Theist Spotting

hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Theist Spotting

Here is a quote from your blasphemy challenge faq: "The Rational Response Squad encourages people to inquire, argue, reason and doubt -- not to believe something because they are told to. Free inquiry is the opposite of fundamentalism."

What is the end of this "theist spotting" business?
What are you trying to achieve?

You cannot claim that by starting this measure you are encouraging rational dialogue and free inquiry. Please tell me how I am wrong.

I find it kind of disgusting, in fact, that you are branding posters in such a manner.

I think this is an utterly hostile measure, which incites division, and alienates potential and current contributors to this site.

Would you rather theists not argue on this website? Then make it clear on the front page: "We would prefer that theists not argue on this website." In the same vein, if this is the kind of rhetoric you want to spout out, I would also recommend you removing rational from your name. I am growing wearier of your coopting of this word for this site.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
hello wrote: What is the

hello wrote:
 

What is the end of this "theist spotting" business? What are you trying to achieve?

We're trying to remove some of the anonymity from the environment.  Initially we wanted atheists to be labeled, and most who knew were looking forward to it, however this solution was easier to manage.

We hope to have more functionality with badges and how they work soon. 

Quote:
You cannot claim that by starting this measure you are encouraging rational dialogue and free inquiry.

If someone is unable to engage in rational dialogue and free inquiry by virtue of having a "theist spotting" badge, they're free to leave.

 

Quote:
Please tell me how I am wrong.

I believe you're wrong.   

Quote:
 I find it kind of disgusting, in fact, that you are branding posters in such a manner. I think this is an utterly hostile measure, which incites division, and alienates potential and current contributors to this site.

I understand your concerns, we've pondered on the same stuff.  We'll take them your thoughts into consideration, maybe we'll re-analyze in the future.

 

Quote:
Would you rather theists not argue on this website?

No.  If a theist gets too worked up about a badge, he probably isn't right for this place anyway.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:

Sapient wrote:

hello wrote:

What is the end of this "theist spotting" business? What are you trying to achieve?

We're trying to remove some of the anonymity from the environment. Initially we wanted atheists to be labeled, and most who knew were looking forward to it, however this solution was easier to manage.

We hope to have more functionality with badges and how they work soon.

If this is your aim,

1. why is this your aim? Again, what are you trying to achieve? And why are you being selective?

 

 

2.why don't you make it a requirement for registering on this website for users to identify themselves? Instead of being branded (perhaps inaccurately) by your uninformed judgement let people identify themselves how they want to. This is ridiculous.

How do you know the people you are branding are theists in the first place? On a website like this there are many options, one of which is to play devil's advocate to test arguments. These labels were obviously not rationally hashed out.

Sapient wrote:

Quote:
You cannot claim that by starting this measure you are encouraging rational dialogue and free inquiry.

If someone is unable to engage in rational dialogue and free inquiry by virtue of having a "theist spotting" badge, they're free to leave.

Quote:
Please tell me how I am wrong.

I believe you're wrong.


. . .

OK, I am going to try this again. You cannot claim that by starting this measure you are encouraging rational dialogue and free inquiry.  Please tell me how I am wrong

Sapient wrote:


Quote:
I find it kind of disgusting, in fact, that you are branding posters in such a manner. I think this is an utterly hostile measure, which incites division, and alienates potential and current contributors to this site.

I understand your concerns, we've pondered on the same stuff. We'll take them your thoughts into consideration, maybe we'll re-analyze in the future.

Can you explain your process in making this decision?

Sapient wrote:

Quote:
Would you rather theists not argue on this website?

No. If a theist gets too worked up about a badge, he probably isn't right for this place anyway.




Who is "right" for this place?



Finally, Freethinking Anonymous is "an area to theorize, think freely, debate any issue. Most of the common discussions you've been having in General Convo should go here. No taboo issue in here."

If this was not already apparent, the thread I posted contains an issue to be debated and discussed.

Why did you move this discussion to General Conversation, Introductions and Humor?


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I know in the past there

I know in the past there have been problems with people coming on here and lie about being an atheist and then later state that they are really theist. And no not converted, but that they were dishonest before hand. In one case they would go drifting between belief, non-belief, and both at the same time (don't ask me how...) whenever it benefitted them.

Also it isn't like we put the label on them for no reason. I will only put it on someone if they say they believe in a god or are a part of a religion. I won't just put it on anyone who disagrees or even claims "I'm not atheist" even that isn't good enough for me to label them.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12892
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm not sure I see the

I'm not sure I see the problem here. What's wrong with having a title showing that you're a theist or atheist? It is a valuable tool for new members to figure out who's who in the community.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: How do you know the

Quote:
How do you know the people you are branding are theists in the first place?

Let me give you a few examples.

JesusLovesYou says things like "It took me a long time to realize this, but man cannot do anything, NO THING without Jesus. It wasn't Rev. Shatwell that healed the boy, it was God working through him that did it." or "you realize that miracles of God never make the news because stupid people that build those Charismatic mega churches always are in the spotlight."

StMichael says things like "I am a Roman Catholic seminarian and I am hereby making myself available to answer any questions concerning Christianity or theism in general." or "Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason."

goofball says things like "The bottom line is I am better of keeping faith in God." or "I hope the living God will show you his light and love."

Those guys sound like theists to me. Do you disagree? 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Theist simply means they

Theist simply means they believe in a god. Should they be embarassed by this? (well, yes, but they wouldn't be puting it that way.)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest

Voiderest wrote:

Quote:
How do you know the people you are branding are theists in the first place?

Let me give you a few examples.

JesusLovesYou says things like "It took me a long time to realize this, but man cannot do anything, NO THING without Jesus. It wasn't Rev. Shatwell that healed the boy, it was God working through him that did it." or "you realize that miracles of God never make the news because stupid people that build those Charismatic mega churches always are in the spotlight."

StMichael says things like "I am a Roman Catholic seminarian and I am hereby making myself available to answer any questions concerning Christianity or theism in general." or "Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason."

goofball says things like "The bottom line is I am better of keeping faith in God." or "I hope the living God will show you his light and love."

Those guys sound like theists to me. Do you disagree?



I already told you that I can't know whether or not they're theists. Of course, you're skewing this discussion to ask the wrong question; I asked you, why don't you let people identify themselves as theists? In fact, if it is so plain and clear, why do you find it necessary to label them theists ("theist spotting" seems like a branding or a warning, not an objective label) in the first place? The questions addressed at Sapient's response still stand; can you address these? Among those other questions, can you tell me why you moved this thread from Freethinking Anonymous to General Conversation, Introductions and Humor?


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I'm not sure

Vastet wrote:
I'm not sure I see the problem here. What's wrong with having a title showing that you're a theist or atheist? It is a valuable tool for new members to figure out who's who in the community.


The problem with this measure is that it is not what you say it is above.  "Theist Spotting" is not a title showing whether you're a theist or an atheist. It specifically calls out presumed theists, and the intention for doing this is unclear. 

If this is simply a labeling device, why use the terminology "theist spotting" to brand people? These labels from the moderators seem condescending if not dehumanizing  (There is an analogy to the measure to what people in power have done to cast out and dehumanize a portion of the population by marking them and turning them to "other" to retain power). But maybe I'm wrong. They still haven't explained themselves in the reason for starting this measure, the reason for the selectivity of this measure, and the reason for choosing the words "theist spotting"

If the rational responders want share their own opinion about what they conjecture about the posters in this site, why don't they say something closer to what they are actually doing, and why don't they do this for all users: "We think this person is a theist" or "We think this person is an atheist?" Why do they use the words "theist spotting"

If the rational response squad takes themselves seriously  (who knows, maybe they don't take themselves seriously at all; even still they should let people know that up front), they must know that this is not an ordinary measure. 

The central problem is that this is not a rational measure.   The burden is on the RRS to prove why this measure was helpful for the promotion of rational dialogue.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
hello wrote: It

hello wrote:

It specifically calls out presumed theists, and the intention for doing this is unclear. 

Since you got an answer, you've restated three times that you haven't:

"We're trying to remove some of the anonymity from the environment. Initially we wanted atheists to be labeled, and most who knew were looking forward to it, however this solution was easier to manage."

  

Quote:
Why do they use the words "theist spotting"

It's humor.  (yeah yeah I know, you don't find it funny... got it)



Quote:
The burden is on the RRS to prove why this measure was helpful for the promotion of rational dialogue.

People can't hide in a veil of dishonesty this way.  Theists pretending to be atheists as a debate tactic is not welcome here. 

For the record, we are not here to justify ourselves to everyone or anyone particular, while we try to weigh in on these issues we are not inclined to debate them.  We have more important things to deal with then debating every decision we make on our board, however the community is free to discuss these things.  We are constantly changing and should we see the need to change something based on arguments made on our board, we just might do that.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: hello

Sapient wrote:
hello wrote:

It specifically calls out presumed theists, and the intention for doing this is unclear.

Since you got an answer, you've restated three times that you haven't:

"We're trying to remove some of the anonymity from the environment. Initially we wanted atheists to be labeled, and most who knew were looking forward to it, however this solution was easier to manage."


The question was not completely answered: why do you want to remove anonymity? and the label "theist spotting" does not follow from your intentions stated above, if you take this website as a forum for rational dialogue seriously.

With this measure, you are representing Rational Response squad, and it is not clear what your intentions are.  If it were apparent that your labeling technique was just a logistical measure, this thread would not have been started.  It does not seem that way and unfortunately even if you did not mean to isolate or ostracize certain poster in this website, this is the message that is coming a cross with your particular methods and choice of words. 

 

Sapient wrote:

Quote:
Why do they use the words "theist spotting"

It's humor. (yeah yeah I know, you don't find it funny... got it)


I would find it funny if this website did not take itself and its mission so seriously. The fact that it does means that the propaganda it spouts can be taken seriously also, and that is worrisome.

 

Sapient wrote:

Quote:
The burden is on the RRS to prove why this measure was helpful for the promotion of rational dialogue.

People can't hide in a veil of dishonesty this way. Theists pretending to be atheists as a debate tactic is not welcome here.

For the record, we are not here to justify ourselves to everyone or anyone particular, while we try to weigh in on these issues we are not inclined to debate them. We have more important things to deal with then debating every decision we make on our board,

 
Like what?



Again, why was this thread moved from Freethinking Anonymous to General Discussion, Conversation, and Humor?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Would it help if they

Would it help if they instituted "atheist spotting" concurrently, so at least everyone's being treated equally?  In that case, please label me as an atheist.  Hope that balances the scales.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
It seems like you are

It seems like you are suggesting that this is some kind of social justice issue but you haven't made a very good argument for that, you haven't explained why it's degrading or how it dehumanizes anyone or even presented a good argument for why you think it's unnecessary. The mods have explained why the measure is there and you haven't really even addressed that. I'm not ready to dismiss what you're saying outright but your case seems pretty weak up to this point.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


hellfiend666
Rational VIP!
hellfiend666's picture
Posts: 192
Joined: 2007-01-15
User is offlineOffline
This sounds like someone

This sounds like someone just tryin to pick a fight, and I don't think they're gonna stop until they get the answer they want to hear.  Any answer that isn't that specific one seems to be refuted. 

 

To any potetial posters, I'd say let this one slide, this might not end any time soon. 

The darkness of godlessness lets wisdom shine.


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: Would it

zarathustra wrote:
Would it help if they instituted "atheist spotting" concurrently, so at least everyone's being treated equally? In that case, please label me as an atheist. Hope that balances the scales.


Yep.  That would do it.

 

Look if this isn't a problem to the Rational Response Squad, then maybe I underestimated this kind of site as a tool for true rational dialogue. I'm not picking a fight, I'm having a discussion about something, a measure which this website took which rather than making these forums better or the same, made it worse.   Maybe I took the Rational Response Squad forum too seriously myself.  No one is addressing the actual points that I made, and this thread was transferred from a forum where "no issue is taboo" and topics can be debated freely to a place where let's face it, Brian Sapient could bury this issue. 

I had high hopes for this website.  If anyone wants to address the questions I left for Brian, I would still be happy to hear the responses.  And, unlike many posters on this page, I am quite open to understanding this from a different angle. 


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
hellfiend666 wrote: This

hellfiend666 wrote:

This sounds like someone just tryin to pick a fight, and I don't think they're gonna stop until they get the answer they want to hear. Any answer that isn't that specific one seems to be refuted.

 

To any potetial posters, I'd say let this one slide, this might not end any time soon.



This is how discussion and debate works, in a forum like "freethinking anonymous." why are you treating this forum differently?  Instead of passing off what I said, why not take a stab at giving me some perspective.  At the very least, this is a fairly visible new measure the rational response squad has taken on, and it is worth intelligent discussion.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
hello wrote: zarathustra

hello wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Would it help if they instituted "atheist spotting" concurrently, so at least everyone's being treated equally? In that case, please label me as an atheist. Hope that balances the scales.


Yep.  That would do it.

Putting atheist badges on people was always our intention.  We had been trying to get an automated system going in which an atheist could pass an atheist test (including blasphemy of multiple gods) to get their atheist badge.  However this program never got going, and manual insertion of badges on the minority (theists) is much easier than the majority (atheists).

 

Quote:
No one is addressing the actual points that I made

I addressed them several times.  Please keep in mind, we didn't start a website to spend our day conversing about how we run the site. 

 I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, because it's how I feel (and how most of RRS management feels), we don't owe you an explanation for how we run the site. 

 And as I said before, feel free to keep discussing the issue with others, we'll read it and factor it all in.

   

Quote:
Look if this isn't a problem to the Rational Response Squad, then maybe I underestimated this kind of site as a tool for true rational dialogue.

You know this sounds ridiculous?  People are incapable of having rational thought when they know what the beliefs of others are?  Having a badge makes rational dialogue impossible?  fehhh...

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
It might make things easier

It might make things easier if people were up front about it, but if they are already trying to be dishonest about their position it won't help much if they pick one thing from the get go.

I like the idea of test for things. Not so much proving atheist or whatever, but arming fellow atheist with knowledge. I almost think an atheist who doesn't know why they call themself atheist. Or can't stand up to basic arguments is worse then a theist who has nothing but shitty arguments.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12892
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
hello wrote: I would find

hello wrote:
I would find it funny if this website did not take itself and its mission so seriously. The fact that it does means that the propaganda it spouts can be taken seriously also, and that is worrisome.

I have to agree with you here. But it's their site and they can do what they want to. It's certainly less of an stroke than most theist sites would take, with instant banning. And I have seen one or two topics written by someone pretending to be an atheist in an attempt to set a trap. Rational discussion can be very difficult if you don't even know which side you're talking to.

So I'll agree with you that the title itself is a bit wanting, but I agree with the RRS on the title's general existance in the first place. At least it doesn't say "theist moron" or something.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


hellfiend666
Rational VIP!
hellfiend666's picture
Posts: 192
Joined: 2007-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Ok, fine, I'll try to break

Ok, fine, I'll try to break it down even further than the others have already.  You said:

 

"What is the end of this "theist spotting" business?
What are you trying to achieve?"

 

As Sapient said, they are trying to level the playing field so people know who they're dealing with when they decide to post a comment on a thread.   No discrimination intended, it's just meant to promote the free expression of ideas. Some people have abussed the anonimty that the internet provides, in saying that they are something they aren't as to lure people into arguments that are not only a waste of time, but bandwidth!

 

"You cannot claim that by starting this measure you are encouraging rational dialogue and free inquiry. Please tell me how I am wrong."

 

If I didn't expain this clearly enough in the last statement, I don't know how to further clarify, but I will try.  You are wrong because I myself have read through forum posts, such as this, and decided not to get involved because the poster was obviously deceptive in their motivations.  They start with one thing, and when someone replies they switch attitude and go off on a tangent.  It's deceptive, it's baiting, and it's not in the spirit of free thinking or free expression of ideas.

 

"I find it kind of disgusting, in fact, that you are branding posters in such a manner."

 

His site, his rules, don't post if you don't like it.

 

"I think this is an utterly hostile measure, which incites division, and alienates potential and current contributors to this site."

 

No, what alienates posters is people that are deliberately deceptive.  I'm a current contributor, it hasn't alienated me.  I've also only been on this site little more than a week, and I'm still here.  Next.  

 

"Would you rather theists not argue on this website? Then make it clear on the front page: "We would prefer that theists not argue on this website." In the same vein, if this is the kind of rhetoric you want to spout out, I would also recommend you removing rational from your name. I am growing wearier of your coopting of this word for this site."

 

The idea of free thought, and free speech are what this site is founded on, this forum topic is a testament to that.  A lot of other sites would have ended this and removed this thread already, but in the spirit of free debate and discussion, they've let it continue.   That said, and I know I speak for all here, we invite theists to come in defense of their views, most of us will listen.  A large portion of the people who post on this site would gladly hear a rational and well presented argument for theism, creationism, ID or what have you.  The fact is, no one has presented such evidence that cannot be disputed by science, reason, or rationallity.  You have to expect some resistance, btw, from a site founded, moderated, and run by atheists.  If you came here expecting to easily convert people, you've got the wrong site!  All in all, you've presented no good argument as to why they should remove the word "rational" from their name.  You are the one flying off the handle on matters most trivial.  In fact, this is the only time I've heard a protest to the labeling system that is currently in use!  Now, I ask you, who is being irrational?

 

The darkness of godlessness lets wisdom shine.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
I don't need an "atheist

I don't need an "atheist badge".  My username makes it pretty obvious.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I find it interesting that

I find it interesting that someone would get so up in arms about the Theist Spotting badges.

 


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
[quote = hellfiend666] As

hellfiend666 wrote:
As Sapient said, they are trying to level the playing field so people know who they're dealing with when they decide to post a comment on a thread. No discrimination intended, it's just meant to promote the free expression of ideas. Some people have abussed the anonimty that the internet provides, in saying that they are something they aren't as to lure people into arguments that are not only a waste of time, but bandwidth!


I don't understand this reasoning. "StMichael" and "JesusLovesYou" don't appear to be deceptive in their posts at all why are they labeled with "theist spotting?" Since it is a bit redundant, the impression that I get is that there is a further purpose to call them out, and that is to isolate them. If honesty is a principle on this site, ideally, that would be also posted on the front page, and there would be warnings for dishonesty.

Personally, as I have participated in forums on this site and evaluated arguments, I haven't found it necessary to "reveal" my identity (except to anyone that has asked me) or my beliefs to engage in rational dialogue. In fact I think that this sometimes clouds judgements as not only are they addressing claims at face value, there is also many times an implicit personal agenda to prove a particular worldview right, and I have seen that this agenda has clouded the judgment of arguers on both sides.

Maybe I'm an idealist, but I'd like to think that the realm of rational dialogue is not a "playing field." It is one thing to judge the quality of debate objectively; it is another thing to single people out on the other "side" of an issue.

hellfiend666 wrote:
I'm a current contributor, it hasn't alienated me. I've also only been on this site little more than a week, and I'm still here. Next.
Well in that case . . .

hellfiend666 wrote:
A lot of other sites would have ended this and removed this thread already, but in the spirit of free debate and discussion, they've let it continue.
Well gosh, I guess I'm lucky then. In a site with this title such of this, this thread should be no issue at all--I don't see why it would be one. Obviously this site can do whatever it wants and I have NO PROBLEM with that; the problem I have is when it claims to be something it's not.

And although this thread has not been removed, it was transferred from Freethinking Anonymous to General Conversation, Introductions and Humor without explanation.

hellfiend666 wrote:
In fact, this is the only time I've heard a protest to the labeling system that is currently in use! Now, I ask you, who is being irrational?
Alas, the rational thinker's burden. Now, if no one around you challenged the Christian conventions surrounding you, would you think it any less your responsibility to free humanity from theism? What if they called you irrational?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Just make it stop

hello wrote:


zarathustra wrote:
Would it help if they instituted "atheist spotting" concurrently, so at least everyone's being treated equally? In that case, please label me as an atheist. Hope that balances the scales.


Yep. That would do it.



Brian, please put a label on me. Call me an atheist. Call me a filthy, stinking atheist if it helps. Actually, just let "hello" pick the epithet, whatever he or she thinks is fair to even the odds, then slap it on me, and then maybe we will find catharsis.

In contrast to the way Christian forums simply ban those with opposing views (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/4243), I really don't see what egregious infraction is being committed here. But no matter. I'll be the Scapegoat for this perceived venality, just John 3:16 my ass, and maybe we can move on.

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
http://www.christianforums.c

http://www.christianforums.com/

Just try and post here if you are an atheist.  I couldn't get in. 


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If honesty is a

Quote:
If honesty is a principle on this site, ideally, that would be also posted on the front page, and there would be warnings for dishonesty.


Ok this seems a little odd. You just asked us to be honest and warn about dishonesty. If you mean dishonesty of others then ok, but if you mean dishonesty about ourselves, for some reason, it just doesn't add up...

How often do you trust the person who first says he doesn't lie?

I don't really see why we would need to state our position on honesty as most people take the idea as a given when dealing with ideas of knowledge. Given meaning a person who is seeking knowledge they would try to be honest, with others and themself, and expect other to be trying to be honest as well. Not to say everyone should trust everyone else.

Would it make you feel better if someone added it to the rules?

Quote:
the problem I have is when it claims to be something it's not.


Ok lets examen this.

"The Rational Response Squad encourages people to inquire, argue, reason and doubt" as you quoted it I think somewhere in here you have a problem.

We do ask people to question and they question us, check.

We do argue and they argue with us, check.

We do ask people to reason and they seem to reason with us, check.

We do ask people to doubt and they seem to doubt us, check.

Which part was the problem?

Quote:
And although this thread has not been removed, it was transferred from Freethinking Anonymous to General Conversation, Introductions and Humor without explanation.


Yes, we move posts without explanation. Is that what you are so upset about?

Quote:
Now, if no one around you challenged the Christian conventions surrounding you, would you think it any less your responsibility to free humanity from theism?


If no one challenged the idea I would think it more important to begin the process. Of course I would have to be careful about pulling a Socrates.


hellfiend666
Rational VIP!
hellfiend666's picture
Posts: 192
Joined: 2007-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Well, I think you did bring

Well, I think you did bring up some interesting points in your last response to me.  However, I still don't understand the reason your so "up in arms" on this.  Yes, I agree the tags can possibly cloud judgement.  Here's a suggestion though, if you engage in a debate with someone you feel has a clouded judgement of you, stop responding to them.  You have that choice.  In truth, I am what Dawkins would call a Pantheist, and if they gave me a badge for it, I wouldn't mind.  I might even feel honored in a certain way.  Well, I've said all I can on this subject, I have nothing left unless you wish to ask me a direct question.  Later.

The darkness of godlessness lets wisdom shine.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I think this is an utterly

I think this is an utterly hostile measure, which incites division, and alienates potential and current contributors to this site.

This seems a very irrational response.

It doesn't seem to be provoking such reactions in general, in that there seems no obvious shortage of Theist posters who don't seem to be particularly bothered by it.

Anyone who would be easily deterred from participating in a serious debate by such a trivial thing would probably not be worth debating anyway, if they are so easily distracted and offended by such a thing.

Would you rather theists not argue on this website?

That is definitely an irrational response.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I dont not think that

I dont not think that believing in god or being agnostic is some sort of "mind disorder", its just difficult to make ones mind up and decide what to believe.

God had no time to create time.


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote:

Voiderest wrote:
Quote:
If honesty is a principle on this site, ideally, that would be also posted on the front page, and there would be warnings for dishonesty.


Ok this seems a little odd. You just asked us to be honest and warn about dishonesty. If you mean dishonesty of others then ok, but if you mean dishonesty about ourselves, for some reason, it just doesn't add up...



This doesn't make sense. Can you explain it? What doesn't add up? Hellfiend said the primary reason for this measure was some level of honesty maintained by the moderators on the forum.

Voiderest wrote:

How often do you trust the person who first says he doesn't lie?

I don't really see why we would need to state our position on honesty as most people take the idea as a given when dealing with ideas of knowledge. Given meaning a person who is seeking knowledge they would try to be honest, with others and themself, and expect other to be trying to be honest as well. Not to say everyone should trust everyone else.


To evaluate arguments you shouldn't have to reveal your identity; the strange part is most of the people on this cite you've branded, (if not all of them) reveal their positions either in their nametag or in their description. This particular tag which is of a different quality than the other tags like "rational vip" and such which perhaps denote respect, longevity and maybe even quality of argument; it is redundant, doesn't provide more information, and seems to cast people out irrationally, and therefore it is strange.
Voiderest wrote:

Would it make you feel better if someone added it to the rules?
Yes it would be "rational" to transcribe rules which you enforce.
Voiderest wrote:

Quote:
the problem I have is when it claims to be something it's not.



Ok lets examen this.

"The Rational Response Squad encourages people to inquire, argue, reason and doubt" as you quoted it I think somewhere in here you have a problem.

We do ask people to question and they question us, check.

We do argue and they argue with us, check.

We do ask people to reason and they seem to reason with us, check.

We do ask people to doubt and they seem to doubt us, check.

Which part was the problem?
the part where you claim to be "rational"
Quote:
And although this thread has not been removed, it was transferred from Freethinking Anonymous to General Conversation, Introductions and Humor without explanation.

Voiderest wrote:

Yes, we move posts without explanation. Is that what you are so upset about?

only when you claim to be rational. "without explanation" is not rational, and moving the post was not rational either based on your own descriptions of the forums. 

Quote:
Now, if no one around you challenged the Christian conventions surrounding you, would you think it any less your responsibility to free humanity from theism?


Voiderest wrote:
If no one challenged the idea I would think it more important to begin the process.

Exactly.

 

This website will be more effective if it does not employ the same kind of defensive rhetoric its dogmatic religous counterparts. If you want to have a merit rating system or labels based on longevity, that would make slightly more sense. But you have a different labeling system for theists and atheists on this website and this calls your validity, objectivity, and most importantly, your rationality into question.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I have to admit, hello,

I have to admit, hello, that I personally take great pleasure seeing these "theist spotting" badges on people because that's what they're asking for.  If they would like to see "atheist spotting" on my name, so what?  Before the RRS made the move to this site awhile ago, the old site did have lables like "resident theist" and "atheist" so I guess you wouldn't have complained if you had never seen it differently.

I know for the new members, it is easier to follow a conversation if  you know where someone is speaking from.  It can get confusing sometimes when you see arguments around the biological evidences people try to use when they support theism.  (Speaking for myself of course, biology is not my strong point but I am learning).  

I hope you can move on from this obviously traumatizing event.  Laughing 


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
It's not a stretch to think

It's not a stretch to think "St Michael" and "Jesus Loves You" are Christians, and I am not confused by their perspectives and their posts; branding them with "theist spotting" doesn't make communication easier, it is a device to assert the RRS' power in these forums. It seems like a kind of revenge on theists sites (many people brought up the fact that theists sites are much worse). Revenge would be OK if RRS wasn't claiming to be rational.

The problem with the labels is that there is a different labeling system for theists and atheists. It is not systematic, and it is not rational. Perhaps tags like "biologist" or "bible expert", if RRS had a way of verifying the credibility of people who talk about biology would be useful in dialogue.


The point here is that the labeling system is not designed to make dialogue more effective or better. If the labels were systematic and had a rational philosophy behind them, they might make dialogue better. Rather, the theist labels are a certain kind of rhetoric (there are no "resident theists" here; there are "theist spottings" ) , a device for... divisiveness, and they do not help the purpose of clear communication.


The labeling system is not traumatic...it's irrational. I would have no problem with it if RRS didn't have Rational in it's name, and just did whatever the hell they wanted to. If I have any cause it is advancing rational dialogue. (If that's wrong, well I don't want to be right Smiling )


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Well , personally I find it

Well , personally I find it helpful for following some threads that are really long or ones where lots of people are posting and I don't feel like reading the entire thing. Plus it has the extra benefit of amusing me, which is also important. So I have no problem with this policy. 

Could it be that you just want to say that it's irrational because you don't like it? 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
hello wrote: Perhaps tags

hello wrote:
Perhaps tags like "biologist" or "bible expert", if RRS had a way of verifying the credibility of people who talk about biology would be useful in dialogue.

I suspect that if someone had a label of "bible expert", you would complain and ask for credentials. "Verifying the credibility"... you're talking about setting up rules as to what constitutes an expert witness, having people submit their background and then following up with vetting to ascertain those credentials. Surely you jest.

Many posters here do not have degrees in bible study, but I assure you they know what they're talking about. If not, they find themselves in a corner being corrected by those who DO know what they're talking about. It becomes apparent quite quickly.

Trust me, if someone does not post about biology intelligently, they are torn to shreds in no time flat.

Adding a Theist-Spotting badge is not something that is done spur-of-the-moment and, as far as I know, none have been posted erroneously.

Quote:
If I have any cause it is advancing rational dialogue.

Perhaps you could just try to ignore the badges and concentrate on the rational dialogue because there's plenty of it.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: hello

Susan wrote:

hello wrote:
Perhaps tags like "biologist" or "bible expert", if RRS had a way of verifying the credibility of people who talk about biology would be useful in dialogue.

I suspect that if someone had a label of "bible expert", you would complain and ask for credentials. "Verifying the credibility"... you're talking about setting up rules as to what constitutes an expert witness, having people submit their background and then following up with vetting to ascertain those credentials. Surely you jest.

Many posters here do not have degrees in bible study, but I assure you they know what they're talking about. If not, they find themselves in a corner being corrected by those who DO know what they're talking about. It becomes apparent quite quickly.

Trust me, if someone does not post about biology intelligently, they are torn to shreds in no time flat.

Adding a Theist-Spotting badge is not something that is done spur-of-the-moment and, as far as I know, none have been posted erroneously.

Quote:
If I have any cause it is advancing rational dialogue.

Perhaps you could just try to ignore the badges and concentrate on the rational dialogue because there's plenty of it.



all i said is that the labeling system is poorly constructed; i offered a slightly more systematic/rational that was at least better than the one RRS has created. my point is if there are going to be labels, they should be decided systematically, not to incite divisivness and irrationality.


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:

Gauche wrote:

 

Could it be that you just want to say that it's irrational because you don't like it?

Hello wrote:

The problem with the labels is that there is a different labeling system for theists and atheists.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: I suspect

Susan wrote:

I suspect that if someone had a label of "bible expert..."

Now that's a good idea! :P

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
hello wrote: This doesn't

hello wrote:
This doesn't make sense. Can you explain it? What doesn't add up? Hellfiend said the primary reason for this measure was some level of honesty maintained by the moderators on the forum.

It sounds like you want us to post on the front page we are dishonest in order to show honesty. That is what doesn't make sense.

Quote:
To evaluate arguments you shouldn't have to reveal your identity; the strange part is most of the people on this cite you've branded, (if not all of them) reveal their positions either in their nametag or in their description.

Like we have said people have lied about their position in the past to gain credibility. It would be like if I went to a christian website claimed to be christian and started knocking it down from the inside.

Quote:
This particular tag which is of a different quality than the other tags like "rational vip" and such which perhaps denote respect, longevity and maybe even quality of argument; it is redundant, doesn't provide more information, and seems to cast people out irrationally, and therefore it is strange.

So theist is now a bad word? Or do you not like them being outted? I thought they were suppose to be proud of their faith.

Quote:
Yes it would be "rational" to transcribe rules which you enforce.

Well if rules are written up you probably won't see them anywhere because it would be for the mods or higher. The people who put the badge on an account are the same people who have the ablity to move or edit post so it wouldn't be a public rule. All that a mod really needs is them to say they are theist of some sort.

Quote:
the part where you claim to be "rational"

Why didn't you just start with that? That sounds like the meat of your argument. "We are irrational because we do something you don't agree with." Is that your claim?

Quote:
only when you claim to be rational. "without explanation" is not rational, and moving the post was not rational either based on your own descriptions of the forums.

No, without explanation means we don't have to tell you about it or explain it all... If a mod here or anyother forum had to explain every little thing to every person it would just slow things down. Right here is a good example. You don't think the thread goes here so you complain.

Quote:
This website will be more effective if it does not employ the same kind of defensive rhetoric its dogmatic religous counterparts. If you want to have a merit rating system or labels based on longevity, that would make slightly more sense. But you have a different labeling system for theists and atheists on this website and this calls your validity, objectivity, and most importantly, your rationality into question.

It sounds like you just don't like people being called what they are. We have told you a few of the reasons why it is useful, but you just keep on saying there is no point to it.

Just because people are called on their position doesn't mean we are saying anything more about them. That would be like me taken offence at being called an atheist or godless.

 

The most interesting part about all this is that you don't even have the badge you are complaining about. How many theists feel bad because they have a little badge?


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist wrote: I

American Atheist wrote:
I don't need an "atheist badge". My username makes it pretty obvious.

 

LOL, You don't need no stinking badges!

 

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps endowing them with

Perhaps endowing them with their little idolatrous symbols would be the way?

Hmmmmm. Does that mean that I'd have to change my icon? I like playing big butter jesus.

Personally, I would think that if the theists that are coming to the site want answers then the quickest way to get them is to be singled out. The label seems to be quite utilitarian in nature. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

American Atheist wrote:
I don't need an "atheist badge". My username makes it pretty obvious.

 

LOL, You don't need no stinking badges!

 

 

does "Jesuslovesme" need a  "theist spotting badge" ?


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Susan

Sapient wrote:
Susan wrote:

I suspect that if someone had a label of "bible expert..."

Now that's a good idea! Sticking out tongue

 

your welcomeSmiling. the question now is whether you'll use label just for atheists, or for both theists and atheists.


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote:

Voiderest wrote:

hello wrote:
This doesn't make sense. Can you explain it? What doesn't add up? Hellfiend said the primary reason for this measure was some level of honesty maintained by the moderators on the forum.

It sounds like you want us to post on the front page we are dishonest in order to show honesty. That is what doesn't make sense.

 

I don't know how you arrived at this. All I said is that if you want honesty, you should say it. Is that strange? I didn't say anything about you posting something about dishonesty.

The only claim I put forth is that anonymity has its merits in a rational-dialogue setting. but if you're going to have a labeling system, it should be systematic.

Voiderest wrote:
Quote:
To evaluate arguments you shouldn't have to reveal your identity; the strange part is most of the people on this cite you've branded, (if not all of them) reveal their positions either in their nametag or in their description.

Like we have said people have lied about their position in the past to gain credibility. It would be like if I went to a christian website claimed to be christian and started knocking it down from the inside.



Why don't you tag the liars with "devil's advocate" or "liar" or something? Again, who have you labeled who's actually lied? What about atheists pretending to be theists? So far the people I have seen are obviously arguing from a Christian perspective, so the label is redundant. Why do you want to be redundant?


Voiderest wrote:

Quote:
This particular tag which is of a different quality than the other tags like "rational vip" and such which perhaps denote respect, longevity and maybe even quality of argument; it is redundant, doesn't provide more information, and seems to cast people out irrationally, and therefore it is strange.

So theist is now a bad word? Or do you not like them being outted? I thought they were suppose to be proud of their faith.

I am not making any claims as to whether theist is a bad word or not. The RRS labeling system is irrational. It really is that simple.

Voiderest wrote:
Quote:
Yes it would be "rational" to transcribe rules which you enforce.

Well if rules are written up you probably won't see them anywhere because it would be for the mods or higher. The people who put the badge on an account are the same people who have the ablity to move or edit post so it wouldn't be a public rule. All that a mod really needs is them to say they are theist of some sort.

I think it is strange for a website that claims to be rational to have private rules which are enforced without explanation. Maybe I'm holding you to too high a standard.

Voiderest wrote:
Quote:
the part where you claim to be "rational"

Why didn't you just start with that? That sounds like the meat of your argument. "We are irrational because we do something you don't agree with." Is that your claim?



In fact, I did, at the beginning of the thread. I have no problem with this group being irrational so long as they don't claim to be rational.

 

hello wrote:
Gauche wrote:

Could it be that you just want to say that it's irrational because you don't like it?

The problem with the labels is that there is a different labeling system for theists and atheists.


Voiderest wrote:

Quote:
only when you claim to be rational. "without explanation" is not rational, and moving the post was not rational either based on your own descriptions of the forums.

No, without explanation means we don't have to tell you about it or explain it all... If a mod here or anyother forum had to explain every little thing to every person it would just slow things down. Right here is a good example. You don't think the thread goes here so you complain.

Of course. you don't have to do anything. I brought up the issue of moving this post appealing to my rational sense because of your own descriptions of your own forums; I found it strange in fact that you moved a debate into general conversations, introductions, and humor. so far you haven't provided any rational explanation for this. you keep dodging this question.

Voiderest wrote:

Quote:
This website will be more effective if it does not employ the same kind of defensive rhetoric its dogmatic religous counterparts. If you want to have a merit rating system or labels based on longevity, that would make slightly more sense. But you have a different labeling system for theists and atheists on this website and this calls your validity, objectivity, and most importantly, your rationality into question.

It sounds like you just don't like people being called what they are. We have told you a few of the reasons why it is useful, but you just keep on saying there is no point to it.

Just because people are called on their position doesn't mean we are saying anything more about them. That would be like me taken offence at being called an atheist or godless.

Again, the point is that you have a different labeling system for atheists and theists. For Atheists, there different kinds of labels, and you use neutral language. for theists, there is only one label and you use stigmatizing language.

 

Voiderest wrote:

The most interesting part about all this is that you don't even have the badge you are complaining about. How many theists feel bad because they have a little badge?

I think this is the strangest claim you have made in this dialogue. For someone to address the rationality of a measure or an argument, they don't have to be personally affected by it. Again, if you weren't personally affected by problems caused by the irrationality of Christian thought or Christian thinkers, would you think it any less your responsibility to save humanity from theism? I'll use your words so you can understand my position: I'm trying to save humanity from irrationality.

Also, what would you label me with? The only reason you've been able to label theists with "theist spotting" is because they are obviously theists.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
hello wrote: For Atheists,

hello wrote:
For Atheists, there different kinds of labels, and you use neutral language.

Some of the badges to which you refer are those that indicate that a person is a Mod or Core Member.  This simply lets people know they are Admins and their access level.  As for the Silver Member, etc.  that is just an indication of contribution level.  
It seems to me that your accusation of irrationality is unwarranted.  

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Here is what I said:

Here is what I said:

"Again, the point is that you have a different labeling system for atheists and theists. For Atheists, there different kinds of labels, and you use neutral language. for theists, there is only one label and you use stigmatizing language."

 


Susan wrote:
It seems to me that your accusation of irrationality is unwarranted.

 Go on. . .


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I can't tell what you are

Do you believe there's a god hello?

There has been a couple of people portraying themselves as "neutral" for whatever reason only to later reveal that they believe in a god.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
would whether I believe in

would whether I believe in god or not make any point i made above about RRS' asymmetrical labeling of theists and atheists less valid? which one(s)?

 

also, moderators, i've noticed some interesting omissions in the labeling of some theists. Are there some people you just don't want to offend?     



    


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
A.1. It doesn't mean it's

A.1. It doesn't mean it's relevant, but I was wondering if you were theist myself since you are making such a stink over the badges.

A.2. Nah, we're not afraid to offend anyone since that is not our intention.  We just haven't had sufficient evidence to tag them yet. 


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
hello wrote: I don't know

hello wrote:
I don't know how you arrived at this. All I said is that if you want honesty, you should say it. Is that strange? I didn't say anything about you posting something about dishonesty.

“If honesty is a principle on this site, ideally, that would be also posted on the front page, and there would be warnings for dishonesty.”

Quote:
The only claim I put forth is that anonymity has its merits in a rational-dialogue setting. but if you're going to have a labeling system, it should be systematic.

Perhaps, but a system isn’t going to come about over night.

Quote:
Why don't you tag the liars with "devil's advocate" or "liar" or something? Again, who have you labeled who's actually lied? What about atheists pretending to be theists? So far the people I have seen are obviously arguing from a Christian perspective, so the label is redundant. Why do you want to be redundant?

I was giving an example of those who have lied in the past. They don't get the badge for lies they get it so they can't lie.

Quote:
I am not making any claims as to whether theist is a bad word or not. The RRS labeling system is irrational. It really is that simple.

You said, "This particular tag which is of a different quality than the other tags like "rational vip" and such which perhaps denote respect." That sounds like you think "Theist Spotting" isn't respectful. Is that why you think it is irrational?

Quote:
I think it is strange for a website that claims to be rational to have private rules which are enforced without explanation. Maybe I'm holding you to too high a standard.

No the public isn't responsible for anything like that. Unless you have mod powers you don't need to know about the theist badge. That is like asking for the rules for moving a thread.

Quote:
In fact, I did, at the beginning of the thread. I have no problem with this group being irrational so long as they don't claim to be rational.

You started by complaining that "Theist Spotting" contradicts a part of the blasphemy challenge faq calling it hostile. Yes at the very end of the post you say we shouldn't call ourselves rational, but it looks like you just tacked that on. If this is the best evidence for something irrational you have nothing close to a case.

Quote:
Of course. you don't have to do anything. I brought up the issue of moving this post appealing to my rational sense because of your own descriptions of your own forums; I found it strange in fact that you moved a debate into general conversations, introductions, and humor. so far you haven't provided any rational explanation for this. you keep dodging this question.

I didn't move the thread so all I have on why is a guess. I'm not going to give an explanation for something I didn't do.

Quote:
Again, the point is that you have a different labeling system for atheists and theists. For Atheists, there different kinds of labels, and you use neutral language.

Susen's response is great, "Some of the badges to which you refer are those that indicate that a person is a Mod or Core Member.  This simply lets people know they are Admins and their access level.  As for the Silver Member, etc.  that is just an indication of contribution level."

Quote:
for theists, there is only one label and you use stigmatizing language.

So would you like us to lable everyone christian, jewish, buddhist, muslim, taoist, mormon, or deist? Of course I missed religions in there, but the point isn't saying what religion or how religious someone is just that they are theist. Also some people would start complaining that they don't have their religion on the list or that they are called a member of religion. By distinguishing between them it causes more problems then it might solve.

Quote:
I think this is the strangest claim you have made in this dialogue. For someone to address the rationality of a measure or an argument, they don't have to be personally affected by it. Again, if you weren't personally affected by problems caused by the irrationality of Christian thought or Christian thinkers, would you think it any less your responsibility to save humanity from theism? I'll use your words so you can understand my position: I'm trying to save humanity from irrationality.

That wasn't quite what I was getting at. I was saying I haven't hear of other people complaining about it. This would be like complaining about the word "white" when no white person, as far as I know, gives a damn.

Quote:
Also, what would you label me with?

Don't know you don't seem to like to talk about yourself.

Quote:
The only reason you've been able to label theists with "theist spotting" is because they are obviously theists.

No, that isn't always the case.


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote:

Voiderest wrote:

hello wrote:
I don't know how you arrived at this. All I said is that if you want honesty, you should say it. Is that strange? I didn't say anything about you posting something about dishonesty.
“If honesty is a principle on this site, ideally, that would be also posted on the front page, and there would be warnings for dishonesty.”

 

You said: "It sounds like you want us to post on the front page we are dishonest in order to show honesty. That is what doesn't make sense."

I don't want you to post that you are dishonest, unless you are dishonest. I don't know where you got that idea. I want you to have a rule where you say if you do X we will label you with X. The "Theist Spotting" label seems to be a punishment or a warning. the atheist labels are more organizational. If you are going to have punishments/warnings, warning other people "watch out, there's a theist in the area," instead of an organizational label, you should have a policy describing this rather active divisive measure.


Voiderest wrote:

Quote:
The only claim I put forth is that anonymity has its merits in a rational-dialogue setting. but if you're going to have a labeling system, it should be systematic.

Perhaps, but a system isn’t going to come about over night.

Not perhaps.If you're going to have a labeling system, it should be fair and systematic. There's no room for perhaps. And if it's not ready yet, which you seem to say is the case, you shouldn't promote irrationality for convenience sake until you have an ideal system worked out.

Since it isn't worked out, what is going to be the ideal end of this system?

Voiderest wrote:

Quote:
Why don't you tag the liars with "devil's advocate" or "liar" or something? Again, who have you labeled who's actually lied? What about atheists pretending to be theists? So far the people I have seen are obviously arguing from a Christian perspective, so the label is redundant. Why do you want to be redundant?

I was giving an example of those who have lied in the past. They don't get the badge for lies they get it so they can't lie.



Why are you only doing this for theists?

Voiderest wrote:
Quote:
I am not making any claims as to whether theist is a bad word or not. The RRS labeling system is irrational. It really is that simple.

You said, "This particular tag which is of a different quality than the other tags like "rational vip" and such which perhaps denote respect." That sounds like you think "Theist Spotting" isn't respectful. Is that why you think it is irrational?




The atheists who are labeled are not labeled "atheist," they are labeled "rational" or "rational vip." The theists who are labeled aren't labeled on this same scale, they aren't even labeled "theist." Instead they are branded with a particular divisive rhetoric: "theist spotting." There is only one label: theist spotting. It doesn't matter if they have employed rational arguments or not, they are reduced to one aspect of their character. This is wrong. There are rational theists and atheists on this site and there are very very irrational theists and atheists on this website (meaning posters who employ reasoning and are open to dialogue). Why is one aspect of certain of posters singled out? And, what is this kind of language is trying to achieve?

I was looking at another thread and one poster who was branded explained the essense of what you are doing: "I am glad I finally got tagged with the "theist spotting" badge. I guess I'll have to wear my Star of David on my sleeve here. You will forgive me if I check out before you start piping in the Zyklon B."

I know this analogy is a bit extreme but it hits at the core of the measure you have instantiated. Still, even he accepted the branding and continued the discussion (you know, for the sake of engaging in rational dialogue). I think that this is a silly thing that a poster has to accept to engage in rational dialogue.


Worse, it is irrational.

Voiderest wrote:
Quote:
I think it is strange for a website that claims to be rational to have private rules which are enforced without explanation. Maybe I'm holding you to too high a standard.

No the public isn't responsible for anything like that. Unless you have mod powers you don't need to know about the theist badge. That is like asking for the rules for moving a thread.

I think the above exposes the way you run your website pretty well; much better than I could have. Well, I am still going to challenge irrationality.

Voiderest wrote:
Quote:
In fact, I did, at the beginning of the thread. I have no problem with this group being irrational so long as they don't claim to be rational.

You started by complaining that "Theist Spotting" contradicts a part of the blasphemy challenge faq calling it hostile. Yes at the very end of the post you say we shouldn't call ourselves rational, but it looks like you just tacked that on. If this is the best evidence for something irrational you have nothing close to a case.



A rational group would promote the statement in the Blasphemy Challenge. Your asymetric labeling measures are not rational and therefore do not promote rational dialogue. I didn't tack anything on; irrationality is at the heart of the issue.

Voiderest wrote:
Quote:
Of course. you don't have to do anything. I brought up the issue of moving this post appealing to my rational sense because of your own descriptions of your own forums; I found it strange in fact that you moved a debate into general conversations, introductions, and humor. so far you haven't provided any rational explanation for this. you keep dodging this question.

I didn't move the thread so all I have on why is a guess. I'm not going to give an explanation for something I didn't do.

OK. What do you think about it?

Voiderest wrote:
Quote:
Again, the point is that you have a different labeling system for atheists and theists. For Atheists, there different kinds of labels, and you use neutral language.

Susen's response is great, "Some of the badges to which you refer are those that indicate that a person is a Mod or Core Member. This simply lets people know they are Admins and their access level. As for the Silver Member, etc. that is just an indication of contribution level."


The labeling system is asymetrical. there is a rhetorical strategy for labeling theists which is different than the way atheists are labeled.

Voiderest wrote:
Quote:
for theists, there is only one label and you use stigmatizing language.

So would you like us to lable everyone christian, jewish, buddhist, muslim, taoist, mormon, or deist? Of course I missed religions in there, but the point isn't saying what religion or how religious someone is just that they are theist. Also some people would start complaining that they don't have their religion on the list or that they are called a member of religion. By distinguishing between them it causes more problems then it might solve.

No this is not my point (see above, and my previous posts). I don't want mormon spottings and buddhist spottings and atheist spottings; I want a rational labeling system for all posters on this site.

Voiderest wrote:
Quote:
I think this is the strangest claim you have made in this dialogue. For someone to address the rationality of a measure or an argument, they don't have to be personally affected by it. Again, if you weren't personally affected by problems caused by the irrationality of Christian thought or Christian thinkers, would you think it any less your responsibility to save humanity from theism? I'll use your words so you can understand my position: I'm trying to save humanity from irrationality.

That wasn't quite what I was getting at. I was saying I haven't hear of other people complaining about it. This would be like complaining about the word "white" when no white person, as far as I know, gives a damn.

Just because someone can stomach this measure doesn't make it right. There a lot of things society has accepted which were inherently wrong. I can give you a list if you would like. Your goal is to be rational right? Not just acceptible, rational.



Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Void, good job here, but

Void, good job here, but you could be spending your time on more important things than this thread. 

 

Here's the deal one more time:

We would rather have atheist badges, however since we have more atheists here and the badges need to be added manually it's easier to add it to theists.

If you deconvert as a result of this site and you're a theist, just write us and we'll replace your badge with one reflecting your growth.

Very soon we will be using the "theist spotting" title to specify who is allowed in certain areas of the site.  For example, we are sick and tired of theists invading our freethinkers forum, which they don't belong in.  Soon they wont have access to that forum.

 

THIS THREAD IS NOW CLOSED SO WE CAN GET BACK TO WHAT'S IMPORTANT.  WE ARE NOT HERE TO JUSTIFY OURSELVES TO ANYONE, WE'RE HERE TO OPEN PEOPLE TO REASONS TO ABANDON GOD BELIEF, START ADDRESSING THAT INSTEAD OF THIS. 

Don't like it?  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.