MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[robvalue]

Personally I don't understand what significance it is that jesus might have said something about men being gods. But I'm glad you have found meaning in it, without having to buy in to all the associated bullshit.

That's exactly what I advocate, take away from these books what is useful and meaningful to you. Same as any book. You don't have to have sex with the book, put it on a pedestal and defend the shitty bits in it.

[Esquilax]

To be fair, I think his point about bias is apt, just as apt as when I signed up on a Christian forum and received similar treatment.

I don't think it's a mark against the forum or its members, for the simple reason that bias can be grounded solidly or it can be irrational. I am biased against companies which disseminate cancer-causing agents, not out of emotional spite, but out of rational views. In a similar vein, I am biased against Christianity, because I have examined its premises, and found the god hypothesis entirely unsatisfactory in explanatory power; it raises more questions than it answers.

I agree that bias as you've described it exists in the forum, but that's not the definition of bias Brucer is using when he says that we're just biased against christianity and that is the reason our conclusions don't match his and should be discarded. When he says that- which he did- he's using bias to mean that we don't have open minds and are simply adhering to a presupposition that impedes a fair evaluation of the claims of his religion, and that's what I object to.

The fact that he later backtracked and pretended he was using your definition of the word, Parkers, doesn't alter the fact that the argument he used wouldn't make sense unless he was using the term negatively.

Your attitude and dishonesty encourages me to not trust a single word you say.

You're the one equivocating on definitions and, I think, misinterpreting what I'm actually saying, for whatever reason. I may have an attitude, but you were the one who stoked it by dictating to others what they believe and why. As to dishonesty, there you go yet again; perhaps I actually believe what I'm saying, and aren't simply lying to get you, did you ever even consider that? Don't flatter yourself by thinking you're worthy of some vendetta; if you hadn't started accusing people of bias I would never have stepped in.

If you ever want to earn the trust of any theists on this forum you are going to have to buck up, look in the mirror, look at the attitude of this forum against theists and carefully consider your position.

There are theists on this forum that I get along with quite well. It's only the needlessly combative ones who feel they can tell the staff how to do their jobs that I butt heads with; I wonder why that is?

As to "my position," if you're still telling me you think my position is that there isn't any animosity against christianity here, then you really need to go back and read my prior posts here, because you'd be dead wrong.

You see me with attitude right now? That attitude is directly related to how I have been treated, and you wonder why theists get banned so much on this forum?

How you've been treated is directly related to how you've conducted yourself in this thread, you're no innocent victim here.

When moderators such as yourself involve themselves into assisting the ridicule of theists, what do you think that says to theists about the leadership on this forum?

I may be a moderator, but I'm also a poster here, and the common understanding is that I and the rest of the team conduct ourselves as both; we indicate when we're speaking in an official context, and the rest of the time, we aren't. We induct theists onto the mod- and even the admin!- teams too, and every decision made behind the scenes requires multiple votes from numerous members of staff, not just one of us, to eliminate any possibility of misconduct. We even recuse ourselves from voting on these issues if they relate to us personally.

If you think the fact that I engage in the forum as anything other than an impartial adjudicator robot "says" anything about the leadership here, the only reason you could think that is due to immense ignorance regarding the nature of the staff, the running of this forum, and the procedures therein. Now for you, this doesn't surprise me; you've only been here a few days, and already you've proven yourself quite incapable of withholding judgement on issues and people you know little about.

Do you want theists on this forum? Do you think a theist can trust you? Seriously?

If you don't want any theists here, just keep doing what you are doing.

The theists can trust me to do my job as a moderator impartially, as can the atheist contingent. That doesn't mean I stop being a person, nor the user I was in the months leading up to my recruitment to the staff. I'd suggest that you stop running your mouth about this, since you have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, nor the lengths we go to to keep impartiality. Just as an example, to show how truly ridiculous this accusation of yours is, just yesterday I, personally, defended you when somebody brought up the possibility that you might be a sock account. If we truly were as terrible at our jobs as you claim, if I actually had something against you, that would have been a perfect opportunity for me to whip up a vote to get you banned, but the evidence just wasn't there and so I counseled against it, and nothing came of it.

So please, tell me again how the theists here can't trust me and the rest of the staff to be impartial when running the forum.

[Tonus]

His teachings simply resonate with me, not unlike the teachings of Richard Dawkins resonate with atheists.

I think that Dawkins' teachings are more likely to resonate with biologists. I think that many people do consider his views on god and religion to be teachings, but at best I'd consider them reasoned opinions.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That attitude is directly related to how I have been treated, and you wonder why theists get banned so much on this forum?

Actually, I've never wondered about it. It's been my observation that they get banned because they preach rather than discuss.

I think the Staff here are pretty tolerant. You look at some asshole like the OP, whose post have all the content of the back of a box of Rice Krispies, who devolves into personal attacks when he doesn't secure agreement, and who contributes nothing else to the forum -- look at him. He's still here, and hasn't been banned.

Look at Drich. Here we have a Christian who has wished AIDS and cancer upon his atheist interlocutors, who is currently in another thread arguing that the slavery depicted in the Bible is moral even as he impugns the morality of others here -- look at him. He's still here.

Take Alpha Male and A Theist. Both surly, at least one of them pretty racist, neither of whom engages in discussion unless they've a bomb they want to throw. Neither banned.

No, assuming that bannings happen because the mods don't permit theists to express themselves is not accurate. The theists who get banned are the ones who preach, rather than discuss, generally.

---

Read the Rules. Insults are not disallowed, as long as no personal attack is involved. It's generally and popularly known as free speech.

You seem all for insulting theists, if my experience with you so far is to be considered. You think I can trust what you say?

Who in my position would?

No one.

You could, of course, read upthread in this very thread. There you will see a theist, the OP, freely insulting folks, without being banned.

You need not trust anyone but yourself, and you can verify what he's said.

[His_Majesty]

"Reading comprehension, people."

Um, it was a joke

---

Ah, your effectiveness. You are pretty effective at crying about staff decisions and having immense delusions of grandeur. Your stupidity ranks up there with the best (worst of them) as well. Aside from that, I don't really see any evidence of you being good at anything.

If you've got an issue, I suggest you either report it, or suck it up and out your big boy pants on.

You can spare me the rhetoric, all I want to know is can I move to part 3 without my thread being messed with by the forum gods??

Yes or no? And I am asking you directly since you were the one that came up with that shitty idea in the first place.

---

You can however get banned for being an arsehole.

Do atheists get banned for being assholes?

[Thumpalumpacus]

To be fair, I think his point about bias is apt, just as apt as when I signed up on a Christian forum and received similar treatment.

I don't think it's a mark against the forum or its members, for the simple reason that bias can be grounded solidly or it can be irrational. I am biased against companies which disseminate cancer-causing agents, not out of emotional spite, but out of rational views. In a similar vein, I am biased against Christianity, because I have examined its premises, and found the god hypothesis entirely unsatisfactory in explanatory power; it raises more questions than it answers.

I agree that bias as you've described it exists in the forum, but that's not the definition of bias Brucer is using when he says that we're just biased against christianity and that is the reason our conclusions don't match his and should be discarded. When he says that- which he did- he's using bias to mean that we don't have open minds and are simply adhering to a presupposition that impedes a fair evaluation of the claims of his religion, and that's what I object to.

The fact that he later backtracked and pretended he was using your definition of the word, Parkers, doesn't alter the fact that the argument he used wouldn't make sense unless he was using the term negatively.

I get that. I disagree that motive matters in bias. I might be biased against something based on fair or unfair ground -- but that bias still exists and has the potential to color my perceptions as well as my commentary. That was my point.

I only felt the need to make it because of the last sentence I quoted from you ("[...] but since you have- as I pointed out- no way of determining what the given motivation is, you have no justification for accusing any of us of bias."}

You're right that making an assertion of bias in advance of a disagreement is not just poor form, it's fatuous, and I wasn't disagreeing with that point of yours. I was simply pointing out that bias is bias no matter what brought it about. It behooves us to be alert to it at all times in our thinking, I'm sure you'll agree, and part of that, to my way of thinking, is to avoid minimizing it.

[rexbeccarox]

"Reading comprehension, people."

Um, it was a joke

---

Ah, your effectiveness. You are pretty effective at crying about staff decisions and having immense delusions of grandeur. Your stupidity ranks up there with the best (worst of them) as well. Aside from that, I don't really see any evidence of you being good at anything.

If you've got an issue, I suggest you either report it, or suck it up and out your big boy pants on.

You can spare me the rhetoric, all I want to know is can I move to part 3 without my thread being messed with by the forum gods??

Yes or no? And I am asking you directly since you were the one that came up with that shitty idea in the first place.

---

You can however get banned for being an arsehole.

Do atheists get banned for being assholes?

(bold mine)

If your Part Three is anything like your Part Two, Part Three will be merged with this thread. If you don't bring forth new points, you don't get to have a new thread. It's that simple. I will say you'd better tread carefully on this one. You wouldn't want to get banned for spamming.

[Esquilax]

You can spare me the rhetoric, all I want to know is can I move to part 3 without my thread being messed with by the forum gods??

Yes or no? And I am asking you directly since you were the one that came up with that shitty idea in the first place.

And the short answer is we don't know, since the determination to merge threads depends very much on the content of the thread in question, how distinct it is to any other threads the OP has made, how varied the content or discussion is. We don't have a one size fits all answer because we take things on a case by case basis, and since we merged your threads based on content and not this strange vendetta you seem to think we have against you, we have no way of knowing whether your part 3 will be a candidate for merging until you write it.

You could just save us all the time and bother and write your part three here in this thread, but by now you've taken this (minor, inoffensive) example of mod action as a threat to your pride, you'll no doubt just have to make an additional thread no matter what the rational, mature course of action would be.

You can however get banned for being an arsehole.

Do atheists get banned for being assholes?

Yes, actually. Assuming they do it sufficient to be labelled disruptive, we do just that. One of the last people we banned who wasn't just a spam account was an atheist.

You're right that making an assertion of bias in advance of a disagreement is not just poor form, it's fatuous, and I wasn't disagreeing with that point of yours. I was simply pointing out that bias is bias no matter what brought it about. It behooves us to be alert to it at all times in our thinking, I'm sure you'll agree, and part of that, to my way of thinking, is to avoid minimizing it.

Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't deny that we're subject to our own individual preconceptions.

[LastPoet]

You can spare me the rhetoric, all I want to know is can I move to part 3 without my thread being messed with by the forum gods??

Yes or no? And I am asking you directly since you were the one that came up with that shitty idea in the first place.

You haven't yet made something out of part 1, let alone part 2... Sure, go ahead, but if it is the same bullshit, it WILL BE MERGED.

Do atheists get banned for being assholes?

Also, yes, all the time.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Reading comprehension, people."

Um, it was a joke

Believe me -- I don't take anything you write seriously.