a proud public atheist and continues his discourse with theists on other forums. It doesn't make sense. What am I missing?

Did Brian piss him off or something? Did they have a falling out? Does anybody know?

 

 

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Reverend Wells wrote:First

Reverend Wells wrote:

First off, allow myself to introduce.. myself. 

 

My name is David, and I am new to these forums. Through a chain events, I was eventually linked to a video of the RRS vs Kirk Cameron debate on YouTube. This lead me in turn to come check out the RRS website.

I am a Atheistic Buddhist. I believe in the principals of Buddhism, but for philosophical reasons, not spiritual ones. I am an Ordained Minister, but I am ordained by a multi-denomination church, so I am not a theist, and am not affiliated with any denominations of Christianity or any other Abrahamic religions.

I agree with mostly everything on this website. I was especially intrigued by the Christ-myth forum. It was very insightful, informative, and enlightening. The members here, mainly the atheists, all seem to be intelligent, thoughtful, and well informed.

My concern/problem is the amount of bias, dickery, and hypocrisy shown toward theists that I have seen in some threads.

Maybe policies changed over time or something, so correct me if that is the case.

The problem that I noticed is that in some threads, theists are chastised for pasting links and are told to copy and paste the materials on this website. One post in particular was edited by a mod and said something to the effect of [Please do not link to websites outside of RRS. Please post the content here. This is your first warning.]

In another thread, a theist poster copy and pasted a lengthy argument supporting the existence of Jesus Christ, and several users chastised him for posting the materials instead of linking to the source.

This is contradictory and hypocritical. All of the atheists here, in almost every post, both copy and paste texts, and posts links to websites outside of RRS, but chastise theists users for doing one instead of the other. This essentially limits the theists users ability to argue beliefs and support their positions. You're essentially silencing them.

Like I said before, if this is because of a change in policies that took place at some point (I don't always think to check the dates on the threads/posts), then please let me know.

Otherwise, I am assuming that despite your well thought and informative posts regarding atheism, that the majority of you are actually biased, hypocritical bullies and that kind of defeats the purpose of this website which is supposed to support polite, civil and FAIR discussions between theists and atheists.

Please explain yourselves.

I think most of your confusion about the links is that some people were posting irrelevant advertising links in their posts which were cleaned up by mods. It is extremely rare that the mods here take any kind of active role in modifying/censoring posts. We also had a few theists that were posting large posts and representing the work as their own when it wasn't. In general, if you are copying anything word for word you should link to it or at least have a line crediting the source. 

As for polite and civil, wrong site, I don't know where the fuck you got the idea that we intend this as a place requiring politeness or worried about being civil. You are free to be as polite and civil or impolite and uncivil as you please. In general, people on here will be about as polite and civil to you as you are to them but the mods will not interfere unless serious lines are being crossed. If you want a polite and civil conversation you might want to stick with the KEWK forum which is under more strict rules than the rest of the forums. http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/religionandirrationalities/killemkindness 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Reverend Wells wrote:Its as

Reverend Wells wrote:

Its as if sometime around the end of 2008, Rook mysteriously had a change of heart about his beliefs and such on the subject of the historicity of Jesus and his membership with the RRS, and just vanished, cutting all ties with RRS in the process, and completely dropping the alias Rook Hawkins and even going so far as to ignore and deny it for a length of time until he was called out on it.

What baffles me about the entire affair is that he gave lectures and seemed to wear his RRS badge proudly up until his last moments here, then suddenly he just vanished. No explanation, and nothing but apologies for ever having been associated with RRS years after the fact.

It's baffled me too.  

I've written briefly about Rook Hawkins converting to Thomas Verenna here.

I don't write more about it because I don't think I need to.  I think it's much more appropriate if I leave it alone.  Obviously I disagree with choices he's made, but it serves me no purpose to push that envelope.  We had a great friendship, I'll always hope the best for him.  Brian did in fact key in on the economic issues that helped drive a wedge in our efforts.  While he may be active today, he was not nearly as active in the year after he left.  I don't think he ever had a formal goodbye because I'm not sure he ever intended on stepping away turning in to goodbye.  Like Brian said, life happens.  People move on.  

 

Quote:
I'm just wondering if anybody here has any more information as to what happened. Why did he just up and vanish like a fart in the wind. Why does he suddenly want to pretend he was never a member here, and none of the writings and lectures he gave ever happened? Why does he denounce Rook Hawkins, and his doubts of the historicity of Jesus Christ? He still associates himself with the same authors that he cited throughout his essays about it. He still operates an atheist blog. He is still a proud public atheist and continues his discourse with theists on other forums. It doesn't make sense. What am I missing?

I don't think you'll ever get the full story.  

Oh, he's an atheist again?  Are you sure?  If so... thank god!

 

  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Reverend Wells wrote: The

Reverend Wells wrote:


The problem that I noticed is that in some threads, theists are chastised for pasting links and are told to copy and paste the materials on this website. One post in particular was edited by a mod and said something to the effect of [Please do not link to websites outside of RRS. Please post the content here. This is your first warning.]

Where is that post? I'll clarify the specifics of that one.

 

Quote:
In another thread, a theist poster copy and pasted a lengthy argument supporting the existence of Jesus Christ, and several users chastised him for posting the materials instead of linking to the source.

We've had many theists come here and cut and paste arguments from other sites.  We are capable of google searching and finding other peoples work.  If people are coming here to argue on behalf of irrational concepts, let it be in their words.  We can easily find the words of others.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Oh, he's an atheist

 

Quote:
Oh, he's an atheist again?  Are you sure?  If so... thank god!

It would seem like it, but I can't say for sure. He still makes posts about atheism, and appears to still be a member of the Jesus Mythicist camp, but he's kind of confusing in the fact that he's purposely cryptic.

He constantly makes posts about how not all mythicists are the same, and defends mythicists against being called "denialist", and even has a new book out that he co-wrote about the Jesus myth.

He doesn't directly identify himself as atheist or deist on his blog, but from his writings, I get the impression he is still an atheist. I could be wrong though.

 

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Welcome David

 

Nice avatar. Hope to hear your voice more often. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Nice avatar. Hope to hear your voice more often. 

 

 

Thanks! I was considering using a picture of myself, but I remembered used this avatar years ago on a private Star Trek forum and still had the pic on Myspace. I always like it. I'm not as bad as I used to be, but back in the day I was a huge DBZ fanatic.

I look forward to posting here more, but right now I'm still trying to get caught up on all the forums. Seems like certain topics have already been beat to death. The science forum is rather interesting though. I'll probably start posting there pretty soon, once I read through it. I also like the politics forum. I'm independent, but I do tend to side with the Democrats on certain issues.

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Reverend Wells wrote:He

Reverend Wells wrote:

He doesn't directly identify himself as atheist or deist on his blog, but from his writings, I get the impression he is still an atheist. I could be wrong though.

I linked you to Rook Hawkins converting to Thomas Verenna here which links to "deistic viewpoint" which states on July 6 2011 "I am not an atheist."

 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Reverend Wells

Sapient wrote:

Reverend Wells wrote:

He doesn't directly identify himself as atheist or deist on his blog, but from his writings, I get the impression he is still an atheist. I could be wrong though.

I linked you to Rook Hawkins converting to Thomas Verenna here which links to "deistic viewpoint" which states on July 6 2011 "I am not an atheist."

 

 

 

 

Thanks. I tried reading through his blog and looking for relevant posts, but it's rather disjointed and unorganized other than by date. I didn't realize the "deistic viewpoint" part was a link when I first read what you linked to. It appears almost the same color as the other text for some reason instead of blue.

Anyway, a lot of questions have been answered so I guess that pretty much wraps everything up.

P.S. - Keep doing what you do Brian. This site rocks and once I find a new job, I plan on becoming a financial supporter as well. Every little bit counts as they say!

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Further thoughts.

After going reading through the links you provided again, along with some of his other blog postings, I feel inclined to call bullshit.

He's playing a semantics game. He says he's not a mythicist, he's no longer affiliated with mythicists, and that he does not support mythicists, but he then goes on to say that he believes that we need to question the historicity of Jesus and the New Testament. He even continues to post articles and help write books about it to this day.

Isn't that exactly what a mythicist does? He's literally saying "I'm not a mythicist, except I am a mythicist."

As for the deism thing, if he now believes in some sort of "god", just not one in a religious context, then good for him. I personally find the idea of deism to be a way of riding the fence. He says he believes in a supreme being, just not one associated with a specific religion. The thing is, a theist can believe in a singular god while not being associated with a specific religion. All members of organized monotheistic religions are theists, but not all theists are members of organized monotheistic religions. You follow me?

To me, somebody saying they are a "deist" is a just a cop-out to hide the fact that they are either a theist or an atheist. They want it both ways. This is particularly hypocritical coming from a guy who helped organize the "Blasphemy Challenge."

My personal beliefs are.. how do I put this.. well I'm definitely not a theist. I don't believe in a god. I'm more atheist, since I disbelieve in a god, but I'm not a deist either. I'm more of an "isist". People worry so much about whether "it" is or isn't. I worry more about what "is", not "it".

The universe "is". Mathematics "is". Quantum physics "is". Relativity "is". Time "is". We can understand how they work, but not "why" they work. These building blocks are what hold the universe together. Each of them are interconnected. It is what it is. I want to know what "is" is, not what "it" is. We already know the "it". I want to know the "why", or the "is". It's hard to put into words really. I think we could have some good discussions on it on the other boards.

One thing that intrigues me is infinite regression. No matter how far we look, it is. Molecules are made of elements, elements are made of atoms, atoms are made of particles, etc. Organs are made of cells, cells are made of up of DNA, DNA is made up of proteins and amino acids, etc. There's always another turtle.

Despite all of this, I still consider myself an atheist because I don't believe that the "is" that holds the universe and existence together has to be supreme, or intelligent. It just "is". So, Thomas calling himself a "deist" is really a sham because everything he says and does is still of an atheistic nature. He says he doesn't believe in a religious god, just the possibility of a greater being or intelligence. That's "is". That doesn't mean you're still not an atheist. It's like Yoda said - "There is no try. There is only do and do not." His "deist" claim is really just a cover up and I can see my so many theist bloggers lambast him at every turn. He's being sneaky, like a wolf in sheep's clothing, and they can see it from a mile away.

That's just my 2 cents on the matter anyway. Some of his articles and such are good, I just disagree with his methods. If you're going to be an active atheist, don't say you're not while you're doing it. Just own up to it. That's pretty much all the theists want anyway. They'd leave him alone if he'd own up to what he's doing instead of spinning it and twisting it into something it's not.

 

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I find it funny that I could

I find it funny that I could play arguments of himself against himself.  I've got plenty of text and audio of him ripping on deism.  And even more of him ripping in to Christ as a man.  I along with many others believe "Rook Hawkins" was more right than "Thomas Verenna."  

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:I find it

Sapient wrote:

I find it funny that I could play arguments of himself against himself.  I've got plenty of text and audio of him ripping on deism.  And even more of him ripping in to Christ as a man.  I along with many others believe "Rook Hawkins" was more right than "Thomas Verenna."  

 

 

My sentiments exactly! While they may have disagreed with "Rook Hawkins", theists seemed to somewhat respect him. Sure, some extremists hated and threatened him, but that's always going to happen. Ever since he became "Thomas Verenna", the online theist community has pretty much turned against him and seems to unanimously hate him. He might as well just go back to being "Rook Hawkins" again. He was better off that way.

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Reverend Wells wrote:He

Reverend Wells wrote:

He might as well just go back to being "Rook Hawkins" again. He was better off that way.

Well there were Rook Hawkins haters.  There are Brian Sapient haters too.  I say, "so fucking what."   It's more important to be true to yourself, than do what you think others want.

 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forums new

Welcome to the forums new guy.  Hope to hear more from you.


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Reverend Wells

Sapient wrote:

Reverend Wells wrote:

He might as well just go back to being "Rook Hawkins" again. He was better off that way.

Well there were Rook Hawkins haters.  There are Brian Sapient haters too.  I say, "so fucking what."   It's more important to be true to yourself, than do what you think others want.

 

 

 

That's what I mean when I say he should have stuck to being Rook IMO. He's going to have haters either way. It just seemed like he was truer to his self as Rook, whereas he seems more in denial as Thomas.

By the way, it just totally clicked with me (I already knew who you are, but it didn't quite register) that I'm talking to a guy I saw on TV! This is really cool. I never thought I'd be conversing with the guy I saw debating Kirk Cameron!

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Reverend Wells wrote:By the

Reverend Wells wrote:

By the way, it just totally clicked with me (I already knew who you are, but it didn't quite register) that I'm talking to a guy I saw on TV! This is really cool. I never thought I'd be conversing with the guy I saw debating Kirk Cameron!

That was definitely a fun time, and good memories.  Allow me a shameless plug... I'm currently selling a personalized Ray Comfort autographed bible, I also made a note in the book.  It's a one of a kind and the proceeds from the sale will go straight to paying our server bill.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13410
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I'm very liberal, so I

Quote:
I'm very liberal, so I don't mind the coarse language and open discussion at all. I do find it to be a bit immature,

What is immature to me is when someone comes to a website they don't own and complains about the conduct. To me that would be like going into a smoker's house, or a non smoker's house you don't own and complain. Sure you can do that, but if it bothers you that much, why do you do it?

If you are going to take on your opposition on their turf, instead of complaining, make your case.

There is a reason, not out of hate, FOR EXAMPLE ONLY, I might say to you "If that is the case, then God is a dick". Far too often the theist will take that as an ad homin, instead of using self introspection to, not agree, but try to understand the POINT OF VIEW. IE "When you claim x is true, this is my response to X claim".

You know why I hate golf and love the NFL more? Both do take talent, any sport at the pro level does. But I hate golf because the fans are required to be mice when the guy is making his putt. Whereas the fans of the NFL, during a field goal attempt during a playoff game are roaring and waving their hands in an attempt to distract the kicker. I think it takes much more talent, even in debate, to focus on what you are trying to argue, rather than what the other person does. A kicker in the NFL does not hold their job long if they cant handle the heat. I think a solid argument in real life is not one to be protected, but one to be kicked the shit out of. If it withstands the shit kicking to the point it is universal, and not merely a club whim, then you have accomplished something.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Reverend Wells

Sapient wrote:

Reverend Wells wrote:

By the way, it just totally clicked with me (I already knew who you are, but it didn't quite register) that I'm talking to a guy I saw on TV! This is really cool. I never thought I'd be conversing with the guy I saw debating Kirk Cameron!

That was definitely a fun time, and good memories.  Allow me a shameless plug... I'm currently selling a personalized Ray Comfort autographed bible, I also made a note in the book.  It's a one of a kind and the proceeds from the sale will go straight to paying our server bill.  

  I remember seeing that debate on tv, but did not make the connection until I became a member on here back in 2010. I found this site by accident, while trying  to argue with this theist on another website. The theist was whining about his utter hatred of "Post-Modernist Fundamentalists" (whatever that means) and by off chance, I googled some key words and found this place. I've enjoyed every second of it since.

Oh and yes : I do deny the Holy Spirit.  (I have always wanted to say that, err type that anyway Smiling   )

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Oh and

harleysportster wrote:

Oh and yes : I do deny the Holy Spirit.  (I have always wanted to say that, err type that anyway Smiling   )

Congrats!  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13410
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient

Sapient wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Oh and yes : I do deny the Holy Spirit.  (I have always wanted to say that, err type that anyway Smiling   )

Congrats!  

YOU YOU EVIL EAGLES FAN! Harley could have been saved, but NOOOOOOOO. People like you put evil thoughts like "thinking" and "questioning" and "reason" into his head. DAMN IT! HOW THE HELL is our species supposed to maintain its comic books with people like you! DAMN YOU!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:I'm very

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I'm very liberal, so I don't mind the coarse language and open discussion at all. I do find it to be a bit immature,

What is immature to me is when someone comes to a website they don't own and complains about the conduct. To me that would be like going into a smoker's house, or a non smoker's house you don't own and complain. Sure you can do that, but if it bothers you that much, why do you do it?

If you are going to take on your opposition on their turf, instead of complaining, make your case.

There is a reason, not out of hate, FOR EXAMPLE ONLY, I might say to you "If that is the case, then God is a dick". Far too often the theist will take that as an ad homin, instead of using self introspection to, not agree, but try to understand the POINT OF VIEW. IE "When you claim x is true, this is my response to X claim".

You know why I hate golf and love the NFL more? Both do take talent, any sport at the pro level does. But I hate golf because the fans are required to be mice when the guy is making his putt. Whereas the fans of the NFL, during a field goal attempt during a playoff game are roaring and waving their hands in an attempt to distract the kicker. I think it takes much more talent, even in debate, to focus on what you are trying to argue, rather than what the other person does. A kicker in the NFL does not hold their job long if they cant handle the heat. I think a solid argument in real life is not one to be protected, but one to be kicked the shit out of. If it withstands the shit kicking to the point it is universal, and not merely a club whim, then you have accomplished something.

 

 

 

Well, I was mainly referring to the theists here as the ones that use ad hominem attacks. I'm used to it and have learned to just ignore it, but I was stating my opinion that I do find it immature when one does this instead of sticking to the issue that is being debated. It detracts from the argument, and often times derails it and causes it to go off-topic.

By the way, I wasn't complaining about the website itself, just certain users that appeared to be hypocrites. I vehemently defend the atheist point of view, more often IRL. I just don't resort to unfair tactics and hypocrisy whilst doing so, and it bothered me to see certain users appear to do this, because in my opinion it both weakens their position and makes other atheists look bad. Of course, most of what I observed has been explained, so the issue is moot at this point.

I agree with you 100% about the NFL sentiment. What's funny about it is that many NFL stars play golf, but how many pro golfers play football?

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13410
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Reverend Wells wrote:Brian37

Reverend Wells wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I'm very liberal, so I don't mind the coarse language and open discussion at all. I do find it to be a bit immature,

What is immature to me is when someone comes to a website they don't own and complains about the conduct. To me that would be like going into a smoker's house, or a non smoker's house you don't own and complain. Sure you can do that, but if it bothers you that much, why do you do it?

If you are going to take on your opposition on their turf, instead of complaining, make your case.

There is a reason, not out of hate, FOR EXAMPLE ONLY, I might say to you "If that is the case, then God is a dick". Far too often the theist will take that as an ad homin, instead of using self introspection to, not agree, but try to understand the POINT OF VIEW. IE "When you claim x is true, this is my response to X claim".

You know why I hate golf and love the NFL more? Both do take talent, any sport at the pro level does. But I hate golf because the fans are required to be mice when the guy is making his putt. Whereas the fans of the NFL, during a field goal attempt during a playoff game are roaring and waving their hands in an attempt to distract the kicker. I think it takes much more talent, even in debate, to focus on what you are trying to argue, rather than what the other person does. A kicker in the NFL does not hold their job long if they cant handle the heat. I think a solid argument in real life is not one to be protected, but one to be kicked the shit out of. If it withstands the shit kicking to the point it is universal, and not merely a club whim, then you have accomplished something.

 

 

 

Well, I was mainly referring to the theists here as the ones that use ad hominem attacks. I'm used to it and have learned to just ignore it, but I was stating my opinion that I do find it immature when one does this instead of sticking to the issue that is being debated. It detracts from the argument, and often times derails it and causes it to go off-topic.

By the way, I wasn't complaining about the website itself, just certain users that appeared to be hypocrites. I vehemently defend the atheist point of view, more often IRL. I just don't resort to unfair tactics and hypocrisy whilst doing so, and it bothered me to see certain users appear to do this, because in my opinion it both weakens their position and makes other atheists look bad. Of course, most of what I observed has been explained, so the issue is moot at this point.

I agree with you 100% about the NFL sentiment. What's funny about it is that many NFL stars play golf, but how many pro golfers play football?

You spend any time debating me and you will eventually here "what a stupid statement" or "hello McFly" or "your god is a dick". Now just because someone uses blasphemy, or even cusses, does not mean they are off topic or even "distracting".

Again, In the NFL the job of the QB is to get the ball past the first down marker whatever way he can, via handoff, pass or scramble. He does this knowing that there are 11 guys on the other side of the ball trying to take his head off. Good QBs don't get "distracted", but focus on the tactics and know the game plan of the other team.

Instead of calling others "immature", just call it what it is, a comfort issue and a personal preference as to whom you like conversing with. Your personal predilections are your baggage, not theirs.

BUT as an aside, I'd like to see paintball added to golf. I think it would take tons more talent to make the putt if your opponents are shooting paint balls at you. You wouldn't be able to shoot at the club or the ball, just the guy.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
  Quote:You spend any time

  

Quote:
You spend any time debating me and you will eventually here "what a stupid statement" or "hello McFly" or "your god is a dick". Now just because someone uses blasphemy, or even cusses, does not mean they are off topic or even "distracting"

Those things aren't what I mean. Hell, they're actually quite hilarious. I'd be laughing my ass off if you talked like that during a debate with me. I often times do the same things, especially quoting movie lines like "Hello, McFly!"

Quote:
Again, In the NFL the job of the QB is to get the ball past the first down marker whatever way he can, via handoff, pass or scramble. He does this knowing that there are 11 guys on the other side of the ball trying to take his head off. Good QBs don't get "distracted", but focus on the tactics and know the game plan of the other team.

I agree. I think you misunderstand me though. If you make an off-topic, straw-man, or ad hominem statement in a response to me, and I become distracted, that is my fault. I should be above it and be able to ignore it and stick to the issue at hand. What I mean are two things -

1) It derails the argument in general. Often times, more than two people are participating in the discussion, so, say for instance, you correct my grammar instead of actually responding to a point I make, somebody will inevitably say something about how they can't stand grammar nazis or something similar, next thing you know the debate has turned into a discussion about grammar nazis and the original point is lost. By sticking to the issues/points at hand, and not going off topic, it makes it easier for the debate to progress to its eventual end instead of going off on an often un-related tangent.

Quote:
Instead of calling others "immature", just call it what it is, a comfort issue and a personal preference as to whom you like conversing with. Your personal predilections are your baggage, not theirs.

This relates to 2 - 

2) I'm not saying the person is immature, but that the behavior is. One can act immature without being immature, much like a person can act stupid without actually being stupid. I also stated more than once that it is my opinion, and is not a fact. What I consider 'immature", you may consider to be "proper debate etiquette". That is your prerogative. It still doesn't change the fact that my opinion is that certain behaviors are both immature and signs of a weak position.

To use your NFL analogy, yes it shows the sign of a great athlete to win the game despite something like being the quarterback of the away team and being booed the entire game, but on the other hand, if the nose guard resorts to calling the center's mom a fat bitch in order to try to elicit a reaction out of him and fumble the ball, it displays both a sign of immaturity and weakness because he apparently thinks that he cannot win without resorting to such a tactic, much like the booing crowd.

A true sportsman, in my opinion, would not boo the other team to try to garner some sort of advantage and would let the game play out on its own, and the nose guard would not resort to name calling to try to gain an unfair advantage instead of letting the centers natural ability determine the outcome.

I can see both sides of the coin, but my position is that it should be fair. I must concede that, more often than not, that it, and life, are not fair, and one must deal with this as best one can. C'est la vie and all that.

Quote:
BUT as an aside, I'd like to see paintball added to golf. I think it would take tons more talent to make the putt if your opponents are shooting paint balls at you. You wouldn't be able to shoot at the club or the ball, just the guy.

Now that is a sport I would gladly pay to see!

 

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
what exactly are we denying

what exactly are we denying the holy spirit again?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:what exactly

iwbiek wrote:

what exactly are we denying the holy spirit again?

the right to vote, or to exist?


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:iwbiek

Ktulu wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

what exactly are we denying the holy spirit again?

the right to vote, or to exist?

Smiling

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10365
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:What is

Brian37 wrote:
What is immature to me is when someone comes to a website they don't own and complains about the conduct.

That's the opposite of immature. He's testing the waters right away instead of investing time in a forum only to get surprise-banned 6 months down the road. I did exactly the same thing when I joined, and the discussions it provoked between Sapient and myself proved to me that this site was worth investing in, and wouldn't censor or ban me just for a comment or position I held. I fully support anyone who tests the waters of a forum in such a way. Especially when they don't ride in with a litany of bullshit. As far as I can tell and recall, every concern mentioned in the OP was legitimate. As were the answers to those concerns.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.