KC, you're a twit.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-11-2012, 09:37 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(20-11-2012 09:27 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Or it could be that KC is a member here while Hovind is not. Everyone is entitled to say whatever they damn well please about whoever or whatever they want, but starting a thread about a member for the sole purpose of insulting them is childish. Starting a thread doing the same for Hovind would be too, but Hovind is not going to come here to debate. KC may be a theist, but he has stuck around to debate.

This does not differ from what I said. You are still on this idea that I am supporting the ad hominems directed towards Kingschosen. I am simply stating that I think it is ridiculously hypocritical that you complain about it with Kinschosen, but then turn around and throw ad hominems and laugh at others who you have not taken the time to know.

(20-11-2012 09:27 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And your comparison of starting a liberal website and putting up a conservative moderator is absurd. A) I would enjoy that. B) They are not the same thing. C) Is part of the point not to have a debate?

Oh, because you say it is absurd must mean it is so. The two are diametrically opposed. They are opposites. Theism and Atheism are two very different things. Social liberalism and social conservatism are also opposites. I fail to see how the comparison lacks its merit simply because you'd find that intresting.

(20-11-2012 09:27 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  So what the website is called TheThinkingAtheist and there is a theist who is a moderator. Why the hell does that bother anyone? I would be okay with a fundy christian being a moderator as long as they didn't abuse their power and contributed to discussion and debate. Who gives a rats ass if I disagree with them theologically? I (and I suspect many others) don't participate in the forums as a means by which to eliminate religion from the face of the Earth. I use it to connect with other people and discuss matters related to religion, but also many other topics. If I want to see religion go down the drain (and I do), I can't do it via this forum. If that is what you want, organize a secular group and meet with people face to face and discuss ways to get your message out. Do what Seth does and develop a podcast but do it like the Atheist Experience and go after the theologians. If you have a problem with Hovind and Ham, write them emails, organize protests against them, write about them and how their arguments fail.

I have no quarrel against Kingschosen being a moderator, and have said he is a fine one multiple times. I agree with you that a fundamentalist, if they were able to remain quiet when concerning logical debate, could maintain a moderating role. However, this is a place for atheists to debate about religion, philosophy, politics, science, and whatever have you. It is a place where we can mingle, exchange ideas, and debate. If a theist decides to join here, they'd better expect questions, challenges, and opposition.

(20-11-2012 09:27 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But nowhere in there would insulting them be useful in discrediting them.

We have been over this and I have agreed with you, about the theist part. I am having fun with the Satanists right now. Big Grin

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2012, 09:40 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(20-11-2012 09:28 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(20-11-2012 09:17 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  ...
I am convinced that a good portion of the reps on KC's wall are simply because many atheists feel apologetic.
...

Dude, for the record... I repped him for two reasons:
1) The time and effort he puts into being part of the Welcoming Committee for new members. Whatever the motive in doing this, it is important and necessary.
2) The upside down dogs used to diffuse tension. That was clever.

Please don't project. Thanks.
No one is projecting anything.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2012, 09:51 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
I don't know how you guys are still going on with this stupid thread. Everyone is arguing subjectively and calling it objective.
Silly buggers. Let's all go start bands. I can play rhythm guitar if someone wants to lead. We don't need a bass player if we have a good drummer, but someone's got to sing, and it isn't going to be me.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2012, 09:52 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(20-11-2012 09:17 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(20-11-2012 03:46 AM)cufflink Wrote:  The current unpleasantness has made me think about a few things.

First, when do you neg someone? Is it for their behavior, or for their ideas, or for how they think? Or for all three? I was always under the impression it was mainly for behavior: you neg someone for being a dick. But what about ideas? I have no problem negging (man, that’s an ugly word!) a Holocaust denier, even if he spouts his poison politely. And what about someone who insists, politely but resolutely, that two and two is thirty-seven? Should I neg him or her for irrationality, for being a loon? Or is that laughable but not neg-worthy? It’s not clear to me.

The part of this that’s relevant to the present situation is whether it’s appropriate here to neg a theist for being irrational. If someone puts faith before reason in matters of theology, do they deserve a neg because of that? This case is clearer to me: I think the answer is no. Thing is, virtually everyone here (with a couple of notable exceptions) thinks that all theism is irrational. Belief in God is ipso facto irrational! There’s no valid, rational justification for it. But if such a belief deserves a neg, then every single theist who joins TTA should automatically be negged for irrationality, not just KC. Do we want that? We say we welcome everyone—atheists, agnostics, deists, theists, Satanists, Pastafarians . . . Negging every theist wouldn’t be very hospitable, would it.

Not only that, but classifying people as rational or irrational is simplistic. It’s an uncomfortable fact but nonetheless true: people compartmentalize. What Girly said above bears repeating:


I’ve met scientists like that too. A genius-level friend of mine who works on nonlinear astrodynamics and has been featured in Discover Magazine goes to church every Sunday. The author of a famous textbook on classical mechanics on my shelf adds a Hebrew religious acronym to the end of his preface. Newton was a theist. So were some other great mathematicians—Euler, Cauchy, Riemann . . . A person can be a paragon of critical thinking in the lab and think totally differently in a pew. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it’s a fact we need to acknowledge.

All of that being said, is the animus directed towards KC really a result of his irrationality? Nah. It’s due to his position here in relation to who he is theologically.

You’ve gotta admit we have an odd situation at TTA: the single most esteemed individual on the board (based on rep—I realize it’s a horse race between KC and Erx, but KC is currently ahead by a nose) is a theist, and not just a theist but a Calvinist. Yet he’s not only honored but even serves as a moderator. That’s irksome to some, and it’s not hard to see why. Many have come here to escape the unreason and oppression that KC’s religious beliefs seem to represent. And yet he’s the one who gets the most props. That seems, well, disordered.

But think about it. What exactly is it about KC’s beliefs that's so threatening? The key question has got to be, How do his beliefs affect the way he relates to other people? Because you are what you do, not what you think. On this measure, it’s hard to deny that KC comes out damn well. I don’t need to recount his good qualities—his friendliness, helpfulness, politeness, humor, lack of preaching, support of gay people, support of science, . . . He’s the last person to try to impose his beliefs on anyone. And he has the good sense to realize that atheists are a much cooler group to hang with than churchy types. Big Grin I’ve had some great discussions with him both publicly and privately, although not about his theology. It’s possible to be friends with someone in a situation of mutual respect even if one person thinks the other’s theology is not only wacky but reprehensible. It’s actions that count, not beliefs.

So I for one have no problem with a theist being a major TTA Big Shot. Actually, I think it’s kinda nice. Smile

I don't want to ever see you criticize, laugh at, or make fun of anyone for what they think or believe then. No one. I see what is going on here. The only reason you feel a need to protect him is because many members know him on a far more personal level.

I never said people's beliefs shouldn't be criticized, laughed at, or made fun of. I've done plenty of that in my time and will continue to do so when it's called for. In KC's case, I thought I had made it clear that I consider his theology wacky and reprehensible. If not, let me do so now. I consider his theology wacky and reprehensible. Like many others here, I'm hoping that eventually he'll see the light and leave the dark side, although I'm not holding my breath. The question I addressed was different: Should theists who come here receive negative reps solely because of their theistic beliefs? I explained why I thought the answer was no, and I'll stick with that.

As for protecting KC, there's no need for that. He's perfectly capable of taking care of himself.

Logica Humano Wrote:Kingschosen may be smarter and more educated than Eric Hovind, but he is still theologically similar. Does that disqualify his moderation position? No. Does that separate him from the majority of members? Yes. Does that frustrate me? Yes. It is like creating a Liberal website and putting a Conservative up as a moderator. It would not be recieved to well.

I'm a raging Lib, but if I joined a Liberal forum that had a Conservative mod who was the equivalent of KC, I wouldn't have a problem. Not that I can think of any Conservatives like that . . .

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cufflink's post
20-11-2012, 10:00 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(20-11-2012 09:52 AM)cufflink Wrote:  I never said people's beliefs shouldn't be criticized, laughed at, or made fun of. I've done plenty of that in my time and will continue to do so when it's called for. In KC's case, I thought I had made it clear that I consider his theology wacky and reprehensible. If not, let me do so now. I consider his theology wacky and reprehensible. Like many others here, I'm hoping that eventually he'll see the light and leave the dark side, although I'm not holding my breath. The question I addressed was different: Should theists who come here receive negative reps solely because of their theistic beliefs? I explained why I thought the answer was no, and I'll stick with that.

As for protecting KC, there's no need for that. He's perfectly capable of taking care of himself.
Chas has made it clear he was neg repping KC because of his intellectual dishonesty. Kingschosen is equating his religion to illogic, I have yet to see anyone argue against your point. Kingschosen has been saying he gets his negative reception because he is a Christian, when that is clearly not the case (look at the fucking rep for fucks sake).

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
20-11-2012, 10:03 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
What Cufflink addressed is the crux of the problem and why I negged Chas.

At its root, Chas negged me because of my belief... he then wrapped it up like it was something offensive I said to general intelligence.

No, he negged me because he got tired of my "irrationality" which is portrayed in my beliefs. Looking back, it's pretty obvious Chas just reached a boiling point.

Does that make it okay? Depends on who you ask. Was my neg justified. Again, depends on who you ask.

I felt it was because I negged on behavior. I don't think anyone should ever be negged on basis of beliefs. If that's the case, I should neg the Satanists on principle... just for being a Satanist... likewise, all atheists should neg theists on principle as well.

That's not a true representation of someone's persona on the forum.

Now, if one of the Satanists was continually a dick... insulted me... ignored my questions... etc, then I might have cause to neg him. Why? Because his actions as a poster are not positive. It wouldn't have anything to do with his religion.

Can you really say that Chas' neg had nothing to do with my Christianity?

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2012, 10:10 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(20-11-2012 10:03 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  What Cufflink addressed is the crux of the problem and why I negged Chas.

At its root, Chas negged me because of my belief... he then wrapped it up like it was something offensive I said to general intelligence.

No, he negged me because he got tired of my "irrationality" which is portrayed in my beliefs. Looking back, it's pretty obvious Chas just reached a boiling point.

Does that make it okay? Depends on who you ask. Was my neg justified. Again, depends on who you ask.

I felt it was because I negged on behavior. I don't think anyone should ever be negged on basis of beliefs. If that's the case, I should neg the Satanists on principle... just for being a Satanist... likewise, all atheists should neg theists on principle as well.

That's not a true representation of someone's persona on the forum.

Now, if one of the Satanists was continually a dick... insulted me... ignored my questions... etc, then I might have cause to neg him. Why? Because his actions as a poster are not positive. It wouldn't have anything to do with his religion.

Can you really say that Chas' neg had nothing to do with my Christianity?
Yes, I can. You still don't get it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2012, 10:11 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(20-11-2012 10:03 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Can you really say that Chas' neg had nothing to do with my Christianity?
Has Chas negatively repped every other Christian on the forum?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2012, 10:13 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(20-11-2012 10:03 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  What Cufflink addressed is the crux of the problem and why I negged Chas.

At its root, Chas negged me because of my belief... he then wrapped it up like it was something offensive I said to general intelligence.

No, he negged me because he got tired of my "irrationality" which is portrayed in my beliefs. Looking back, it's pretty obvious Chas just reached a boiling point.

Does that make it okay? Depends on who you ask. Was my neg justified. Again, depends on who you ask.

I felt it was because I negged on behavior. I don't think anyone should ever be negged on basis of beliefs. If that's the case, I should neg the Satanists on principle... just for being a Satanist... likewise, all atheists should neg theists on principle as well.

That's not a true representation of someone's persona on the forum.

Now, if one of the Satanists was continually a dick... insulted me... ignored my questions... etc, then I might have cause to neg him. Why? Because his actions as a poster are not positive. It wouldn't have anything to do with his religion.

Can you really say that Chas' neg had nothing to do with my Christianity?


Just because Chas reached his boiling point does in no way mean that he or anyone else has to always neg everyone who is annoying, intellectually offensive or any other quality. That's not a good argument.

Yes I think it had to do with christianity, and if I saw the point of negging in general I might neg it too. It is, in my eyes, the one negative about you. But then I would have to give you a positive too, for the upside down dogs, and it would balance out.

What worries me more is why it got you so upset that you have to neg back in a flash.

What does it matter? Why do you have to shoot back? What is the benefit of that? Nothing I can see. Absolutely nothing to be gained.

So Chas exploded at religion. Why make it personal? It's not you, it's your religion. On one hand you want us to always see the difference, to seperate the person from the belief, on the other you act like it was one and the same.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
20-11-2012, 10:20 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(20-11-2012 10:13 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(20-11-2012 10:03 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  What Cufflink addressed is the crux of the problem and why I negged Chas.

At its root, Chas negged me because of my belief... he then wrapped it up like it was something offensive I said to general intelligence.

No, he negged me because he got tired of my "irrationality" which is portrayed in my beliefs. Looking back, it's pretty obvious Chas just reached a boiling point.

Does that make it okay? Depends on who you ask. Was my neg justified. Again, depends on who you ask.

I felt it was because I negged on behavior. I don't think anyone should ever be negged on basis of beliefs. If that's the case, I should neg the Satanists on principle... just for being a Satanist... likewise, all atheists should neg theists on principle as well.

That's not a true representation of someone's persona on the forum.

Now, if one of the Satanists was continually a dick... insulted me... ignored my questions... etc, then I might have cause to neg him. Why? Because his actions as a poster are not positive. It wouldn't have anything to do with his religion.

Can you really say that Chas' neg had nothing to do with my Christianity?


Just because Chas reached his boiling point does in no way mean that he or anyone else has to always neg everyone who is annoying, intellectually offensive or any other quality. That's not a good argument.

Yes I think it had to do with christianity, and if I saw the point of negging in general I might neg it too. It is, in my eyes, the one negative about you. But then I would have to give you a positive too, for the upside down dogs, and it would balance out.

What worries me more is why it got you so upset that you have to neg back in a flash.

What does it matter? Why do you have to shoot back? What is the benefit of that? Nothing I can see. Absolutely nothing to be gained.

So Chas exploded at religion. Why make it personal? It's not you, it's your religion. On one hand you want us to always see the difference, to seperate the person from the belief, on the other you act like it was one and the same.
No, I did not explode at religion. I exploded at his intellectual dishonesty, holding himself out as a critical thinker when he clearly is not.

I'm sure there were many emotional factors involved with my post, but I had just had it with his arrogant disregard of honesty. He refuses to describe his Road to Damascus experience, yet expects us to accept its reality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: