[QUOTE]Originally posted by :
I'm going to voice this objection to this very invalid argument going on in this forum because the perpetrators of this stupid fallacy are most guilty of using it here.

When a Moderator who isn't Bill, James Still, or Richard Carrier posts an opinion, do not use any established mantra from the II boards against them.

Does anybody even know who we Moderators are? A few months ago, would Rodahi's or turtonm's status as "Secular Web Regular" have caused anybody to suggest that the future of the II boards are in doubt?

Stop it. We are regular users, just like the rest of the visitors to these boards. We have been asked to volunteer to fix broken links, move off-topic posts, and once in a while, archive old posts. Oh, and when someone mentions a book, we try and link it to the II Bookstore so the website makes a little money and stays up. That's it. The Administrators and Board of Directors of the II websites are now free to fill the library, schedule debates, organize meetings/conventions, and otherwise coordinate this website. All because some of the more active and caring users have volunteered to push buttons in these forums.

It is silly to use this volunteer status against us in our arguments. Argue the points and issues... it is ad hominem to bring up the "Moderator" issue. I say that if you can't argue the points and need to resort to ad hominems, then you have no business participating in mature debates.

Thank you, sentinel00, for making a valid point. Unfortunately, those who are supposed to get the point, will not.

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by sentinel00:
I'm going to voice this objection to this very invalid argument going on in this forum because the perpetrators of this stupid fallacy are most guilty of using it here.
When a Moderator who isn't Bill, James Still, or Richard Carrier posts an opinion, do not use any established mantra from the II boards against them.

Does anybody even know who we Moderators are? A few months ago, would Rodahi's or turtonm's status as "Secular Web Regular" have caused anybody to suggest that the future of the II boards are in doubt?

Stop it. We are regular users, just like the rest of the visitors to these boards. We have been asked to volunteer to fix broken links, move off-topic posts, and once in a while, archive old posts. Oh, and when someone mentions a book, we try and link it to the II Bookstore so the website makes a little money and stays up. That's it. The Administrators and Board of Directors of the II websites are now free to fill the library, schedule debates, organize meetings/conventions, and otherwise coordinate this website. All because some of the more active and caring users have volunteered to push buttons in these forums.

It is silly to use this volunteer status against us in our arguments. Argue the points and issues... it is ad hominem to bring up the "Moderator" issue. I say that if you can't argue the points and need to resort to ad hominems, then you have no business participating in mature debates.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Layman: Good grief. Now we have the "ad hominem" police. Turton and Rodahi can, presumably stand up for themselves.

sentinel00 merely pointed out a FACT, Layman.

Layman: We weren't using their positions against them, we were surprised that such established users of the SecWeb would choose to defend such silly positions.

And this is just your "silly" opinion, isn't it?

rodahi

Nomad: Just a couple of points.
First, I consider the position of moderator to carry a certain level of authority within the Boards as a whole, and when a particulariy ridiculous claim is advance or defended by them, then I think it needs to be countered.

Now we know what you "consider," Nomad. With respect to the "particularly ridiculous claim" comment, you are in no position to evaluate what is or what is not a ridiculous claim.

Nomad: Quite simply, the position carries extra weight, especially for lurkers, and by definition constitutes a kind of authority that is not (and should not) be extended to other members.

sentinel00 explained very well what the duties of a moderator are.

Nomad: Secondly, if a moderator engages in mere ad hominem attack, and refuses to address the issues, nor retract or apologizes for those attacks, then he or she is setting a tone for the type of debate that is acceptable on that forum. Having participated on boards where moderators regularily attack members as a matter of course, I am well aware of how this stifles debate, and leads to expulsions of controversial members.

NO ONE should engage in ad hominem attacks.

Nomad: Personally, I come to the Secular Web for a number of reasons, and one of them is that I can expect to express my views, and I do not have to worry about them being arbitrarily deleted or edited, even when my fight is with a moderator or executive of Infidels.org. That kind of freedom is rare on the internet, and it is important to me to be able to have this kind of freedom in the exchange of ideas.

True enough.

Nomad: Now, allow me to offer an example to help make my point more clearly:

If a moderator made the claim (even as an opinion) that the Holocaust never happened, and quoted Ernst Zundel, the Aryan Nation, the KKK or some other wing nut person or organization as a supporting authority I (and I presume many others both theist and atheist) would be all over him like a hair shirt. The claim is so outrageous and beyond the pale as to be riduculous, and should be shown as such. The same would be true if a moderator made some kind of extreme racist/sexist/homophobic or whatever other kind of bigoted remarks.

Why not use a realistic example?

Nomad: Now, if a moderator comes here and offers an absurd claim (like Christians worship Satan, for example), and a second moderator jump in to support the claim, then lurkers may well think that the view has some merit.

This is a false analogy, Nomad. The view that Christians practice a form of polytheistic worship has evidence to support it. This evidence was presented. You didn't like the fact that someone disagreed with you, so you resorted to ad hominem attacks.

Nomad: This is how the worst forms of bigoted opinion begins.

Incorrect, Nomad. It is not "bigoted" to give evidence to support a claim.

Nomad: A respected person in a leadership position (and the status of professional or volunteer does not matter in this case) offers a left field idiotic claim.

Again, you use an inappropriate word, "idiotic." I have presented evidence to support the view that Christians practice a form of polytheism. Only you and a couple of others consider this to be "idiotic" or "bigoted."

Nomad: They quote from some equally idiotic sources to support that claim.

Quite frankly, Nomad, you are in no position to decide what is "idiotic" and what is not.

Nomad: People who are less well read or informed than many of the regulars then read this assertion, and consider it to now be at least respectable to hold this opinion.

How condescending of you, Nomad. So, YOU are the judge of how smart the "regulars" are and precisely what is "idiotic" and what is not. WHO elected you JUDGE?

Nomad: On this basis alone I will not stand still when such a thing is done.

You will do precisely what everyone else does here.

Nomad: I will personally put up with whatever slanders anyone wishes to hurl at me.

And you have no problem with "hurling" epithets at others, merely because they happen to disagree with you.

Nomad: They can even bad mouth my religion to the point of equating it with the Nazis or whatever.

Pointing out FACTS and evidence IS NOT "bad mouthing." Do you understand the difference?

Nomad: But when they make ignorant, bigoted, or factually wrong statements about the Christian faith and what we teach, I will call them on it. Period.

You make "ignorant, bigoted, and factually wrong statements" on a regular basis, Nomad. Why does it bother you when you "believe" someone else has? BTW, the Christian church teaches many absurd things.

Nomad: In all honesty when I saw the opinion expressed that Christians worshipped Satan, I thought it was just an error, and wanted to tweak the person for saying it (a part of the fun of participating on discussion boards is catching people in a foot-in-mouth moment, and I would expect as much quarter as I give on this one). I then figured that the subject would be dropped, or even better, an apology would be issued. Instead, I saw this lie defended, and by two people who easily should know better. At that point exposing that lie for what it was became an important issue. Had either of these gentlemen stuck merely with the accusation that Christians were polytheists, then I would not have a problem. I get that from the Jews for Judaism crowd, some Muslims, and lots of other people. I actually consider it to be a valid point of discussion

Christians worshipping Satan does not fall into this catagory.

Please point out where I stated "Christians worship Satan."

Nomad: Thus, I will continue to view moderators as having a certain level of authority on these boards. Their opinions automatically carry additional weight because of the position they fill.

I wish to be treated as other posters on this board are treated. Period.

Nomad: When they lie

Give evidence idicating that I have told a "lie," Nomad.

Nomad: or express an opinion that is plainly bigoted and wrong, I will do all that I can to expose it for what it is.

Give evidence indicating that I have "expressed an opinion that is plainly bigoted and wrong."

Nomad: And this is not ad hominem attacks on my part, it is what I consider to be one of my primary roles as an apologist and defender of the faith.

Has it ever occured to you that you could be mistaken, in error, flat wrong, in what you "consider?"

Nomad: I will debate people on a wide variety of subjects with which I am familiar. At the same time, I will continue to call spades spades, wherever they come from, holding those in positions of authority to a higher standard than those that are only members of the community.

Let's "call spades spades," Nomad. You attack MOST posters who disagree with you and many times you resort to name-calling, sarcasm, condescension, and arrogance. You have contradicted yourself on numerous occasions. Several posters have demonstrated the error of many of your beliefs. This is not just my opinion, the evidence is scattered all over the various boards of this discussion forum.

Before you attempt to clean up someone else's house, clean up your own!

rodahi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
The fallacy here, which IS an ad hominem, is that you are assuming that we did not attack the silly ideas. If you will recheck the thread you will notice that combined we spun out about 100 posts on this issue yesterday. Of course, since you only quoted two small paragraphs from the dozens of posts Nomad and I put out, you have completely distorted the nature of the discussion.

And, you've managed to create another useless thread completely unrelated to Biblical Criticism or Archeology.

Thanks.

And you, Layman, have missed the point completely.

rodahi

Indeed, the moderators are innocent. Notice how only the theists are attacking the moderators...

Originally posted by Nomad:
In which thread was it claimed that Christians worship Satan? (I don't read this forum regularly.)

I would agree with you that Christians don't worship Satan. The Apostle Paul did refer to Satan as the "god of this world," but did not mean "god" in the sense of a being that Christians should venerate.

As for whether Christianity is polytheistic, that depends on precisely how you define the word "god."

(From my own point of view, I tend to see Christianity as "monotheistic," because, from my own point of view, the differences between Christianity and most polytheistic religions that I know of are more significant than the differences between Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions.)

P.S.: I have just now looked at the thread What are angels? Are they evidence for polytheism?, which appears to be the thread you were referring to here. However, in that thread, Layman wrote:

In which thread did rodahi assert this?


[This message has been edited by Kate Long (edited April 07, 2001).]

Originally posted by Nomad:
It is indeed valuable. Glad to see that you recognize and appreciate it.


[This message has been edited by Kate Long (edited April 07, 2001).]

Originally posted by turtonm:
It is certainly true that many (though by no means all) Christians do have such a fascination. The lure of the forbidden. And Christians traditionally do regard Satan as a very powerful being -- more so on the pop-religion level than on the official theological level.

Still, the number of ex-Christians who become outright Devil worhsippers -- or even LaVey-style Satanists -- seems to be quite small. As far as I can tell, the Satanist scene is still a lot smaller than, say, the Neo-Pagan scene.

P.S.: I've just now posted a duplicate of the above in my new thread Religions demonizing each others' gods in "Existence of God(s)", for this purpose, so that we can continue this discussion there, where it is more on-topic.


[This message has been edited by Kate Long (edited April 07, 2001).]

Originally posted by turtonm:
Fascinating. I'd love to hear more details about this common Asian view of the Christian God.

We should probably move this discussion to "Existence of God(s)", though. I just now began a thread Religions demonizing each others' gods in "Existence of God(s)", for this purpose.


[This message has been edited by Kate Long (edited April 07, 2001).]

Here's how:

1) move to Asia.

2) live there for many years. learn to speak an Asia language.

3) cultivate close friendships with locals

4) let them know you don't like Xtianity either.

5).Maybe, just maybe they will tell you.

I have had several people tell me this view very privately, in situations that lead me to suspect that the feeling is widespread among Asians. Some of my students told me that as well, but I tend to view their testimony with suspicion, being young and apt to suck up to the teacher.

Michael