High there

[Cyberman]

Dear Cookie (post 60)

1. So you don’t like my tone. Alas! I’ve lost a reader! But …

But of course you don’t like my tone: I'm a theist. Stuff that you wouldn’t bat an eye at if it came from an atheist is of course intolerable coming from a theist. Maybe you should avoid my posts.

But you're a moderator. Maybe you feel obliged to read every bit of drivel that passes through these pages.

Feel obliged? No. My job here is to maintain order and ensure the rules are applied equally. I would, and do, bat my eyes just as much if an atheist engages in disruptive activity as if a theist might, or an anti-theist, or a deist, or an anarchist, or - you get the idea. Basically, my approach is to ignore how a person identifes themselves and assess what they have to say and how they say it. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should avoid my posts. Oops, you can't, can you? Oh dear.

I'm certainly not going to change my “tone” to suit every individual. Maybe you should just have me liquidated.

Then any future concern in this area will go to Staff consideration.

If it helps, I'm not going to call anyone a “liar” (post 65); much less a “pervert” (post 33). So tell us—forgetting anything as ambiguous as the “tone:” How do you feel about the content in those posts?

Already addressed. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, so you have no basis for comment.

And … what is it that a moderator does, exactly?

Think of me as a policeman.

But it raises a question for me. If I author a thread, what assurance do I have that it's not going to be filled with an atheist “tone”—all the sneering, snide remarks, name-calling, crudity—all the inanity that atheism is heir to?

None at all. It's called freedom of speech. As long as none of the content runs counter to the rules and nobody, including Staff, finds a problem with it, everyone is free to say anything they like. That said, please bear in mind that this is a community, made up of people who in many cases have grown to know and respect each other over periods of years. A lot of us have forged our friendships over several boards during that time. That's not to say we don't welcome outsiders into our merry little band, but the general rule is don't be a dick. If someone comes in and drops a shit on the carpet, they have to be prepared for someone to say something about it.

I'm not even going to address your last sentence, since I strongly suspect it was intended to get a rise out of me. I'll just say what I say to everyone: if you see something whaich you regard as a problem, report it. It's as easy as clicking the [Report post] button.

Please. Get back to me on that one.

My pleasure.

2. If there’s some specific assertion I've made that you’d like me to address in some future thread (or as you put it, to “justify or abandon”) —please: just name it.

I'm sure somebody will oblige.

3. As for “Pascal’s wager:” you obviously have some fascination with it. But I'm afraid it’s a fascination I don’t share. “Pascal’s wager” has never impressed me much.

Fascination? Simply because I called you on it? By that reasoning, you seem to have a fascination for me, since you crafted a post all about me. If you want to take me out for a drink or something, I'll have to check my social calendar. Not promising anything, mind. Not on a first date.

But you want to hear my reasons.

Unfortunately, I haven’t given a thought to “Pascal’s wager” in at least forty years. “Pascal’s wager” is irrelevant to the subjects that currently interest me and consequently it's never referred to in the literature that I read.

Then please refrain from using it. It really is that simple.

So I have no motivation for looking into “Pascal’s wager.” Except—

Except that you're interested; and perhaps you want me to help you think it through. If this is so then I will take the time to see if there’s anything new that philosophers are saying about “Pascal’s wager.” But Wikipedia and Stanford Encyclopedia are about as far as I'm willing to go.

No need to go anywhere; this is not so. You are trying to make me seem uncertain in my atheism. Rest assured, I am not.

Perhaps you're in pain, suffering from some terminal illness, and need answers right away. In that case of course I will help you.

Nope. Swing and a miss. Added to which, belittling my position and focussing on my character in order to elevate your own won't fly.

4. Then you mention evidence—that’s a bold step for an atheist in the 21st century.

Of course - since any fule kno that asking for evidence to substantiate unusual and extraordinary claims is so passé. Null hypothesis and Occam's Razor be damned! We've got wild assertion now!

Do you want the kind of currently available evidence that has changed the minds of former atheists? Or do you want antiques like 19th century Darwinism, or “Pascal’s wager?”

Depends. Do you have any at all? Never mind going to parodic extremes. I don't care what it is. They're your claims, you stump up.

We're now in the 21st century. Any atheist raising the subject of evidence is lingering in the 19th century.

I want you to bear this in mind the very next time a theist asks for 'book, chapter and verse' for some biblical contradiction or other.

(I won't be so patronizing as to say that you're “out of step with reality.” —But you know: we're both going to have to forgive this kind of rhetoric, like it or not. it's just too easy to do and too hard to avoid. Still (to mention this again) rhetoric is one thing—crudity and stupidity are something else altogether.)

Then I'm sure we're both relieved you didn't say those things.

5. We'll take up the subject of the definition of atheism as contrasted to what individual atheists assert in some future thread.

Or we could simply kill it here and now. Again.

Theist - a person who believes in the existence of one or more gods and often makes existential claims, thereby attracting the burden of proof.

Atheist - a person who has no such belief (the negator prefix 'a-' is the clue here - 'without gods') and rejects theists' existential claims upon examination. Further, a person whose opinion is that theists have yet to meet the burden of proof.

How many future threads have I generated already? —and this is just my first introduction.

Wow, you must be vewwy smart.

I apologise, that was rude of me.

How much does the forum revolve around one single member? How many people actually consider you worth engaging enough to continue discussing what you have to share with us? Are you asking for a prophecy? Great, I'll draw up an invoice and we can do lunch. Maybe I'll let you walk me home, but remember I'm not promising anything.