Trinopus, I looked over some of the thread in question and see that you seem to be speaking more hypothetically than as someone who actually feels it necessary to get your digs in that way, so I apologize if the above post misrepresented you in any way.
Czarcasm, IMHO you are a “witnessing atheist” in most religious threads. I get it. Be what you please, but constantly flying that flag in any religious thread gets somewhat old and boring. You’re a good poster but, in religious threads, you’re far too predictable.
What is predictable are responses like this.
Awesome use of rubber - glue.
Why do you think these responses are predictable?
You can repeat that nonsense as much as you want, but something that is provably false is not more plausible than something that can’t be proven one way or the other. Something provably false is inherently implausible.
You are the one who has been missing the point throughout this entire thread. Your entire line of argument is based on something that was never said by PM. Hell, you pretty much agree on the actual topic of this thread. But you chose to use mocking language every single time you’ve referred to religion. You created the hijack where someone now has to defend his religion.
Because you decided to obnoxiously witness for your lack of belief.
Because sometimes it’s easier to attach a label and attack than to answer a question. For instance, Morgenstern called me a “witnessing atheist”, but of course didn’t provide any examples. Perhaps something from the most recent Great Debates “Heaven” thread will do?
Moderator Note
This is getting into personal insult territory. Attack the post, not the poster.
Also, a note to everyone. The tone of this thread is getting a bit snippy. Posts in ATMB are expected to be polite and civil. Dial it back a bit, please, and focus on the issue at hand.
Well, yes. You do the same things, you get the same response. You clearly don’t mind or you’d change what you do.
Morgenstern was going out of his way to be nice and offer constructive criticism. Mocking him is only going to make him be less considerate in the future.
But nothing about the obvious witnessing on both sides, which at this point has nothing to do with the thread topic?
From what I’ve seen Czarcasm attacks the post far more than others who attack him the poster. Don’t like his style, SD is a big, big place.
Then why are you here? It already is an impermissible point. The topic is not “is Scientology real” but “What does Scientology say about X.” The post is relevant to the first question, but not to the second. In the context of the second topic, it’s just a way to say “It’s fake, so who cares?”
I don’t know why neither you nor Czarcasm can tell the difference between the premise of a thread and the topic. There IS NO PREMISE that Scientology is accurate when ask whether Scientology is real.
You aren’t challenging the premise, but the fitness of the topic itself. You’re taking a swipe at everyone for discussing something that’s “a lie.”
And, yes, if someone wrote “What do 9/11 conspiracy theorists say caused the towers to collapse,” it would be off topic to say “9/11 conspiracy theories are stupid.” So the fuck what? That’s not the discussion we would be having.
Stop rationalizing your contempt for the topic by saying you are challenging the premise. You aren’t. You’re challenging a strawman.
Could you show me where in the “Heaven” thread I am exhibiting this supposed problem?
Really?
And, pray tell, what do I have to do to satisfy you, John Mace, wear sack cloth and go on half rations for a month?
When I say “I admit I may have gone over the line, I can be a bit biased on this topic. I will try to do better.” Well… that is precisely what I mean. Normally, criticism such as yours would not offend me (much) but coming from you, the one who is allways sticking up to defend racists from being “mislabeled”… the “I only want to make sure you examine their comments accurately” thing you do… that habit of yours was annoying before. Now, it looks very suspect.
Where is your famous objectivity, John? You know, aren’t you supposed to look at the - accuracy - of my statements and judge me on that, not, on assumptions???
BTW- I did more than just apologize. I said next time I would start a separate thread instead of derailing. And that is precisely what I did.
ETA: If I am wrong, I apologize. I get the sense that I’ve read the subtleties of our exchanges very well, very accurately, both past and present. But I haven’t had much sleep and I’m a bit riled up at the moment so given the chance I may have overreacted, I apologize.
Would you accept examples from other threads?
Are you saying you’ve got no problem with how I’ve been posting in this current Great Debate thread?
If it’s a long-term pattern of behavior, don’t you think that limiting your question to one thread is a transparent tactic to distract from the bigger problem?
Isn’t it like if a moderator stopped Handy from giving bad “medical” advice in a thread where he’d been posting before he actually gave the bad ‘medical’ advice?
Isn’t heading off problems what a good moderator does?
I have two problems with this:
1- This is a general problem, I am not even sure if you are doing this, I am riled up and a bit cranky at the moment. The concept is… we live in a society, even in 2015 in certain places in the USA, where spreading “the love of Jesus” is almost as common as saying good morning or good afternoon. Christians have had 2000+ years to take every opportunity to evangelize. Very few of the devout have ever passed on this opportunity.
I think the world can handle a little Atheist witnessing. It will be a long time yet to balance that particular scale.
2- I get the sense, just an undercurrent, from you and the OP, that, it is fine to criticize religion… as long as you do it politely. “But don’t mock! That’s rude… where is your consideration for the deeply held personal beliefs of religious people… and comment XYZ you said was not accurate! Please, Atheist, if you are going to come to this discussion, have some decorum, some propriety… that is all we ask…”
Well, no thank you. Deeply held personal religious beliefs are not immune from sanction. I’m not sure why you would imply that they should be. It’s fine to support the don’t be a jerk rule, but, religion is not and should not be given protected status.
Are you saying that patterns of behavior don’t matter?
And I’m certainly sure that if you come up with, and report, this supposed “long-term pattern of behavior” to the many good moderators here, they will most certainly do the right thing.
But I’m fairly certain they will want a bit more than just the words "“long-term pattern of behavior” to go on, though.