Pantera

MeBeSmart

I couldn't see much of substance in your first point to reply to, your second is a comment on one of the people posting here and not the site itself, but I will respond to some of the nonsense you spouted under (3).

</strong>

"Defamatory" means anything which could result in legal action under US law. It is prohibited because to allow it would leave the Internet Infidels open to potential legal liability. While I was not too taken with the level of invective Koy threw at Kenny, I did not see anything which would fall into that category.

Quote:

Another example is rule four, which states : “You will not post material that is sexually or otherwise obscene and has no educational purpose or any significant relevance to an ongoing and legitimate discussion.” This is an odd rule, considering if you look around the secular web you will find plenty of “discussions” focusing on sexually obscene behavior. One such example is a recent one on “penis size” and another on bestiality, which, at least to most, would seem to be rather “obscene”.

"Obscene" is a somewhat subjective term I will grant, but we are an adult site, just not an Adult Site. I am just as shocked as you are by the fact that there are wicked, depraved people out there who not only have sex, but actually talk about it , but as a site aimed at grown ups we do not feel the need to censor discussion of what grown ups do. Additionally, this is a site largely devoted to the discussion of religion or lack of it, and as religious moralists are frequently obsessed with sex, any discussion of religious versus seclular morality is inevitably going to touch on sexual issues - yes, even (gasp) homosexuality and (faints) bestiality. If you are offended by the mere mention of such topics, may I suggest that you do not click on threads with titles like "sex" and "P*nis size" or "Is bestiality moral?".

"Sexually obscene" basically refers to pornography, which is prohibited largely on aesthetic grounds.



M.J. himself admitted that his reason for telling that joke was to cause offense. He can therefore hardly have any complaints about the fact that people did take offense, and express it.



I assume this is a joke. In the unlikely event that we get a complaint from Sinbad we might look into this, but otherwise I think we'll just assume that he doesn't mind a few of his lines entering the public idiom. If you are actually attempting to support a charge of hypocrisy with this sort of nonsense then I'm afraid you have just lost what little credibility you might have had. You are the weakest link - goodbye.



As president of a private organisation, Jeff Lucas has the absolute right to publish or not to publish whatever he wants to on this private website, subject to whatever legal restrictions are in force. He is no more obliged to publish M.J.'s writings than is the editor of the New York Times, and is entirely justified in pointing that out. This is indeed the free press - having a free press means that if you or M.J. do not like our publication you can find another one or start your own, not that we are obliged to publish anything you want us to.

Still, given your obvious dislike of our site, I assume you won't be reading this (after all, what sort of idiot would keep returning to a place he hated?), so I won't bother writing any more.

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

A stunning endictment, I'm sure, though I admit I'm at a loss as to your point. I have never obfuscated the truth with repeated non-answers or baseless declarations.

If by your "cultly cutlishly cultilishy you're in a cult" nonsense is to imply that stating someone is in a cult based upon the religious theology they post is your idea of a "baseless declaration," then I would simply direct your attention to Websters:

But, thanks for demonstrating my point for me.

Koyaanisqatsi

Another perfect example of how I am falsely accused.

As anyone who has ever read any of my posts knows I go to great pains to detail and demonstrate as conclusively as possible every element of my deconstruction so that the arguments I make are clearly and readily available for counter-refutation in kind.

Whether or not "you simply end up being wrong" is a judgment based upon the level of counter refutation, not a subjective, unsupportable declaration as you have made here.

If you have issue with my dismissive tone and use of ancillary invective, that's one thing, but falsely accusing me of transgressions I do not make is entirely uncalled for.

Indeed, it is this kind of disingenuous crap that leads to the invective in the first place and while I certainly would prefer to address the arguments, rarely is that the case.

In the thread with Kenny that began all of this, for example, I had posted several detailed arguments against his position, which he never addressed in favor of making this the false issue precisely because, IMO, he was not capable of directly addressing the issues.

IMO, false piousness is all too often used as an evasion tactic and anyone who followed that thread can readily see this was the case with Kenny, just as it is the case here.

Again, if you're afraid of words, then this isn't the site for you.

I defy you to show just one example of this from any of my posts. Just one, but you'd better damn well demonstrate that I was "shown wrong" and then started implying that "you're dumb" or full of "shit" as a result of my being shown wrong or retract that false accusation immediately.

I have never been "shown wrong" and done anything of this nature so put up or apologize if you have any shred of integrity left.

I couldn't have picked a better example of what I was talking about in my first post here. You're a shining example of christian cult morals, MeBeSmart, so by all means, please continue.

Again, present just one example where I was shown to be wrong (i.e., my argument was demonstrated to be incorrect through counter-refutation) and my response was to go "around the issue" or bring up something "irrelevant."

Making baseless, unsupported accusations are so easy for you aren't they?

Bullshit.

Ooh, there you go, Kenny. Take that one out of context too and add it to your conflated list.

I fail to see how those words are not the words of a rational person. I don't give a rat's ass about Kenny or about his beliefs. Kenny demonstrated that he was deliberately evasive and incapable of directly refuting my arguments, choosing instead to jump (as you are) on the pious bandwagon to make it seem as if he was the brunt of some sort of premeditated attack against him, when any honest person can easily see that my responses were entirely according to the fact that he had consistently evaded and redirected my arguments without directly addressing them.

I care very little for anyone making baseless proclamations and arguments from authority over and over and over even though this has been demonstrated to them repeatedly to be fallacious and unsupportable; who then hide behind the cloak of piousness as a childish evasion tactic so as to not have to answer for the fact that they are doing nothing more than declaring they are right "just because."

As for my not caring about his beliefs, in case you had missed it the first time, this is the secular web and while it is true in general that I don't care for any cult oriented belief system, in this instance my response was directly addressing the fact that Kenny had offered yet another non-answer to my question by stating (as memory serves) that there was ample evidence for belief, which was not the question and never has been.

As I pointed out repeatedly in my posts in that thread, no one is requesting evidence to support belief in something since people clearly do not need evidence to believe in things; the request for evidence is to establish the factual existence of something, not to establish a belief in the factual existence of something.

Is that painfully obvious now?

And they have all been incorrect as I have demonstrated repeatedly.

No, I do not, but why should that stop you from making more false accusations?

Yes, well, that is the case when I do clearly demonstrate exactly what it is I mean so, again, your point is lost on me.

I demonstrated at least three times exactly how Kenny was avoiding the arguments and providing unsupportable declarations in the place of either answers or counter-refutation, but that didn't stop him from blowing all of this way out of proportion.

I suppose I really should take into consideration the fragile egos of people who can't handle being shown in a detailed, methodical manner that their arguments have no impact and their observations no support, but then that's why I always try to go through someone's post point-by-point (as I am doing with yours now) so as to give that person the opportunity to see exactly what arguments I am making and upon what arguments of theirs I am basing my arguments upon in as detailed and exhaustive a manner possible, in order to foster a response on their behalf in kind.

Kenny chose instead to do pretty much what you are doing here, so it comes as little surprise to me that others would deny that my meaning had been clearly demonstrated and just continue blindly onward with their own agenda.

And that's just the point. It takes two to have a discussion. Had Kenny actually wished to engage in a discussion, then he would have directly addressed all of my arguments the first or even the second or possibly the third time that I made them.

Instead, he ignored the majority of them and provided unsupportable arguments from assumed authority to the others, all the while attempting to weasel out of direct counter-refutation by either stating that his arguments were not his own (he was merely arguing from within "classic christian" theology, whatever the hell that means) or to make issue of my tone, which did not start to be in any way antagonistic, IMO, until the second and third time that my arguments were evaded.

With that said, I would just like to thank you once again, MeBeSmart for demonstrating conclusively exactly what I was talking about.

The defense rests. Call the next witness...

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

The Loneliest Monk

Koyaanisqatsi:

The Meriam Webster website gives the following definitions for the word "cult":
While the definitions you listed are certainly given here, would you not agree that definition 3 is the meaning that seems to be the most commonly applied in general usage?

Kenny

Pantera,

I would also like to thank you for taking time to address my concerns.

I believe that this is already starting to happen in Koy’s case. I know that there are a number of Christian posters on this board who simply refuse to have any interaction with him anymore. Even before the present situation developed, I considered responding to Koy to be of lowest priority in relation to the other posters and was reluctant to engage him at all based on my observations of how he has treated Christian posters on other threads.

I realize that my own observations are idiosyncratic, although I do not believe I am the only theist around here that thinks that way. Of course, I realize the subjective element involved here. As this is an atheist board, I do not expect the moderators to be free of all bias (I do not believe that such is possible), but I do hope that the attempt to be as impartial as possible be made. Thank you for your attempts to see that such is the case.

Thank you.

God Bless,
Kenny

Koyaanisqatsi

I do not see anything in the third level definition that would be contrary to my legitimate and correct usage of the word "cult."

As has been demonstrated on this site repeatedly, there is no "orthodox" christian theology. If you can name one and then demonstrate that every single cult member who posts here adheres to that "orthodox" theology, then you would have an argument.

Further, IMO, any theology is spurious. It relies upon arguments from authority and claims of supernatural fantasy creatures to explain existence, when absolutely no such claims are either necessary or supportable by facts in evidence.

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can: IMO, If you believe that a work of fiction is in fact a work of non-fiction (and you have no evidence to support such a ludicrous claim) and further you indoctrinate your children and community through inculcation that they must believe that the work of fiction is in fact a work of non-fiction regardless and in spite of the lack of supportable facts in evidence or suffer eternal punishment from a mythological creature, then you are in a cult and are, therefore, a cult member.

Now that I have justified both Webster's definition and my own as clearly as possible as well as defended myself against that which needs no defense, I would like to offer my own accusations. IMO, the only reason cult members object to being called cult members is that they know, deep down inside, that it is true and that they are living and believing in a lie that they cannot reconcile, only deny.

Kenny has launched this childish, pious McCarthyism for the sole reason that he was incapable of refuting or even addressing my arguments directly and realized that my observations and arguments had effortlessly reduced his position to the bare bones: asserted, unsupportable declarations from assumed authority.

Other cult members are leaping into the fray because they can't stand the fact that I am correct in my assessment of their beliefs and so have resorted to an age-old tactic, the witch hunt; loaded with false accusations and grandiose proclamations based upon unsupported generalizations and conflation of invective taken out of context (a favored accusation cult members usually employ against atheists and agnostics when they quote from the bible, I might add).

I make no bones about my tone and readily agree that I get frustrated at the dishonesty I find in many cult posters such as Kenny in this last thread and I let that frustration out in my writing, but only after my arguments have been rewritten, redirected or answered with arguments from authority or, worse, from definition, as was the case in the thread in question.

As I've stated before, if you can't stand the heat, then answer the arguments directly!

The fact that Kenny chose this route, however, is only evidence, IMO, of his lack of integrity to admit or concede when he is incorrect, a trait found in most if not all cult members who proselytize...excuse me...post here.

The evidence I offer against Kenny is the conflated list of alleged transgressions he presented in his first post; a list that anyone can see when they read the entire thread was not directed at Kenny per se, but at his lack of direct counter-refutation and use of evasion tactics such as this.

Perhaps it would illustrate my point better to offer a counter complaint and list every single argument that Kenny ignored, redirected or simply denied through repetition of his arguments from definition and/or authority? To me, there is nothing more egregious than to evade direct counter-refutation of a person's arguments, but if I started lodging complaints accordingly against other cult members who consistently do the same thing, then there would be no bandwidth left for anyone else.

And for anyone out there about to post something along the lines of, "You catch more bees with sugar than salt," I would only reiterate that my harsh tone did not begin until my arguments were repeatedly avoided and/or countered with non-answers and arguments from definition/authority.

IMO, since cult members are primarily incapable of either conceding or admitting that their beliefs are not supportable and have no other basis than an argument from authority/definition, taking them to task in the manner that I do serves at least one purpose that both Kenny and MeBeSmart have demonstrated aptly here; they concede indirectly through their re-actions.

Next witness...

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

The Loneliest Monk

Koy,

My question was not about the particulars of how you are using the term "cult". I asked whether or not the third definition I listed was closer to the way the term is most commonly used.

Koyaanisqatsi

As far as I know, the word "cult" is commonly used to refer to a group of people who have been indoctrinated through inculcation and fear (either directly or indirectly) to believe in a supernatural deity of some fashion; a belief that is not supported by any verifiable facts in evidence and used as a means to segregate and categorize that group's beliefs from the rest of society.

Do you mean, how do other cult members commonly use the term incorrectly to delineate between their own cult and other cults? I would assume, in that regard, that one cult falsely claims their beliefs to be "orthodox" and then uses the term with derogatory intent in a misguided attempt to cast pious aspersions on another cult that they consider to be "unorthodox."

How one cult degrades another cult is not my concern, but it certainly does provide a good chuckle, considering as I always try to do, the larger picture.

Again, if anyone here can establish an "orthodoxy" to the various christian cult factions represented here that I am not aware of and then demonstrate how all of the various cult members who post here are following that rigid orthodoxy with no variation and, further, that such an orthodox belief is in some fashion not spurious, only then would the third level of the definition be incorrectly applied.

As it stands, any belief system that mandates an adherence to unsupported claims of supernatural, mythological deities based upon arguments from authority and fear (either directly or indirectly) is, IMO, entirely unorthodox in the grand scheme of things and, worse, spurious, and therefore, a cult.

Simply because certain people are in denial as to the proper terminology for their system of belief, however, is also not my concern. On this site, I feel it is important to use the correct terminology when investigating the truth behind what people claim, as I hope I have done here and in every post I make.

This is precisely why I go to great lengths to offer as detailed a deconstruction of someone's position as possible.

Only when that deconstruction has been demonstrated to be redirected, redefined, evaded or addressed with non-answers and arguments from assumed authority repeatedly does my tone become arguably acerbic in an attempt to clearly demonstrate the disingenuous nature of the one redirecting, redefining or avoiding the issues with non-answers or arguments from authority.

A common enough occurrence here as many more than myself can attest to.

Again, I consider the truth to be far more important than people's reaction to the truth, so if I am in error then please demonstrate how my use of the word is being incorrectly applied.

And no, I do not consider myself to be the arbiter of "the truth," just one of its many defenders.

If, however, it is simply the case that certain people do not like having their belief systems properly categorized, then, again, that is not my concern either.

I'm not a boy scout and this isn't a church social.

If, however, one is going to repeatedly make arguments from authority in response to someone's detailed demonstration of how such arguments are fallacious instead of offering detailed counter-deconstruction in kind, then one had better grow thicker skin.

IMO.

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

The Loneliest Monk

Koy,

Society views David Koresh as a cult leader. Society views Jim Jones as a cult leader. Society does not view Martin Luther King, Jr. as a cult leader. Yet by your use of the term, all are.

You are no doubt aware that the majority of the public thinks of nuts like Koresh when they use the term "cult". It is likely for this reason that you are attempting to generalize all religious people so that they can be grouped with the nuts like Koresh. Judging from the reactions of some religious people here, you have succeeded in irritating them with this association. Unfortunately, in order to achieve this, you had to apply the term "cult" in a way in which most people would not. The fact that your use entails that MLK was a cult leader demonstrates the problem with your usage. If society does not view him as a cult leader, then he is not.

sentinel00

Does Koy use the term "cult" in it's popular usage?

No.

The only thing that matters is if he uses the word correctly, popular meaning or no. And, I can't seem to find a hole in his use of the word.