Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws

[Statler Waldorf]

Unfortunately, I've been banned at Christianforums.org. They don't like it when people make arguments against Christianity, even when the critic confines his/her arguments in their apologist section.

According to you that must mean you lost the arguments since they didn’t approve of them.

Good luck finding a Christian forum that doesn't censor and/or ban critics of Christianity. The fact that they don't allow debate and censor comments that hurt their feelings says much about the merits of the arguments on your side.

According to you the merits of arguments are determined by the approval of the readers, so apparently your arguments were poor enough to get you banned.

Sad to say, the only place you'll find where you can openly debate religion on a level playing field where comments won't be censored is on an atheist forum like this one.

Possibly a true statement; most of the time though, non-Christians are banned from Christian forums for violating the personal conduct rules, it has nothing to do with arguments and everything to do with respectful presentation of such arguments. If it makes you feel any better, if I had my own Christian forum I’d allow you to post there, I think open debate does nothing but help the advancement of the faith.

But as I've said, you go on thinking that you won.

Will do Captain!

Why would I care if reasoning from the descriptive to the normative is invalid? As I've told you many times, I'm not interested in arguing what morality -ought to be- argue that with someone else.

*sigh*, I am not talking about arguing what morality ought to be (which itself would be a moral statement); I am talking about arguing what morality is. Morality is a system of prescriptive (ought) statements, you cannot prove what these statements are by making appeals to that which is only descriptive (the way things are); that is why all of your attempts to prove what morality is and is not are completely logically invalid.

It doesn't matter whether or not you or I would sign on with such a thing, as the bit the makes morality relative is the bit that isn't confined to your head. Other people. Other goals. Other norms. Atheism isn't a determining factor in whether or not something is relative. Even if there were no atheists, your vying theistic moralities would be relative. It doesn't even matter if everyone is a goddamned atheist Stat - their vying moralities would be relative.

You’ve done nothing to prove that morality is relative, so until you do that anything beyond that is meaningless.

[DeistPaladin]

According to you that must mean you lost the arguments since they didn’t approve of them.

The problem was not that they didn't find my arguments convincing. The problem is they deleted my posts and banned me from posting again.

Leaving an argument stand for all to read and not even consider it worthy of reply is a sign you find the argument weak.

Censoring an argument and deleting it so others don't see it is a sign you find the argument too strong to challenge and censorship is your only recourse.

Very different things.

If it makes you feel any better, if I had my own Christian forum I’d allow you to post there, I think open debate does nothing but help the advancement of the faith.

Evidently, your brothers and sisters in Christ that do run their own forums don't share that confidence for whatever reason.

[Anomalocaris]

Evidently, your brothers and sisters in Christ that do run their own forums don't share that confidence for whatever reason.

Evidently even wordorf's brothers and sisters in christ isn't quite as foolish as he, and knows when to overturn the card table rather than attempt to double down with chips that exists only in his mind.

[Ryantology]

You’ve done nothing to prove that morality is relative, so until you do that anything beyond that is meaningless.

You've done nothing to prove it is objective, and since yours is the assertion which defies both logic and common sense...

[Statler Waldorf]

The problem was not that they didn't find my arguments convincing. The problem is they deleted my posts and banned me from posting again.

Probably because they didn’t find your arguments convincing and they were therefore bad arguments, I see now why you like making appeals to popularity, they’re kind of fun!

Leaving an argument stand for all to read and not even consider it worthy of reply is a sign you find the argument weak.

No, that’s called allowing an argument to stand un-refuted, and is a good way to lose the debate, as you seem to like to do. Bad arguments are easy to refute, sound arguments are impossible to refute which is why you ignore them and pretend they are “not worthy of reply”.

Censoring an argument and deleting it so others don't see it is a sign you find the argument too strong to challenge and censorship is your only recourse.

They could just play a card from your deck and simply say the argument was so bad it was not worthy of being allowed to remain on their board. You’d have no grounds to object since you play that card all the time when you’re beat.

Evidently, your brothers and sisters in Christ that do run their own forums don't share that confidence for whatever reason.

Perhaps, or they hold their posters to a higher standard of respect and personal conduct that you do not measure up to. I do not know why you were banned and I am a bit skeptical that it was because your arguments were just too awesome; after all I am quite familiar with your arguments.

Evidently even wordorf's brothers and sisters in christ isn't quite as foolish as he, and knows when to overturn the card table rather than attempt to double down with chips that exists only in his mind.

You mean “aren’t quite as foolish”?

You've done nothing to prove it is objective, and since yours is the assertion which defies both logic and common sense...

There’s nothing about moral objectivism that defies logic. An appeal to common sense is logically fallacious. If you’re going to accuse someone of “defying logic” you should first ensure that all of your logical ducks are in a row so to speak.

[Rahul]

Possibly a true statement; most of the time though, non-Christians are banned from Christian forums for violating the personal conduct rules, it has nothing to do with arguments and everything to do with respectful presentation of such arguments. If it makes you feel any better, if I had my own Christian forum I’d allow you to post there, I think open debate does nothing but help the advancement of the faith.

I tried this once. Didn't work. I read all the forum rules very carefully and made a post violating none of them, not being angry, and carefully missing any curse words.

The post was immediately deleted and my account banned. Boom. One post banning.

I was pretty proud of myself.

The smallest number of posts it's taken me to get banned from an atheist forum was 3 posts. So doing 1 with a Christian forum while not violating any rules was a real feather in my cap.

[DeistPaladin]

Probably because they didn’t find your arguments convincing

...in which case, they should have left the arguments up there for people to read and laugh at. Just like how I quote you in my signature. When the other side makes a bad argument, you don't censor it. You copy and paste it for others to read. You celebrate it as an epic failure by the other side. You only delete, censor and try to hide arguments that are so devastating that censorship is your only recourse.

No, that’s called allowing an argument to stand un-refuted, and is a good way to lose the debate, as you seem to like to do. Bad arguments are easy to refute, sound arguments are impossible to refute which is why you ignore them and pretend they are “not worthy of reply”.

Some arguments are so bad, you don't refute them but proudly quote them. Others are so nonsensical that you can't offer an argument against it but leaving it un-refuted does nothing for the other side.

For example, if a Christian apologist were to ever offer this argument (hypothetically) as a proof for Jesus:

1. Zwooop bing icky xan dun kopw quing nuuuugggggggg
2. No one has ever refuted point #1
3. Therefore, Jesus.

I would not think such an argument needs to be "refuted" as it was nonsensical and proves nothing. That's how I see your presuppositional apologetic argument for Jesus.

I also get tired of saying, "Bare assertion; prove it. Bare assertion; prove it. Bare assertion; prove it." Your last post that I left un-refuted only offered a list of bare assertions that you call "proof". Everyone can see that, so no rebuttal is needed.

But you go ahead and confuse you wearing me down with ad neuseum claims with "victory". I shall not spoil your celebration.

Perhaps, or they hold their posters to a higher standard of respect and personal conduct that you do not measure up to.

As you know from me, I very rarely cuss and I do not personally attack my opponent. My posts were repeatedly deleted for "bashing Christianity" (they didn't like how I quoted the Bible and pointed out how scripture contradicts itself and contradicts modern understandings of how the universe works). I replied to the admins that censorship is the last resort of dishonest people who know they're wrong. I was then banned as a "troll".

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I tried this once. Didn't work. I read all the forum rules very carefully and made a post violating none of them, not being angry, and carefully missing any curse words.

The post was immediately deleted and my account banned. Boom. One post banning.

I was pretty proud of myself.

The smallest number of posts it's taken me to get banned from an atheist forum was 3 posts. So doing 1 with a Christian forum while not violating any rules was a real feather in my cap.

---

Interesting, I would have liked to have read what you posted. What Christian forum was this? Why were you banned from the atheist forum in 3 posts? I’ve actually never been banned.

...in which case, they should have left the arguments up there for people to read and laugh at. Just like how I quote you in my signature. When the other side makes a bad argument, you don't censor it. You copy and paste it for others to read. You celebrate it as an epic failure by the other side. You only delete, censor and try to hide arguments that are so devastating that censorship is your only recourse.

I love the fact you’ve allowed me to demonstrate to the world in your own signature that you do not know what “begging the question” means! It’s done far more damage to your own image than I could have ever done on my own. That being said, how do you know that the Christian forum doesn’t just have a standard of merit that your posts are not living up to and that’s why they are being deleted? I doubt Nature and Science reject articles for publishing because they are “just too awesome!”

Some arguments are so bad, you don't refute them but proudly quote them. Others are so nonsensical that you can't offer an argument against it but leaving it un-refuted does nothing for the other side.

That’s funny, “Grizzly Bears are so weak I do not bother wasting my time wrestling them!”

And some arguments, such as mine, are just sound and therefore you cannot refute them so you do not try. I am on to your tactics!

Your arguments are very easy to refute, and yet I take the time to refute them because I realize that the quickest way to lose a debate is by allowing an argument to stand un-refuted. You obviously have not learned that yet, which is why you lose again and again.

I would not think such an argument needs to be "refuted" as it was nonsensical and proves nothing. That's how I see your presuppositional apologetic argument for Jesus.

Cute, but that’s yet another faulty analogy (your calling card apparently), that argument fails because the conclusion does not follow from the premises, so it’s not valid. Point to any of my arguments that are logically invalid? You cannot do so, the reason you do not respond to them is because you know they are sound and therefore cannot be refuted (it’s obviously not for the sake of time because you’ve wasted all of this time explaining why you do not reply to them).

A better analogy…

DP: I do not believe 22 is an even number!
SW: P1] All numbers divisible by 2 are even numbers
P2] 22 is divisible by 2
C] Therefore, 22 is an even number
DP: That argument is not even worthy of reply! 22 is not an even number!

So small time.

I also get tired of saying, "Bare assertion; prove it. Bare assertion; prove it. Bare assertion; prove it." Your last post that I left un-refuted only offered a list of bare assertions that you call "proof". Everyone can see that, so no rebuttal is needed.

I get tired of you misusing that term as well. A bare assertion is an assertion that has no reason behind it, not only do all of my assertions have reasons behind them, but I also gave those reasons. Now they are standing nicely un-refuted, everyone can see that.

But you go ahead and confuse you wearing me down with ad neuseum claims with "victory". I shall not spoil your celebration.

My oh my, you’re like the fat kid whose been lapped in the race and does not want to continue the race because his opponent is “too slow to present a challenge”, the excuses are coming hard and fast. Obviously you’re not that worn down if you are willing to spend so much effort claiming your too worn down to debate anymore, tuck tail and run- you’ve been beaten handedly.

As you know from me, I very rarely cuss and I do not personally attack my opponent.

I will give you credit, that statement is true. I enjoy our debates, you provide enough of a challenge to keep things interesting and you avoid this sort of filth. Kudos. I actually believe your story (although I doubt it was because your arguments were just too awesome), I have heard that many Christian forums ban members and delete posts too easily. I think a lot of it has to do with the mentality of the modern evangelical church, there’s a prevailing mentality that people should avoid debating because it’s seen as conflict. It’s almost a bizarre form of Christian post-modernism (it’s ok to believe whatever you want about the Bible as long as you believe it with your heart and do not debate it). Like I said, you’d be welcome in my forum my friend (but there'd probably only be two of us in there).

[fr0d0]

I'm sure there are a lot of good atheists that are permanent members of Christian forums. All you have to do is play by their rules just like theists have to play by the rules on atheist forums.

If you got banned and whine about it, that makes you a whiner. I'm sure the instabanned from here take great pleasure gloating back at base too.

[DeistPaladin]

I'm sure there are a lot of good atheists that are permanent members of Christian forums. All you have to do is play by their rules just like theists have to play by the rules on atheist forums.

I also know of atheists who post on ChristianForums and some spoke with me after my banning. Basically, you walk a very careful line. They know where these lines are and have a strategy they follow.

It's like being a liberal on Fox Noise. If you're a good little liberal who never makes a forceful argument, they'll let you stay around. The minute you get out of line and you say something they don't want to hear, they cut your mic and throw you out.

Same thing with being an atheist allowed to stay on Christianforums. You can "ask questions" but you can't make arguments. Directly making an argument against the Bible or pointing out flaws in Christian theology is a no-no.

I've never whined about it. I simply maintain that censorship is the last resort of people who know they're wrong and are dishonest enough to use it. The administrators of ChristianForums are liars and cowards and when the censored and banned me, they essentially sent me a message saying, "You are right and we are unable to argue against you. This is our only option."