I have been banned from this site multiple times, I keep coming back because I have no life.

Schizometric
Schizometric's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
I have been banned from this site multiple times, I keep coming back because I have no life.

Hello fellow freethinkers, that is, if you do think freely.

 

Some of you may know me from the RRS chat, if so, then hello again.

 

My impulse for making this thread is to ask why I am always banned from chat? The first time I was banned was for asking Rook Hawkins for proof that Celsus was an atheist. Of course, he was making the claim that he was an atheist, and Rook's response was simply, "read Celsus." I asked, "read what of his," and he replied, "I'm not going to do your fucking homework for you," which was followed up by a ban after I tried informing him on who had the burden of proof. The second time I was banned was for having a conversation with (the rather educated) Rich Rodriguez about the history of Judaism, by Rook again. The third time I was banned was for coming into chat. The fourth and last time I was banned was for telling chatters not to ban people for disagreeing with you!

 

Please note that this is not a thread for me to complain about the chat, rather, a thread to question the dogma of the RRS. Please have the nobility in yourself to take such a question seriously, the difference we have over the religious is that we can think introspectively and realize we might be wrong.

 

But here comes the trump card, "we do not tolerate dishonesty." Let's analyze this for a moment. Why is somebody dishonest, simply because they disagree with you? All too often, I've noticed some members of the RRS, all too theistically, espouse that they know something true about the world (or more than likely, untrue), and that anyone who asserts a belief in it, is entirely dishonest. No. You cannot tell somebody who states their beliefs, "you're dishonest," unless you intend on being an ironic satirist - to which banning is not an option, so we can rule this out.

 

When "dishonesty" is the only thing you can lable your enemies, perhaps it is this dishonesty that you understand most because you are afflicted with it yourself? Who said that dishonesty was so bad anyways? Why not appreciate the Socratic dishonesty, the Emersonian impulse to escape pure rationality, or the Nietzschean skepticism of all things rational?

 

All I ask if for all of us skeptics to have an OPEN-mind, to be accepting of disagreements, and to appreciate the beauty of dialectic.


ChAnMaN
Posts: 10
Joined: 2006-08-08
User is offlineOffline
In your defense, i witnessed

In your defense, i witnessed the 2nd ban you describe and it was totally uncalled for. A few of the member mods are way trigger happy If i remember right you were banned by lunar becuase rook and rich were answering your questions but turns out your speakers weren't on. 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Schizometric wrote: All I

Schizometric wrote:


All I ask if for all of us skeptics to have an OPEN-mind, to be accepting of disagreements, and to appreciate the beauty of dialectic.

I rarely, if ever, meet people who actually, honestly, appreciate the beauty of the dialectic... most merely give lip service to it, while actually employing rhetoric.  This isn't a comment about you, specifically, but about humanity in general. And I think it's related to your complaint.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'd be disappointed if this

I'd be disappointed if this topic were deleted.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
First, you wre kicked by

First, you wre kicked by Ray because you were being an idiot. You claimed we only ban people we disagree with which is a moronic statement to make. And I grow tired or poor thinking like yours - the idea that we kick people we don't agree with is ignorant, as Christians come in there ALL the time and are given more then enough time to converse with us, and we don't agree with them.

You deserved your kick, if only for being blooming dishonest. I won't delete this thread, but because of it don't expect a warm reception in the stickam room if I see you in there.

 

Fucking dishonest cry baby.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
It seems that you didn't

It seems that you didn't read that many of the answers in chat and obviously you haven't read that much of the site.

In my opinion, if you spend a little time and if you truly are a 'freethinker' then you will find examples of how truly obnoxious dishonesty can be and its many forms. Disagreement is not dishonesty, but willful ignorance most certainly defines it.

Rook's response of "read Celsus" should have been sufficient unless you had already read Celsus and disagreed. Do you see that?

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


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
That's just it - he was

That's just it - he was completely being irrational about it.  Even Rich agreed with me on this.  He was going around being completely moronic about how Celsus was an atheist (He kept claiming I was wrong about it, and then demanded I go do his homework for him!)  If you wanted to know about Celsus, read it.  Hoffman has a great translation out and it's cost effective. 

But to bitch and complain, which is exactly what th thread is and your dishonesty appears to bleed through even into this thread, about being kicked when you were being nothing more then a twit, this is not earning you points to get back into the room anytime soon.  You deserved what you got.  Take your licks and apologize or you just reap what you sow.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I'd be

Vastet wrote:
I'd be disappointed if this topic were deleted.

 

Would you be disappointed if he vocalized his complaint like most others do, via email?  

 

The thread wont be deleted, it was moved and retitled appropriatly.

 

 

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.


Schizometric
Schizometric's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
Amazingly rational response

Amazingly rational response Rook! Is that why you keep banning me, because I invoke an emotional response by actually criticizing you? You better hurry up and lay your banhammer down now then, because I'm, "dishonest."

 

You do ban Christians, from what I tell. You say you don't, but I've actually talked to about five or six people that you guys have banned. Guess what: none of them were even Christians, all atheists. Here's exactly what you do:

1. Take the side of all things rational, despite the fact that you may actually be thinking irrationally, since you have the power, you have the ability to claim what is rational, and what is not.

2. With this, argue against the person's point, and then (more often than not) reductionize everything they're saying, into them saying something they are not, something you already know how to reply too- which is exactly why you're capable of saying, "we deal with people like you always!"

3. Then, when they, who are thinkers or believers that do not agree with you, continue to refute or clarify their position (which has probably been straw manned by fallacious arguments, collective logic, and a genuine sense of elitist pride), you claim that they are dishonest. You fail to realize that dishonesty does not mean, "disagreement with you."

4. You proceed to be infuriated, in all so fundamentalist manner, and ban successively.

 

 So why are the real "dishonest" hypocritical fucks kept around? I guess you feel like you can respond rationally to them, anyways. Do you want a gold star for it? 

 

Perhaps you grow tired of people thinking like me in the same sense as all dictators feel tired of people thinking they're all big and bad and oppressive. But here you are, calling me dishonest, when you turn around and use a persecutionist argument to justify your hateful antics, complaining that atheists are oppressed, when you do most of the oppression to atheists!

 Free your mind!

 

Seriously, go read some Emerson, some Socrates, and some Nietzsche. Please. 


Schizometric
Schizometric's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
When somebody claims their

In response to darth_josh:

 

When somebody claims there is evidence for something, and you say, "where," do you accept answers such as, "read the bible!"

I know I don't. I don't particularly have the time to read through a lot of literature to find something I've found most sources to say he was pagan. Yet this mere fact does not matter, the attention you should pay is how Rook violently reacts to anyone asking him to support his position with facts and evidence. It really saddens me that this should be his first criticism of religious people, and he fails to have the introspective qualities to peer into himself to see otherwise.

My only hope is that some day he does find this introspection he truly needs.

 

On your note about willful ignorance: willful ignorance is a necessity of life. If we did not have willful ignorance, then we'd have a willful abolition of our will to live. Right now, you're already rolling your eyes predicting what I'm going to say next, STOP. Stop reductionizing your opponents, and READ what they have to say: Not caring to know every single fish species in the entire world environment is willful ignorance, not wanting to memorize a million digits of pi is willful ignorance. Perhaps you should take another take on "willful ignorance" and realize why some knowledge is important and why some is not. To that end, maybe now you can realize why I don't feel it is important to read everything Celsus ever said to find Rook's evidence- that sounds too much like me doing his homework.


Schizometric
Schizometric's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, keep up the

I'm an asshat, I was banned from this forum several times, and I keep violating the rules by continously coming back.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Hi Asshat.

Hi Asshat.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
...

...


dona_quixote
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-03-11
User is offlineOffline
what do you know? it's you

and i got booted from chat for the unforgiveable crime of possibly being you.

i KNEW i wasnt gravity, dammit.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Schizometric wrote: In

Schizometric wrote:

In response to darth_josh:

 

When somebody claims there is evidence for something, and you say, "where," do you accept answers such as, "read the bible!"

Actually, yes I do.

Quote:
I know I don't. I don't particularly have the time to read through a lot of literature to find something I've found most sources to say he was pagan.

And thus a reason that your assertions hold no merit.

Quote:
Yet this mere fact does not matter, the attention you should pay is how Rook violently reacts to anyone asking him to support his position with facts and evidence. It really saddens me that this should be his first criticism of religious people, and he fails to have the introspective qualities to peer into himself to see otherwise.

Obviously, I have known Rook longer than you have. Most of the time, before Rook is allowed to lay out his evidence some asshole interrupts him, makes a base accusation with no suporting evidence(personal attack), or they simply shut off their hearing.

I am saddened that someone spends so much time whining about others instead of analyzing their own flaws first.

Quote:
My only hope is that some day he does find this introspection he truly needs.

Ditto. Everyone needs more of this. Unfortunately, you see it as a conclusion whereas your rank and file individuals see it as an ongoing process.

 

Quote:
On your note about willful ignorance: willful ignorance is a necessity of life. If we did not have willful ignorance, then we'd have a willful abolition of our will to live. Right now, you're already rolling your eyes predicting what I'm going to say next, STOP. Stop reductionizing your opponents, and READ what they have to say: Not caring to know every single fish species in the entire world environment is willful ignorance, not wanting to memorize a million digits of pi is willful ignorance. Perhaps you should take another take on "willful ignorance" and realize why some knowledge is important and why some is not. To that end, maybe now you can realize why I don't feel it is important to read everything Celsus ever said to find Rook's evidence- that sounds too much like me doing his homework.

Ummm. I don't consider you an opponent at all. I think that perhaps you are dealing with an absolutist mentality with regard to the words 'willful ignorance'. In my opinion, willful ignorance occurs when people simply say, "I don't know and I don't want to know."

My opinion of a freethinker's answer would be: "I don't know, but I'd like to know."

Your assertion that you simply want someone else to prove things to you shows a marked lack of curiosity on your own part. The sheer self-importance of expecting to be taught instead of learning is repulsive.

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